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 5830 downloads
Rgds / Charles.C
Most Liked Content
Posted by Charles.C on 30 April 2013 - 03:03 PM
Posted by Nancy@Masser's on 14 April 2015 - 12:23 PM
I have been actively job searching for several months. While I believe in our products and love my co-workers; the top management in my company does not support food safety. A food safety culture has to come from the top. And if a vice-president of the company won't take the gum out of his mouth when he walks through the facility how am I supposed to tell the workers they can't chew gum?? And that's just one tiny example of how what I try to do gets sabotaged. I could go on and on. It's laughable.
Posted by GMO on 14 April 2020 - 11:46 AM
I never expected to see a thread like this on here.
There are interesting questions. One, for example is in 2015 the flu vaccine, at least in the UK was only about 30% effective and there were over 20,000 additional deaths that year, not all, but most due to flu. We didn't see that in the same way. Why?
Well there are good reasons not to. COVID 19 is more contagious, partly because some people are asymptomatic, partly because people who do go on to severe symptoms are initially asymptomatic. This means it spreads hard and fast. 20,000 may be where we get to in the UK but only because of the controls we've put in place.
I sensed a flippancy in my peer group team around it to start with. Estimates vary and will only ever be accurate once everybody is tested but initial reports had it at around 1-2% mortality. We have 1000 people on my site. I said to my team, are you ready for 10-20 of our team to die? You see, that's the problem. Low death rates are one thing in theory but when the 1-2% are people you care about, it's very different. When one of my team got it and was in hospital, I can tell you my fear and my tears were very real.
I get that this kind of lock down cannot continue forever and there is a difficult balancing act to be had. The economic impact of this close down is catastrophic and will kill people. Cancer operations and chemotherapy has been stopped. That will kill people. The isolation will drive up mental health disorders. That will kill people. It's not simple. It's really not simple at all.
In the meantime, I'm doing what I do, working as a key worker, making food for the nation and helping support people like my sister who works for the NHS. Let us not succumb, as sadly so many others have, to irrationality. We're scientists.
Posted by wtheriot on 02 April 2020 - 09:22 PM
Refer to New England Journal of Medicine.
A peer publication.
Dr. Fauci is pretty much telling the truth to his fellow doctors who are for the most part the reader of the NEJ.
Unfortunately, Dr. Fauci will then get on TV a number of times and tell people virtually the exact opposite of what he said in the well regarded NEJ.
He is afterall a government shrill.
I absolutely love listening to Richie from Boston, someone who I've listened to for quite a while now - way before this hoax pandemic thing started.
You'll find the NEJ article entry and the date of publication in one of this most recent videos.
Some folks are offended by what I write, and like Richie, I really don't care how people feel about what I have written here - I love my country, always have, I love the people and that is all I really care about.
I again have to state that this is the most unprofessional statement I have read on this forum. It gets even worse form someone who has continuously cited his experience as an "auditor" and now sells his consulting services.
Regardless of your personal opinion, the world has initiated a "pandemic" response, requiring all of us under a GFSI to work our programs to the max and help each other. This help may be to ensure employee safety (for those that feel this is a serious health risk) OR to pass the next audit following this situation. I assure you, audiotrs WILL BE REVIEWING CRISIS MANAGEMENT procedures.
Absolutely nothing helpful about the above comment or other posts concerning COVID-19.
Today our city ordinances increased and now required us as an essential business to remain open, we must do health screening in the form of respiratory test or temperature test. We have been assessing our document needs as well as testing our protocols once someone is sent home with a high temperature. Again, we have our local and state government requiring us to do this and now are being inspected by any one of several city departments to ensure we are compliant. we aren't real interested in tin hat theories about hoaxes, we are seeking solid risk based assessments and documentation.
Posted by majoy on 02 April 2020 - 05:22 PM
Glen, you have the exact same idea as some people i know all citing the Event 201 as justification of what was happening in the world.
At this point, it is not up to what WE (or as an individual person) believe anymore.
If you are working in a food manufacturing facility and under government oversight (USDA, CFIA etc.) and they are telling you that you should put a procedure in place for the "outbreak", are you going to tell them NO and that this is a hoax? this is a planned event and argue that more people die from seasonal flu?
You cannot just choose to ignore the GOVERNMENT as an employee or even as business owners - our hands are tied.
I respect other people's opinion on this "pandemic", but to operate a business in this time, you have to comply with the government regulations - you simply cannot impose what you PERSONALLY believe anymore.
Now, if this is really staged event and there is a group or people who made up all this pandemic -- good for them, they are so good to put all the countries to its knees. Its done, no turning back on this.
Let's just share our professional advice here on what we are doing to address the requirements of the government to be able to operate our businesses and make safe food available for the public.
