Validate and verify our in-house laundry meeting SQF code?

Hi,

We are preparing to pursue SQF Code level 2 certification. We had a 3rd party audit (not SQF audit) and the auditor told us we can't do laundry in-house if we are to proceed SQF certification. I was researching the Code under module 11, nothing says a supplier cannot do laundry in-house. However, SQF standards requires validation and verification on procedures and processes. Can anyone give any insight what we can do to validate and verify our in-house laundry meeting SQF code?

Thanks!

Elaine

Dear Elaineli,

Is the laundry activity classified within your Prerequisites ?.

If so, and if the the SQF website can be believed, validation not required.

Rgds / Charles.C

I had in-house laundry in a SQF certified facility.

I 'validated' the laundry process in terms of machine settings - wash/dry cycles and times - and took swabs pre and post laundry run to demonstrate that the process removed microbial counts.I then had a check sheet in place for laundry operatives to record settings and times for each laundry load to demonstrate the operators had laundered items to the 'validated' process.

I also used to swab factory coats (post laundry) on a monthly basis - cuffs,collars, around fasteners - as a verification that the laundry process continued to deliver satisfactory results.

Hope that helps!

S

According to the instructor in the Advanced HACCP IHA Class I went to, verifying would be the action of swabbing using SpursGirl example and validating would be the results from the swabbing. SpursGirl instructions is how I would tackle it.

I had in-house laundry in a SQF certified facility.

 

I 'validated' the laundry process in terms of machine settings - wash/dry cycles and times - and took swabs pre and post laundry run to demonstrate that the process removed microbial counts.I then had a check sheet in place for laundry operatives to record settings and times for each laundry load to demonstrate the operators had laundered items to the 'validated' process.

 

I also used to swab factory coats (post laundry) on a monthly basis - cuffs,collars, around fasteners - as a verification that the laundry process continued to deliver satisfactory results.

 

Hope that helps!

 

S

This is exactly what is required if you are not using a contractor for this service.  Your process must be validated and verified.

Dear Elaineli/SQF Users,

It appears that, regarding validation of the Laundry function, either -

(a) SQF users do not regard the Laundry function as a Prerequisite (?) in which case can head for the next post :smile:. The following comments assume that it is a Prerequisite

(b) I need a new pair of reading glasses for the SQF website FAQ.

© the SQF website FAQ contains obsolete advice.

(d1) the SQF website FAQ is current but SQF auditors don't know/ignore the website (because ?) and auditees follow the auditors.

(d2) the SQF Code specifically contradicts the website (?) and automatically supercedes the website (?).

(e) SQF users simply prefer/choose to validate  every activity (noting that "SQF validation" is anyway anomalous) and, rightly or wrongly, auditors expect such a choice.

(f) none of the above (because ?)

As a non SQF-user, I'm simply curious as to the actual motivation for this action ?

Rgds / Charles.C

I'll take part of d. (the first one since there's two) and part of e.

Auditors ignore the website and follow their own tune. Auditees follow the auditors after tirelessly arguing with the auditor that they're not correct and auditor threatens to take more points away for something else which is arbitrary :whoosh: . When you're losing a battle choose another one (Same way my mother fights :bop: ). Then say you can appeal but I trained and taught all of them so they'll recognize my name.ugh! :tired:  So on the same token e. I need to follow what the auditor says depending if the auditor is rationale. :smarty:

I'll take part of d. (the first one since there's two) and part of e.

 

Auditors ignore the website and follow their own tune. Auditees follow the auditors after tirelessly arguing with the auditor that they're not correct and auditor threatens to take more points away for something else which is arbitrary  :whoosh: . When you're losing a battle choose another one (Same way my mother fights  :bop: ). Then say you can appeal but I trained and taught all of them so they'll recognize my name.ugh!  :tired:  So on the same token e. I need to follow what the auditor says depending if the auditor is rationale.  :smarty:

 

Dear RG3,

Thks for noting the listing booboo. :smile:

Appreciate the comments. If this experience is generally applicable seems to resolve my puzzlement albeit not in a very positive way. Certainly interesting to know if a typical finding. And makes one wonder about the value of the FAQ ? :uhm:

TBH, the thought “broken” was first to cross my mind. Followed by Who trains the Trainers ? Presumably, indirectly, the Accreditation Board ?

Hopefully other auditees have encountered more “uplifting” interactions. Or perhaps, as for all FS Standards, it’s just a case of weighing the Standard’s (known?) negatives against  the positives.

Maybe GFSI need one more (user-driven) Benchmark –  Audit Consistency.

Rgds / Charles.C