Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

SQF Systems Guidance Documents


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 12 July 2006 - 09:24 PM

SQF Institute have published guidance documents for developing, documenting and implementing an SQF 2000 system.

SQF Guidance Documents

The guidance documents are free and so are the standards. :o

Now I like that! :clap:


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#2 foodmicrochick

foodmicrochick

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 8 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:USA

Posted 13 August 2006 - 02:20 AM

Hi all. Just an FYI:

SQF is having a conference in Washington DC this October. An article just popped up in Quality Digest:

http://qualitydigest...?...stype&-Find

Cheers.


  • 0

#3 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 15 August 2006 - 07:07 PM

Hi all. Just an FYI:

SQF is having a conference in Washington DC this October. An article just popped up in Quality Digest:

http://qualitydigest...?...stype&-Find

Cheers.



Thank you for the 'heads up' Foodmicrochick. Are you involved at all with SQF as a user or in some other way?

Regards,

Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,462 posts
  • 3247 thanks
347
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 18 August 2006 - 06:03 AM

Dear Simon,

Certainly have to praise SQFI for giving free access to these documents. They
do contain an abundance of information, some of it quite useful in interpreting aspects of BRC in fact.

However IMO their definitions of some of the basic HACCP terminology seem rather confused, for example in the section of Part3 - Annex 3: Level 2 Food Safety Plan; Application of HACCP Food Safety Plans,

A hazard is defined as (Pg 59) -
Any biological, physical or chemical intrusion that will affect product safety or quality if unchecked;
(Certainty?)

The definition of CCP is-
'Any point in a process where loss of control leads to problems affecting product safety or quality'
(serious ?, control can be implemented ?)

In the same list the definition of Control Point is
'Any point in a process where loss of control does not lead to problems affecting product safety or quality'
(Why use a 'control point' for a non-existent problem)

Similarly in the main table (Pg 63) The CCP is restated as -
'A step in the process where loss of control will result in a risk to the safety of the product'
(Serious ?)

Another item I found strange was that they seem to require validation of critical limits but not of the CCP itself. I suppose a decision tree if used can be considered as a covert validation. I would have liked a specific statement here (admittedly I'm not sure BRC requires this either). I personally found the CCP validation one of the most challenging / self-educating aspects of the HACCP process (along with thinking up the hazards in the first place of course).

Nonetheless, plaudits for the info. and letting people evaluate.
Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#5 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 18 August 2006 - 10:19 AM

Certainly have to praise SQFI for giving free access to these documents. They
do contain an abundance of information, some of it quite useful in interpreting aspects of BRC in fact.

However IMO their definitions of some of the basic HACCP terminology seem rather confused, for example in the section of Part3 - Annex 3: Level 2 Food Safety Plan; Application of HACCP Food Safety Plans,

A hazard is defined as (Pg 59) -
Any biological, physical or chemical intrusion that will affect product safety or quality if unchecked;
(Certainty?)

The definition of CCP is-
"Any point in a process where loss of control leads to problems affecting product safety or quality"
(serious ?, control can be implemented ?)

In the same list the definition of Control Point is
"Any point in a process where loss of control does not lead to problems affecting product safety or quality"
(Why use a "control point" for a non-existent problem)

Similarly in the main table (Pg 63) The CCP is restated as -
"A step in the process where loss of control will result in a risk to the safety of the product"
(Serious ?)

Another item I found strange was that they seem to require validation of critical limits but not of the CCP itself. I suppose a decision tree if used can be considered as a covert validation. I would have liked a specific statement here (admittedly I'm not sure BRC requires this either). I personally found the CCP validation one of the most challenging / self-educating aspects of the HACCP process (along with thinking up the hazards in the first place of course).

Nonetheless, plaudits for the info. and letting people evaluate.
Rgds / Charles.C


It is refreshing they are free and obviously will help the standard to proliferate and possibly into regions where a £90 price tag or more for a standard may be restrictive.

It would be good to hear from SQF users who may be able to challenge your views on the content of the standard. If I remember rightly there is a phased approach to implementation (levels of certification), but it doesn't begin with HACCP or hazard analysis as the core. :dunno:

Regards,

Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#6 foodmicrochick

foodmicrochick

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 8 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:USA

Posted 22 August 2006 - 04:48 PM

Thank you for the 'heads up' Foodmicrochick. Are you involved at all with SQF as a user or in some other way?

Regards,

Simon


SQF trainer. I have been involved for ~ 3 years now.
  • 0

#7 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 22 August 2006 - 09:15 PM

SQF trainer. I have been involved for ~ 3 years now.


I think that qualifies you as our first SQF expert FMC. :smarty:

Any comments on Charles C's earlier comments.

Also if you feel inclined please feel free to update us with news, statistics and anything else related to SQF, I believe we have much to learn.

Cheers,

Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users