I am known to be impatient and I have done gap analysis between v6 and 7. Please help yourself to it. if any mistakes are found please let me know.
Jump to content
Posted by ChocoTiger on 14 July 2015 - 08:37 PM
Here are generic examples of what is needed for 22.214.171.124-126.96.36.199, 188.8.131.52-184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, and 18.104.22.168-22.214.171.124. The programs I included in this are the prerequisite programs required by SQF.
Let me know if you need any additional help.
Posted by Wine Gum on 07 July 2015 - 07:22 AM
The PIGS diagram can be used to formulate hazards comprehensively:
P- presence (qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation of presence of hazards)
I-Introduction (Likely occurrence of hazards and severity of their adverse health effects)
G - Growth (Production or persistence of foods of toxins, chemicals or physical agents)
S- Survival (Survival or multiplication of micro-organisms of concern)
Hope this helps!
Posted by Charles.C on 30 April 2013 - 03:03 PM
I previously posted a table of various micro. guidelines for food contact surfaces which were mostly issued pre-2000 at this link –
To update the earlier info., the attached excel file presents guideline data I have accumulated for 12 countries issued in the period 2000 – 2012. The compilation demonstrates that for a range of food-related scenarios, some “average” opinions for various (just) cleaned surfaces are –
(a) For Aerobic Plate Count (APC) - the majority of data suggests that, for routine cleaning/sanitising, surfaces typically have maximum APC counts in the range 10-100cfu/cm2 .
(b) For factors like Coliform, (generic) E.coli, Enterobacteriaceae, S.aureus, the expected maxima are, predictably, low, eg 1-10 cfu/cm2, or undetected. The latter requirement also invariably applies for “zero-tolerance” pathogenic microbial species.
Hopefully of some interest. Further input / comments welcome as usual.
Compilation of International Micro. Guidelines for food contact surfaces, 2000 onwards.xls 993KB 2771 downloads
Rgds / Charles.C
Posted by mgourley on 21 December 2015 - 10:30 PM
A lot of us have spent many hours writing policy to make sure that what we do is the right thing to do.
A lot of us have made sure that senior management is aware of said policy, and they always have input into the final product. We may go so far as to include approved exceptions.
Once they approve, or give tacit approval, that document states what we do in a certain situation.
That policy, procedure, whatever, then governs how "all" people act when that particular situation arises.
After the fact is not the time for higher ups to decide that the policy does not need to be followed.
Make your objections known, CYA, and move on. You are exactly right. You do not want to set precedent. If you do, what's the point in this rule, or that policy?
Posted by trubertq on 16 July 2015 - 03:39 PM
Since Storage and distribution is not my area I don't feel qualified to answer however I'm sure some one on here can help him.
I'd imagine his customers are looking for verification that his goods haven't been tampered with or substituted, as well as trying to pass the buck of VACCP onto him.....
I'd suggest going to his suppliers and requesting THEIR VACCP risk assessment and then add in his steps in the chain with his risk assessment.
Posted by Simon on 07 January 2015 - 09:44 PM
Over the last couple of day's it has become clear to me that I have made an almighty cock-up on MOTM and caused Mr I a huge injustice.
Mr I received the most reputation points in December (by a distance), but I did not award him MOTM because I (mistakenly) thought that once a member had won MOTM they could not win it again. When I checked the rules yesterday I realised I was wrong and a member can win it once per calendar year. I thought that was just an unfortunate, but simple mistake I had made.
However, (to my horror) I have now realized that MR I has NEVER won MOTM...I would have put my mortgage on that he had previously won it. To make matters worse it is likely that in previous months Mr I has scored the highest reputation points and won MOTM and I have overlooked him.
The upshot is I have dealt Mr I a real injustice and I am totally at fault and I have passed on my sincere apologies. Thankfully Mr I has graciously accepted my apology.
For the record Mr I did not want me to publish this apology, but I want to because it is right to do so. We have some great members around here and Mr I is one of them.
To this end MR I is the first ever recipient of the annual Member of the Year award. Apart from the title there will be some sort of badge of honour, but I’m working on that…ideas?
Posted by Charles.C on 18 November 2014 - 06:42 PM
Thank you for the detailed reply. Much appreciated. I have expanded a little on some of the comments in yr post / links.
