Yr understanding of my interpretation of the PRP requirements is correct. But I’m not a SQF user so my deductions are based solely on SQF announcements/Guidance/posted “data”. The first 2 sources have already proved occasionally unreliable for other topics hence my inferential caution. Just as a possible caution example for current topic, the SQF 7.2 Guidance has –
The procedure indicates the frequency and methods used to validate and verify all applicable aspects of the SQF System including pre-requisite programs, control measures, critical limits, all quality control measures, and other aspects contained in the food safety plan and food quality plan (refer 2.5.2);
Thanks yr comments over Va/Ve experiences. Sadly this topic has generated a substantial history of confusion over the last few years but with, afaik, no definitive conclusion. Curiously, there seems to be no similar volume of correspondence for BRC.
The debate over the meaning of Va/Ve as being interpreted by SQF probably started heating up here which was prior to release of Ed.7 -
The quotations in my Post 13 of current thread were probably placed on SQF website ca July 2012 after launch of Ed.7, presumably to reinforce the “validation-related” textual changes in wording within Ed 7 as compared to SQF2000.
There seems to be at least 2 major differences in SQF’s interpretations of Va/Ve as compared to Codex –
(1) SQF (acc.website) apparently applies Validation only to “control” Limits, Codex applies it, inter alia, to haccp Control Measures and Critical Limits
(2) SQF seems to avoid consideration of chronological aspects as detailed in Codex (2008) for control measures, eg –
Validation is performed at the time a control measure or a food safety control system is designed, or when changes indicate the need for re-validation (see section VII). Validation of control measures is, whenever possible, performed before their full implementation.
There is often confusion among the concepts of validation, monitoring and verification. Validation of control measures as described in this document is different from monitoring and verification, which both take place after the validated control measures have been implemented. Monitoring and verification are the tools used to check whether the control measures are being adhered to and to demonstrate that they are operating as intended.
No.2 seems to be a primary factor (either explicit or implicit) in many of the posted confusions.
Here are 3, more recent, threads on this topic (one started by the current OP!!) illustrating poster confusions regarding responses to validation aspects of SQF Standard and findings in SQF audits
SQF Practitioner certifications (in 2015) seem to be accepting documents which clearly are not compatible with my earlier quotations, eg –
SQF have apparently long been aware of the validation confusion, eg –
SQFI recognized the difficulty with this topic which is why there was a one-day session on verification, validation and risk assessments prior to the last SQF Conference. The vast majority of all food sectors codes had something from section 2.5 as one of the top 10 non-conformance issues over the past year. The words can be confusing. The essential thing is that each company can demonstrate how it affirms it is performing as promised and the system is effective.
The red sentence (to me) looks a bit of a cop-out, eg passing the buck to the auditors.
I am unaware if the above opinion still prevails, or even accurately reflects the general SQF viewpoint however it does seem that “validation” of PRPs is still being routinely done, reported in “validation” Forms and auditorially approved without any terminological comments. Conclusion – indeterminate.