6 replies to this topic

[tadelong]

Hi all, brand new member here.

My father(the boss) and I(the lackey) have been working on correcting our non-conformances after our second audit. We are an eight-employee facility.
The auditor picked out the Decision Tree (Forms 5 through 8 combined) due to the code numbers not being updated(whoops).
She then went on to say that we ought to have a Q5 in our tree, relating to Process Controls. Also, the PCs should be listed on a new form, Form 11.
Trouble is, I can't seem to reconcile our current hazard analysis with the updated forms. Has anyone had any experience with the new forms?

As an aside, the audit took place a month ago, and Reliance was only just updated today. With a due date of 11:59.59 tonight. Luckily, the decision tree and a Lux reading were the only two things remaining to be finished.

Thanks,
Thomas

[AANNFF]

Have you seen this before? http://www.inspectio...21716482?chap=4

If you scroll down to section 3.2.6., it talks about how to use the decision tree and what questions to ask.

If you scroll down to section 3.2.8, it talks about form 11.

This website can also be helpful. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/afs9851

Hopefully this helps. I find that the forms that CFIA needs you to are slightly confusing and they take a long time to get your head sorted around them. I haven't used the new forms yet. We are waiting to talk to our auditor about it.

AA NNFF

[tadelong]

I have seen and read the CFIA's website, though I agree that they seem to be written clearly yet not overly impenetrable. At least, not compared to the triple-redundant lawyerspeak of the SQF code. The AHA! website is new to me, though. Thank you.

[Charles.C]

I have seen and read the CFIA's website, though I agree that they seem to be written clearly yet not overly impenetrable. At least, not compared to the triple-redundant lawyerspeak of the SQF code. The AHA! website is new to me, though. Thank you.

Dear tadelong,

Thank you for your refreshing candour.

Actually the Advantage HACCP manual has been attached several times on this site. In fact there are a gaggle of (free) Canadian haccp manuals, well at least 3 anyway.The others are similar basic idea to Alberta but from other states (provinces?) (I think). Each has a slightly different structural emphasis and they make interesting comparison. All of them are attached here somewhere.

The cfia site used to be a top source for examples of model haccp plans but they became sensitive over their items being quoted as standard solutions so they took most of them down (just like Codex). Very short-sighted policy IMHO.
It also used to have a very well explained haccp scheme but seems that it has lost some of its charm these days.

Rgds / Charles.C

[tadelong]

Thank you Charlie, the HACCP Advantage material is not unhelpful. You'll note my soft compliment of the material. The troublesome bit of all these papers is that the new, updated forms are only a year old. Nearly all the resources are older than that.

Still, thanks.

[Charles.C]

Thank you Charlie, the HACCP Advantage material is not unhelpful. You'll note my soft compliment of the material. The troublesome bit of all these papers is that the new, updated forms are only a year old. Nearly all the resources are older than that.

Still, thanks.

Dear tadelong,

Yes, you are correct. Unfortunately, most of the best explanatory texts are (IMO) not recent. And there aren't many of them either AFAIK, especially ones using the CFIA type format.

I haven't looked closely at cfia site lately due i don't use the USA / Canadian type questionnaire layouts but i well recall there always were innumerable variations on what you had to fill in if yr answer was nil or negative or not Applicable, etc. other than these quirks and actually working out what the tables's sequencing questions actually meant, i rather liked the method. (most obvious criticism was no explicit risk calculation required, very cute).

One suggestion is for you to post your specific problem regarding reconciliation. And yr type of product/process area. (I deduce the problem was likely related to yr comments in another thread, eg - http://www.ifsqn.com...dpost__p__59655 ). Often increases the chance to get a relevant response from fellow users. Of course you may have already solved yr problem by now.

Rgds / Charles.C

[tadelong]

You were right, Charles, in that I did end up solving my issue on my own. I went from "covered by section 11.6, Storage and Delivery," to "Covered by SQF Sections 11.6.7.1-Transport & Delivery, Loading conditions, and 2.7.1.2 ii-Site Security, access by authorized personnel only." Took forever, but it did pass. Only a couple went as far as form 11.