Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
- - - - -

Supplier Audits for Food

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


    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 82 posts
  • 47 thanks

  • Thailand
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Searching , Finding & learning new knowledge, create good friends, Travel , share good thing , eat and eating.

Posted 28 May 2011 - 03:15 PM

I found this file and hopefully it could guide you a bit.

Have 83 page!!:o

Attached Files

Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.

Thanked by 3 Members:


    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,080 posts
  • 5312 thanks

  • Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF

Posted 29 May 2011 - 06:37 AM

Dear Naamfon,

Many thks for this fascinating document (“2006”) which, I presume from the auditee’s address, etc,etc, is a “dummy” audit.

The intended “typical” standard appears to be a hybrid mix. Same comment regarding the (unspecified) criteria for giving overall audit "scores" of each section (see the introductory Executive Summary).

Certainly (IMO) contains an excellent assembly/discussion of many basic FS/Quality auditorial requirements.

I had some difficulty in interpreting the intended use of the “corn pellets” product.
The text implies capability to achieve Kosher status however the overall idea seemed (to me) to be that the product/process is considered to be “low risk.” (despite a cooking procedure occasionally mentioned but not associated with any CCPs.)

I obseved some (to me) rather peculiar auditorial conclusions here and there in the text. Perhaps they were included to mimic reality ;) , eg the following did not appear to be regarded as notable or of major interest –

3.2.2 - Acceptance limits for microbiological test results of in-process and finished products are used to determine product acceptability.
(But) 3.2.4 - Microbiological results are not used to determine product disposition

2.15.2 - Laboratory equipment is not calibrated against certified or other acceptable industry standards.
(But) 2.15.2 - The facility has documented corrective action procedures when laboratory equipment is found to be out-of-calibration

5.3.1 (Possible :smile: ?) - The facility has not received a regulatory visit since it was commissioned for production in 2002 .

I hv also never heard of “tailgate style” training (2.6.1) before but it is apparently a standard procedure (http://www.ehow.com/...y-training.html )

Despite above comments, this is definitely a great find :thumbup: .

Rgds / Charles.C

Kind Regards,



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users