18 replies to this topic

[tsmith7858]

We were audited to FSSC 22000 last week. Actually we had an ISO 22000 and ISO 9001 surveilance at one facility and a full review at our second facility (which we bought last year) along with a PAS review at both places to be upgraded to FSSC 22000.

4 auditors, 4 days and a dozen minor findings between the two facilities. All of it right on the tail of an unannounced AIB audit at our new facility which made for 6 straight days of auditing.

Upon completion of our Corrective actions we will hold FSSC 22000, ISO 22000 and ISO 9001 at both facitlites!

[Simon]

We were audited to FSSC 22000 last week. Actually we had an ISO 22000 and ISO 9001 surveilance at one facility and a full review at our second facility (which we bought last year) along with a PAS review at both places to be upgraded to FSSC 22000.

4 auditors, 4 days and a dozen minor findings between the two facilities. All of it right on the tail of an unannounced AIB audit at our new facility which made for 6 straight days of auditing.

Upon completion of our Corrective actions we will hold FSSC 22000, ISO 22000 and ISO 9001 at both facitlites!

That certainly is some marathon auditing; well you came through it and successfully. As they say...what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Congratulations TSmith.

[Charles.C]

Dear tsmith,

I suppose it depends what your process is but, offhand, looks like an example of gross overkill to me. (with additional congratulations to PAS!)
The usual problem is that it will now take several days to catch up the work which piled up parallel to the visitors presence.
I hope it all ends up well and someone actually requests the PAS.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Simon]

TSmith, as a matter of interest what were the Corrective Actions, various or pattern?

[tsmith7858]

TSmith, as a matter of interest what were the Corrective Actions, various or pattern?

Simon,

To answer your question, most were related to PAS 220. In particlular:

• Section 4.2 requires consideration for "contamination from the local environment" and asks for periodic review. Although we know our neighbors we could not provide evidence of periodic review.
• Section 7.3 states that "waste shall be disfigured or destroyed to ensure that trademarks cannot be reused". We have control of most of our waste and evidence to the fact that the waste companies used ensure destruction but we recycle cardboard cases and there was concern that these are not disfigured before being sent for recycling.
• Section 8.2 on machine cleaning our issue was although food surface areas were very clean, some older machines had grease buildup and debris around lower motor casings and framework.

Also, our one facility is a 100 year old building with wooden floors and brick walls so it presents some potential contamination issues due to design which showed in several sections in regards to food storage, building design and sanitation. A few that we had missed in our evaluation were pointed out. Most people complain about auditors but I appreciate the experience and knowledge they can bring to the table and they often see things we don't.

Everything else was basic clarification issues. Mostly "it looks like you do this but it is not clearly defined in documentation". The type of stuff that you know what you do so it sounds right to you but when someone else reads it they don't know the process and are left scratching their head.

Charles,

It always seems like overkill to me (we also hold a BRC cert for one process line). PAS is part of FSSC 22000 and we have had customers looking for GFSI so that is why we went that direction. We already held ISO 22000 and ISO 9001 so there is no reason to drop them.

[Simon]

Thanks TS, all part of Continuous Improvement I guess. One thing that resonates is destruction of trademarked waste, that's in the BRC also and is not so easy to do if you don't compact or incinerate. It makes me laugh in a way as the supermarkets throw all their waste directly in the bins as whole finished product. If you supply packaging, ingredients or finished product at least you damage it in the garbage to some extent. Do as I say and not as I do.

Is the concern with this food security e.g. some terrorist getting hold of product and adulterating it and then putting back into the supply chain, if so that would be very difficult to do.

I have alwasy gotten written confirmation from the waste carrier on how they will handle, store and ultimately dispose / destroy materials and this has also been enough to satisfy. Is this something like what you plan to do?

Regards,
Simon

[tsmith7858]

Is the concern with this food security e.g. some terrorist getting hold of product and adulterating it and then putting back into the supply chain, if so that would be very difficult to do.

I have alwasy gotten written confirmation from the waste carrier on how they will handle, store and ultimately dispose / destroy materials and this has also been enough to satisfy. Is this something like what you plan to do?

Regards,
Simon

The concerns as noted in PAS 220 are only stated as not to allow re-use. Our auditors seemed more concerned about potential conterfieting of product than food security but I suppose you could also look at it that way.

All of our waste in one facility goes in a compactor, the other has locked access. We do get confirmation from our waste carriers but recycling was overlooked.