Posted by The Food Scientist on 24 July 2019 - 07:21 PM
Posted by Simon on 06 June 2003 - 09:32 AM
- Hygiene management procedures (with index and list of supporting documents)
- Supporting Documents
- Example HACCP study manual
- BRC/IoP Gap Analysis Checklist
This documentary system has achieved certification to the BRC/IoP Packaging Standard - category B. Obviously all of the procedures were in place and fully implemented.
zipped hygiene documents
1. Although in the procedures microbiological auditing (swabbing etc.) is not a requirement of the standard but was always carried out by this company as a customer requirement.
2. You are welcome to do what you want with these documents (apart from sell them). They are provided free, 'as is' and with no warranty. They are provided solely as examples to give you ideas. They must be reviewed and amended as appropriate to your own organisation, product and process etc.
If documents are missing or anybody wants a specific document just ask in here. Also if you want to talk about documents again we can do it in here.
Posted by Simon on 16 March 2020 - 08:47 PM
I am aware that Coronoavirus is a very emotive topic, but can we please stay 'on topic'. wherever possible.
The original question was.
During COVID-19 should we be cancelling visits and rescheduling them as a way to protect our staff from potential exposure?
We have to remember that discussions are not just for those posting in the topic, but probably more so for those who come here looking for answers to their questions.
If we want to have a "What is the root cause of Coronavirus (facts and conspiracy theories)?" then no problem, but start it in the "Community General Chat" sub-forum.
Posted by wtheriot on 16 March 2020 - 07:08 PM
So now, FSSC is in the BS as well by requiring an impact statement for CV.
I dont think this is a very professional response. Since all of our jobs are in the "risk managmeent" area, calling a virus "BS" is about as unprofessional as you can get.
If nothing else, business contingency plans must be worked in case of supplier shortages that cause disruption.
Posted by SQFconsultant on 25 October 2019 - 02:57 PM
As an SQF Consultant I've sat in on several first time (and second, third, etc etc) certification audits.
Not as an active participant, but as an observer.
Some of the audits I've sat in on were ones that we had no prior engagement, but most we either had developed their entire SQF system for them/working in conjuncton with them or had contributed heavy consulting time to the company to develop or recover (or what we call getting Humpty Dumpty back on the wall again consulting.)
Now to the meat of things...
As Consultants we can not jump in during an audit to run block for the client - we can observe and discuss things with our clients at breaks, lunch, etc.
The idea is to prepare clients for audits - well before the audit occurs.
To have them become quite knowledgable about the code, standards, everything and to bring sets of the code to the audit for everyone as well.
You want to be prepared and not look at the Consultant for help, becuase if you do there is a possibility you will be gig'd for lack of knowledge by the Auditor.
This posting however is about lack of knowledge by Auditors and how you as the auditee should behave during the audit -- at the conference table, etc.
As an SQF Consultant there is nothing more sinking (feeling) than watching an SQF Auditor repeatitly miss-call items, make gigantic errors and then watch the facility personnel sit there and take it without saying anything.
IT'S OK TO CHALLENGE AN AUDITOR!
If you are fully up to speed as the SQF Practitioner and know the code you have no reason whatsoever to not challenge a finding that is wrong.
Some folks feel that challenging an Auditor is a bad thing - I find that not challenging an Auditor that is 100% wrong is the really, really, really BAD thing.
Look, I was one of the first SQF Auditors in the US and I will admit having made a couple of errors, all of which I corrected - but I was never, ever challenged.
And I think the reason why people don't challenge Auditors is due to fear of the unknown.
It's not always an easy thing to challenge an Auditor, for all concerned included the Auditor, but if the Auditor is wrong the question is - Are you willing to take the gig because you are afraid to say something?
On the last Audit that I sat in on the SQF Auditor miss-called 10 (yes, ten) items and gave a major where it should have been a minor - the company personnel froze up and would not challenge - they were willing to take a failure because they were afraid of the Auditor and what he (as they said ) might do to them the next time around if they challenged him.
In this case I challenged him - technically speaking it was not my place to do so. But I knew there was no way there was going to be a failure on my watch.
So, I challenged him on each point.
We got back all 10 and the major was made a minor.
It disturbed me greatly that there are a number of incompetent SQF Auditors out there - it disturbed me that our client froze up even though going into the Audit they were in good form.
And I am not tooting my horn here, beleive me I really thought about not saying anything, but I just could not sit there and let the situation happen.
All of this comes down to this ----
Know the SQF Code
Know your facility
Let the Auditor know that you and your team know the code
Let the Auditor know that you will challenge him/her on any items that you feel are miss-placed, wrong, etc.
It's OK to put them on guard, they will certainly be a lot more careful in application.
Stay on task - don't volunteer information to an Auditor unless asked.
Don't let the Audtor nor you get into banter about family, about how this other company did badly or well on their SQF Audit, etc.
Get a good nights sleep and have food and coffee service brought in - everybody appreciates that and it is not seen as a bribe.
Be SQF at your Audit.
Ask questions - don't be a sitting duck waiting for the bullets.
Thank you for your time.
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.
