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 3187 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 fgjuadi on 05 March 2015 - 08:41 PM
2.5.3 is your verification schedule, I use this for verification activities - Verify the metal detector is working every 30 minutes . Verify chemical concentration every morning via titration.
Internal audits go on 4.5.2 (Validation schedule)
To make it easier, I combine the 2.5.3 form with 2.5.1 (methods and responsibilities) and 2.5.4 (Verification of monitoring activities) . Basically it's a chart with each monitoring and verification activity, frequency, and responsibility.
So maybe the QA Manager checks the visitor log once a week, but they only conduct a food defense audit annually. The check goes on verification of monitoring, the audit goes on validation.
It can get very "fuzzy" as SQF does not dictate which activity is which. I attached copies of both if it will help - but don't be surprised if you get some different answers.
Posted by trubertq on 26 February 2015 - 03:57 PM
Make up a code of practice for them to sign , something simple not full of jargon, what you expect from them, what your Hygiene rules are etc.. I have attached a template
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 577 downloads
sh4 - Compressed-Air-in-the-Food-and-Beverage-Industry.pdf 3.82MB 427 downloads
sh4.1 - food industry compressed air systems,white-paper.pdf 196.81KB 296 downloads
sh5 - compressed air in food plants,white paper,Parker Balston.pdf 522.15KB 287 downloads
sh6 - ECFF.pdf 402.26KB 302 downloads
sh7 - tesco standard 2014.pdf 1.15MB 364 downloads
sh8 - air filtration systems.pdf 193.62KB 310 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 Simon on 30 September 2015 - 08:03 PM
In answer to your question and emphatic NO!.
The minimum correction would be to dispose of the directly affected product (all of it) and clean, inspect, clean, inspect until you are satisfied there is no possibility of further contamination. Plus ensure that rodents are prevented as a matter of urgency. In the meantime store things off the floor or move them.
Your management need to read the food safety news PCA.
Mice can carry pathogenic organisms that if transferred to food could KILL!
Those involved with PCA never meant to kill, they just could not see the risk, it wasn't in their hands, not in front of their faces unlike their balance sheets.
I'd blow the whistle on them, get fired or take constructive dismissal and sue their ass off.
I don't envy your position Emily.
Posted by Setanta on 17 July 2015 - 12:20 PM
When might my full lifetime membership rewards be reactivated? I haven't been able to edit or message for quite some time.
"The IFSQN provide a wealth of free services for our members including a vibrant discussion forums, blogs, news, files, newsletters, weekly training webinars and conferences. All of these are provided free of charge; however, some areas and features of the website are locked to guests and new members and require Premium Membership in order to access.
Our flexible, low cost upgrade service allows you to fast track your account and gain instant access to all website features including:
* Premium Files Library
* Use of Personal Messaging
* Profile Editing
* Signature Editing"
Posted by MWidra on 01 July 2015 - 12:41 PM
We have baitless traps inside the buildings. For the outside, we have bait stations (the bait is primarily for rodents and contains a rodenticide) to provide a food source for rodents that are close to the building that will control the population and keep them from looking for forage inside the building.
We are located in a rural area, there are farm fields and hedgerows next to our site. There will always be mice nearby, due to the location. We want to control the population that has expanded closer to our building. We also discourage the rodents through large sized gravel up to the sides of the buildings where possible. Mice don't like to walk on big gravel chunks.
All this was set up with the advice of a professional pest control service, who handles other food facilities, so I trust their judgment.
Your location and needs might require a different system, so I would follow what your pest control professional has recommended. Ours works, we never see mice in the production building.
Hope that helps.
Posted by Charles.C on 20 September 2014 - 03:55 PM
A Snippet for Weekend Viewers.
Here are a few FS audit bloopers I saw compiled recently –
Rgds / Charles.C
Posted by SpursGirl on 11 August 2014 - 06:51 PM
I faced a similar issue with decanting into pails from IBC's - and I ended up using grated racks for bucket stands that are kind of like cooling racks for cakes (see picture below). These racks are visually different and in my GMP's these are defined as floor bucket stands only.
Hope that helps!
Posted by Guy Spagnoli on 02 May 2018 - 08:29 PM
My name is Guy 'Grundy' Spagnoli
I have been in Quality Assurance since 1979
Worked for Space Shuttle NASA Rockwell
Litton Saudi Arabia Limited
Military and Private sector - hardware/software, Auditor from Suppliers to first article to application ( I call it from Womb to Tomb)
Got into the food side by accident working for Mrs. Fields Corporation for 10 years and now for Thrive Life LLC. so yes, I have 40 years now in QA (boy that went by fast) and have enjoyed the experience and learn something new almost everyday.
Licensed to: Saferpak Limited
All content © Copyright 2017 the IFSQN