I looked at 2 viewpoints, SQF/BCAS, on some desirable Quality characteristics of Compressed Air -
Purity is defined in the SQF Code (Appendix 2: Glossary) and means the absence of contaminants that could cause a food safety hazard. Pure air means the air is free of risk of cross-contamination to the products. Essentially, the air must not contribute any contamination to the product.
Strictly, use of the word “contamination” as defined by SQF implies that micro.standards based solely on APC limits could be regarded as safety (ie haccp) meaningless. (In a cleanroom context the situation would likely be rather different, limits derived for sterile scenarios are in some articles recommended as not being arbitrarily transferred into the food scene without due caution).
Similarly to SQF, BCAS implicitly defines contaminants in its introduction via -
Contaminants that may be a potential hazard in food for human consumption
In the context of the BCAS COP, hazard is presumably interpreted as safety hazard. On this basis, some difficulties also arise IMO, eg -
"6.2 Microbiological contaminants.
HACCP shall establish the risk of contamination by microbiological contaminants. The level of viable microbiological contaminants in the compressed air shall not be detectable using the method described in clause 7.6." Clause 7.6 refers to ISO 8573-7 test method for viable microbiological contaminant content.
The word "detectable" suggests that any microbial species other than what is (somehow) defined as "natural" to the specific product have zero tolerance. This seems inconsistent with basic haccp principles. Unless a list of accepably non-hazardous species exists ?
This post primarily focuses on micro. “B” factors, the “C, P” hazards are well over-viewed in the SQF faq (see Excel file/sheet3 below) and the Code’s Guidance documents, eg for parts 2/11.
I have done a little background searching regarding standards, micro.species, filters, etc and pasted some selected extracts into the attached excel book (the earlier studies in this area seem a little neglected these days, maybe justifiably ) . Most of the content will probably be (only too) familiar to you of course.
The source files are attached below, keyed to the excel sheet numbers.
sh1 - microbiological air quality.pdf 489.76KB 481 downloads
sh4 - Compressed-Air-in-the-Food-and-Beverage-Industry.pdf 3.82MB 368 downloads
sh4.1 - food industry compressed air systems,white-paper.pdf 196.81KB 255 downloads
sh5 - compressed air in food plants,white paper,Parker Balston.pdf 522.15KB 251 downloads
sh6 - ECFF.pdf 402.26KB 259 downloads
sh7 - tesco standard 2014.pdf 1.15MB 305 downloads
sh8 - air filtration systems.pdf 193.62KB 272 downloads
Rgds / Charles
PS - Two/three of the above documents are already in the thread linked in post 2 above. I re-used them to allow some convenient integration.
The mystery (to me) of why SQF's faq (typically) refers to 0.1micron filters whereas the guidance document specifies 0.01 micron remains. Nonetheless, if the cost/maintenance/implementation factors are comparable (?), the latter seems a logical investment for an easy audit (also see sheet5 in Excel file). For current purposes i assumed the faq is more "maintained" than the guidance and "acted accordingly".
PPS - the extensive collection of TA documents available via Laura's links in previous post(s) are remarkable and valuable. Highly recommended for browsees.
P3S – for those interested here are 5 more links, the first two look at typical air sampling devices/procedures (mainly food/cleanroom respectively), the next 3 focus on micro.aspects/standards as applied in pharmaceutical, cleanroom, sterile work scenarios. The similarities to concepts used (borrowed?) in the food business is clear but there are also significant differences in emphasis, eg the interest in viable/non-viable particles.
Posted by cazyncymru on 23 October 2014 - 01:33 PM
Just released for draft consultation
Posted by cazyncymru on 09 June 2014 - 09:04 AM
I agree with Slab, yes I get paid more, but I don't just deal with Food Safety; under my umbrella comes Environment & Health & Safety!
Food Safety has changed so much in the last 14 years. I think its changed a lot in the last 5 years and if i'm honest, unfortunately (controversial statement coming), not all Quality Professionals have evolved along the way. Some times I see questions on here, and whilst we all have to start somewhere, I despair. I hold my head in my hands, wondering are they really serious or are they trolls! It does make me somewhat reluctant to respond to some post(ers). It would seem that some people are either unable to think for themselves or unwilling to! To be a quality professional you have to have at least a basic knowledge and I know it is difficult, but please if you haven't had a formal education in food safety, at least read a few books and try to learn something!