- Example 126.96.36.199 Validation and Effectiveness.docx 20.73KB 576 downloads
- Example 188.8.131.52 Verification of Monitoring Activities.docx 20.79KB 485 downloads
- Example 184.108.40.206 SQF System Verification Form.docx 21.94KB 479 downloads
- 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199 Verification And Validation Worksheet.xls 67KB 570 downloads
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 agnes on 13 January 2015 - 02:47 PM
Posted by Simon on 02 September 2020 - 06:34 PM
Posted by Simon on 07 April 2020 - 09:44 AM
I’ll visit my parents and the in-laws and give them a hug and then I’ll arrange a big family get together that we had planned for my wife’s 50th birthday on April 24. Then I’ll book a holiday in Nerja, Spain. My son sent me a video yesterday he took from the balcony last year and we all miss it so much.
One day we’ll all be back to normal. Let’s hope it is very soon and until then stay safe.
Let me what you’ll do.
Posted by Charles.C on 14 June 2019 - 07:39 PM
Noticed this basic template while browsing.
Includes "Checklists" for iso22000(2018), iso2002-1(2009), Additional Requirements 2.5.1.to 2.5.9
Note that the layout does not detail individual sub-clauses [eg covers 5.1 but not 5.1 (a)] but may be useful for overall layout.
Audit Report Template FSSC-22000 - 2018.pdf 455.01KB 1537 downloads
PS - just noticed this is same document as linked in a parallel thread -
Posted by Simon on 14 December 2018 - 06:55 PM
Wishing all IFSQN members and lurkers a wonderful Christmas and a Happy & Peaceful New Year. 2018 has been a fantastic year for IFSQN and next year we are planning more webinars, networking events and of course developing our thriving discussion forums further.
Thanks to you all and best wishes.
Posted by erin.m.v on 13 April 2015 - 11:50 PM
Here are the documents that I use to cover 2.5.1 through 2.5.4:
- 188.8.131.52 - SQF Practitioner Description and SQF System Review Process
- 184.108.40.206 - Internal Auditing Program, SQF System Review Process, and Validation and Effectiveness (table)
- 220.127.116.11 - Document Management Policy
- 18.104.22.168 - SQF System Review Process, and Validation and Effectiveness (table)
- 22.214.171.124 - Document Management Policy
- 126.96.36.199 - Monitoring and Verification Activities (table) and Monitoring and Verification Sections within program, policy, process, etc. documents
- 188.8.131.52 - Receiving Program, Shipping Program, Equipment Calibration Policy, Pest Control Program, Foreign Matter Control Policy, and Complaint Handling Process
- 184.108.40.206 - Trailer inspection sheet used for receiving, trailer inspection sheet used for shipping, calibration logs and records, Pest Sighting Log, Breakage Report, Complaint Information Sheet, and Document Management Policy
To summarize our monitoring and verification activities, and validation methods for the auditor (and it's an easy reference for me), I created tables within a Word document with summaries of information that is, in most cases, already covered in a program document:
- For our "Monitoring and Verification Activities" document ( Monitoring & Verification Activities.pdf 365.58KB 1207 downloads), I used the following column headings: Food Safety Fundamental, Related Facility Program, Related Document(s), Verification Guidance, Who Performs Monitoring Function?, Who Conducts Verification?, How is Verification Documented?, and Verification Frequency.
- For our "Validation and Effectiveness, Methods and Metrics" document ( Validation and Effectiveness, Methods & Metrics.pdf 242.2KB 999 downloads), I used the following column headings: Food Safety Fundamental, Related Facility Program, Validation Method, Program Effectiveness Metrics, Frequency of Validation, and Documentation (of validation).
- The Food Safety Fundamentals that I have listed as rows in both tables: Personnel Practices, Training of Personnel, Calibration of Equipment, Management of Pests and Vermin, Premises and Equipment Maintenance, Cleaning, Monitoring Water Microbiology and Quality, Control of Physical Contaminants, Waste Management and Disposal, Allergen Control, Transport and Delivery, and Food Safety.
I hope that helps you some. Just so you know, this has all been reviewed by two different auditors during both our certification and first recertification audits, and we did not have any problems with them.
All the best,
- erin -
Posted by Simon on 25 August 2020 - 08:07 AM
I voted YES: I hate "blue sky thinking" as it doesn't add value. On the other hand, "firefighting" sounds to me more like troubleshooting - which doesn't demonstrate right approach to food safety system improvement. Something in the middle would be just as good:)
Maybe those were not the best terms to use olenazh. I don't like management buzzwords, but I tend to use them a lot Where I don't agree with you is that "blue sky thinking" doesn't add value. To me it means taking the time to stand back and really look deeply into a problem and get creative with solutions. If it means kicking back on your chair and thinking about your next vacation then definitely not.
"continual improvement is a requirement of ISO and GFSI benchmarked standards"
Then I must be....
Because it's a requirement it doesn't necessarily mean you do it well or enough though.
You can pass an audit and be so-so. Not saying you are.
What is your level of complaints, defects, waste, non-conformance, internal/external audit NC's? Are your processes lean, efficient and effective? Are your objectives tough and SMART and on track? Do you have a fantastic food safety culture?
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.