Dear AANNFF,
I presume yr post is specifically directed to SQF sections 2.8.2 / 2.8.3.
Not personally a user of SQF. With apologies in advance, I’ve included a minor OT introduction to give a little context.
These are, IMO, key SQF (partial) extracts from the glossary –
Validation - Essentially validation as applied to control limits seeks to prove that the intended result was achieved and that it actually worked.
Verification Essentially verification as applied to control measures seeks to prove that the control measure was done according to its design.
Numerous auditorial problems have been reported here with respect to Va/Ve. These appear to particularly derive from SQF’s somewhat individual interpretation of Validation as quoted above when compared to Codex/NACMCF. The consequence seems to have been auditor confusion as to the xpected procedural compliance / differentiation of Validation from Verification.
In contrast, the cleaning / allergen related document produced by SQF and linked in previous post seems to me of excellent clarity. Maybe this is a result of the well-documented auditorial headaches referred above.
Clearly the inclusion of allergen “quality” within a definition of satisfactory surface cleanliness will require some testing for allergens.
I guess the answers to yr final queries, ie “enough” will depend on the actual process / procedures / results. I don’t recall seeing any references here to independent validation of allergen test kits (?) but presumably a continuous string of null results would invite such. Finished product testing is mentioned in 2.8.3 as being possibly “useful” but not specifically mandated as far as I can see.
@ SPl –
Keep in mind you also need to vaildate your verification method.
This seems rather circular / obscure ? Clarify ?
Rgds / Charles.C