I think that we have now become more focussed in assessing risks with risk assessments becoming the backbone of a food safety system. As things have evolved, we are being asked to carry out more and more risk assessments; even if it doesn't truly affect our industry (I think Acrylamide!). Thing is, who's teaching people to do these risk assessments? And who taught them? their all subjective! as long as you can justify how you reached that conclusion, who's to say your right or wrong! In the latest version of the BRC, we are asked to carry out a vulnerability risk assessment. Now I work predominantly in Dairy, and I have interpreted this in risk assessing from the farm to the fork, so my study incorporates animal health as well as abuse by the customer. I'm lucky that in a previous life, I was involved in doing Farm Assurance, so I understand about what can potentially happen on the farm; but I bet I'm in the minority. We're asking quality professionals to assess something they may not have any idea about, and this is where mistakes can be made.
I also think we've become inundated with consultants. I probably get a request daily from either a consultant or a recruiter on LinkedIn!! If I need help I will ask, and if I want a new job, I'm sure I can find one myself! ( I've never used an agency to find a job)
So, those are my thoughts, I'm sure many will disagree.
Posted by JohnWheat on 12 October 2015 - 03:16 PM
Posted by trubertq on 10 September 2015 - 01:49 PM
OK , the standard says that you agree the scope with the CB before the audit, this is usually settled during a pre-audit and then they just ask each year if you want to change the scope. I know from experience that they are none too keen on exclusions for the obvious reason that they don't want people getting one product certified and then claiming certification for everything produced on a site. However, the company I work with HAVE exclusions but there are definite criteria and I quote:
" the excluded products can be clearly differentiated from products within the scope"
"the products are produced in a physically segregated area of the factory"
it further says:
The certification of products must include audit of the entire process from raw material to end-product dispatch. It is not possible to exclude either parts of the process undertaken at the site OR parts of the standard.
So ...if your bottling line is in a separate part of the site segregated from the bulk area then you should have no problem.....you could always risk assess the requirements for a end of line metal detection ( I think this what you meant bu 'end of line detection') and show that it isn't necessary if that's all that's holding you back from having the smaller packs in the scope.
The absolute best people to speak to about this are the Certification body... I don't know what your plant looks like but this is based on my experience in a site which has exclusions.
Posted by That Guy on 07 July 2015 - 07:42 PM
I refer to pigs in my HACCP meetings all the time. I have only ever used it when assessing the risk of microorganisms and not other types of hazards.
P = The presence of a microorganism. Consider how you control materials when they enter your facility, is it possible that materials have microorganisms present.
I = Introduction of microorganisms. Microorganisms may not be present when the material is received but after storage and employee handling it possible that microorganisms have been introduced. (dirty hands, roof leaks)
G = Growth of microorganisms. If microorganisms or present or introduced, will it grow? Does it need to be refrigrated to prevent growth? What is the water activity? What prerequisite programs or preventative controls are in place?
S = Survival of microorganisms. Does the production process have a kill step? Is one needed?
My products and processes are very low risk and the water activity is extremely low. My HACCP Team has the bad habit of thinking that microorganisms are not a risk because of this. I frequently have to remind them about pigs.
Our supplier approval program, material inspection and storage procedures reduce the risk of P. Ingredient testing/analysis verifies this. GMP's, internal audits and environmental testing (among other programs) control and reduce the risk of I. Our water activity and storage conditions combined with the nature of our product control G. We do not have a kill step at our facility, but depending on your product and process you may need one.
I do not use PIGS to directly determine if a CP or CCP is required. I only use it to aid in critical thinking and to conduct hazard assessments. How is each letter of PIGS controlled, can we validate why a control would not be necessary? etc..
Posted by Miss Tammy on 14 April 2015 - 01:59 PM
At times I really love my job, and other times I want to run away and never come back! We are a small company and all managers wear many hats. I get very overwhelmed with all of the work I have to do and no matter how many hours I put in it is never enough. My biggest issue is my support staff. We are in a rural area and the employee pool is very limited. We started offering a much better benefit package and increased our starting salary in an attempt to attract better people, but it has not worked. I try to delegate, but it seems no one can think for themselves. I get calls all hours where I have to do the thinking for them! Anyone else have these same issues? How do you handle it? I am a quality manager, but this seems to be the case in all departments.