[Tony-C]

The concerns as noted in PAS 220 are only stated as not to allow re-use. Our auditors seemed more concerned about potential conterfieting of product than food security but I suppose you could also look at it that way.

All of our waste in one facility goes in a compactor, the other has locked access. We do get confirmation from our waste carriers but recycling was overlooked.

Well done on achieving certification

With regards to waste, are you saying that the cardboard cases were primary packaging?

Regards,

Tony

[Simon]

The concerns as noted in PAS 220 are only stated as not to allow re-use. Our auditors seemed more concerned about potential conterfieting of product than food security but I suppose you could also look at it that way.

All of our waste in one facility goes in a compactor, the other has locked access. We do get confirmation from our waste carriers but recycling was overlooked.

Remind me what do you make TS?

[tsmith7858]

Remind me what do you make TS?

Snacks and confectionary items. 75% is co-manufactured items but we have some of our own line that we make and distribute along with distribution of just about any type of nostalgic and novelty candies.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, we are being audited again this week! AIB, 3rd party unannounced on behalf of one of our customers.

That makes our third audit this month.

Edited by tsmith7858, 25 May 2010 - 07:05 PM.

[Simon]

Snacks and confectionary items. 75% is co-manufactured items but we have some of our own line that we make and distribute along with distribution of just about any type of nostalgic and novelty candies.

Oh yes I remember now.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, we are being audited again this week! AIB, 3rd party unannounced on behalf of one of our customers.

That makes our third audit this month.

You don't by any chance give auditors free samples do you.

[tsmith7858]

Oh yes I remember now.


You don't by any chance give auditors free samples do you.

We keep all of our auditors well fed .

Most of them say they very seldom eat from the plants they audit but they just can't seem to turn away what we have to offer.

[Tony-C]

We keep all of our auditors well fed .

Most of them say they very seldom eat from the plants they audit but they just can't seem to turn away what we have to offer.

Hi there

I always make sure we put something special on for lunch when I have an audit. After all I do get to share it.

Maybe you missed this question:

With regards to waste, are you saying that the cardboard cases were primary packaging?

Regards,

Tony

[tsmith7858]

Hi there

Maybe you missed this question:

With regards to waste, are you saying that the cardboard cases were primary packaging?

Regards,

Tony

I did miss the question and no the boxes are not primary packaging but they do often have customer information on them.

Section 7.3 of PAS 220 suggests that all labeled materials must be destroyed so trademarks cannot be reused.

7.3 Waste management and removal

Provision shall be made for the segregation, storage and removal of waste.

Accumulation of waste shall not be allowed in food handling or storage areas. Removal frequencies shall be managed to avoid accumulations, with a minimum daily removal.

Labelled materials, products or printed packaging designated as waste shall be disfigured or destroyed to ensure that trademarks cannot be reused. Removal and destruction shall be carried out by approved disposal contractors. The organization shall retain records of destruction.

[Bhavin Raval]

Dear All,

Can anyone help me as i wanted to download PAS 220 standards from website, but not getting much info/link to download as my management has asked me to upgrade ISO 22K to FSSC 22K.

[tsmith7858]

Dear All,

Can anyone help me as i wanted to download PAS 220 standards from website, but not getting much info/link to download as my management has asked me to upgrade ISO 22K to FSSC 22K.

Although it is "Publically Available Specification" (PAS) 220, it is not a freebie. You will need to purchase it. I would suggest a web search for the best prices.

Don't fret the upgrade. If you did a good job with ISO 22000 and pre requisite programmes you will be fine.

[Charles.C]

Dear Bhavin,

Although it's not guaranteed an identical alternative, if you wish to see what changes are involved, can dwl the (free) documentation referenced in this link (some minor artistic info. needs to be provided) -

http://www.ifsqn.com...dpost__p__36591

Charles.C

[Simon]

Good call Charles; it seems the North American market likes to give free standards. I think that's a very good thing.

[Tony-C]

Dear All,

Can anyone help me as i wanted to download PAS 220 standards from website, but not getting much info/link to download as my management has asked me to upgrade ISO 22K to FSSC 22K.

Hi Bhavin,

Don't buy PAS 220, it is likely to be withdrawn. Buy ISO 22002, it is the same, will be available for a while longer than PAS 220 and is cheaper !

Regards,

Tony

Edited by Tony-C, 11 August 2010 - 02:03 AM.