Posted by mgourley on 14 January 2015 - 07:41 PM
This problem is nearly always caused by the wild yeast, endomycopsis. This yeast is found in nature and is carried into the plant by air currents. The yeast converts starch into acetone, which is the odor detected in the bread. The yeast can best be eliminated by washing the equipment with vinegar.
Posted by fgjuadi on 21 October 2014 - 04:20 PM
corerctive action = what you do to fix the problem
preventative action = what you do to stop the problem from happening
Let's be frank - it probably isn't training. You employees probably know how to fill out the form. They probably do not want to be bad employees. So why aren't they filling out the form? Maybe they're too busy, maybe equipment is missing. Maybe you have to stand on the floor & watch the employees for a while before you can see the root cause.
So maybe you can translate the form to their language. Maybe you can move the form closer to the point the check is being performed (or maybe it's too high / far away). Maybe you can introduce a procedure to physically stop the line until the check is completed. Maybe their chemicals aren't being filled every shift. Maybe they ran out of forms and can't find new ones. Maybe the pens are locked up & only day shift can get them and they hide them. Etc.
They will make mistakes - just teach them to cross them out with a single line instead of a scribble.
If you know it will not affect business or it's a food safety record, you can put product without correct documentation on hold - depending on the paperwork in question, you can't release without it being correct, etc.
Posted by RG3 on 15 September 2014 - 08:07 PM
The purpose of the Waste Disposal Procedure is to ensure that ________ products are produced, processed and handled in a safe and hygienic manner with appropriate waste disposal accommodations.
11.9.1 DRY AND LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL
126.96.36.199 Methods and Responsibility to Collect and Handle:
Sanitation ensures that both organic waste and regular trash generated in equipment washing process, food processing, and premises surroundings are effectively removed.
188.8.131.52 Waste Removal:
A. Daily sanitation cleaning procedures involves checking to ensure regular trash and organic wastes are adequately removed from processing areas, both pre-operations and during operations. All regular trash is to be collected in designated trash containers and organic waste is to be collected in designated organic waste containers. (For details please see xxxx Food Container and Cleaning Utensil Color Code).
B. Dry waste such as processing waste, disused packaging materials are to be disposed in the trash compactor located at the _____ and ____ area. Trash disposal area should be maintained clean and organized at all times and verified daily to ensure it is not overflowing or leaking, and that litter or trash is not spilled or piled around it, which could pose a pest attraction, harborage or other contamination issue.
Trash compactor is to be empty _(Frequency)_____by “_______ Company”.
184.108.40.206 Container for Handling Waste Materials:
All plastic trash and organic waste containers are to be maintained in good conditions. Trash compactor and Trash Disposal Containers are to be maintained serviceable, organized and clean condition as not to attract flies and other vermin.
220.127.116.11 Waste Effectively Removed from Surroundings:
Management ensures that waste is effectively removed from wash-down, processing, and premises. Daily sanitation inspection involves checking to ensure trash is adequately removed from processing areas, both pre-operationally and during operations. The trash compactor area is verified daily to ensure it is clean and not overflowing or leaking, and that litter or trash is not spilled or piled around it, which could pose a pest attraction, harborage or other contamination issue.
Trash compactor door must be kept closed at all times, except when they are being loaded or dumped.
18.104.22.168 Liquid Waste
C. Liquid from ________ will be stored in Organic waste bins:
Reviews of the effectiveness of waste management will form part of daily hygiene inspections and the results of these inspections shall be included in the relevant GMP and Pre-operational reports.
Ongoing verification that the requirements in the Waste Disposal SOP are met is achieved through the internal inspection program.
How's that for generic???
Posted by Simon on 20 December 2013 - 07:12 PM
Here you go Merle...have fun.
Posted by Zeeshan on 13 October 2010 - 07:35 AM
Please help me.Currently Iam working on certification of ISO 22000 and I need the example procedure for emergency preparedness and response.
Thnaks in advance.
Licensed to: Saferpak Limited
All content © Copyright 2017 the IFSQN