Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Filling out Nonconformances to return to SQF auditor


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

#1 Sabear

Sabear

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 54 posts
  • 3 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 09 February 2018 - 07:17 PM

Having difficulties coming up with root cause and root cause evidence for the auditor.

We had minors due to not having the correct bandages, or not including the scope of certification (a bunch of little things like this)

What would the best way to create a root cause/root cause evidence

 

I read on here about using:

Misinterpretation

oversight

 

We got colored bandages, but they weren't metal detectable. We didn't think this was an issue since we don't have metal detectors. So would the root cause be misinterpretation of the code? what would the root cause evidence be?

 

 

Sorry if this seems jumbled.

 

Thank you for all the advice.



#2 bacon

bacon

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 173 posts
  • 74 thanks
15
Good

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:NOAA HACCP & Better Process Control School Certified, GFSI Schemes (BRC/SQF) Certified, Woolworths Quality Assurance (WQA), USDC, FDA, U.S. Army and client audit preparation; Seafood Processing, Supplier Approval

Posted 09 February 2018 - 08:13 PM

Edition 8, clause 4.3.1.3?


____________________________________________________
><((((º> Salmon of Doubt & NOAA HACCP lover of Bacon

#3 FurFarmandFork

FurFarmandFork

    QA Manager/FS Blogger

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,091 posts
  • 490 thanks
92
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 February 2018 - 08:24 PM

We got colored bandages, but they weren't metal detectable. We didn't think this was an issue since we don't have metal detectors. So would the root cause be misinterpretation of the code? what would the root cause evidence be?

 

 

Sorry if this seems jumbled.

 

Thank you for all the advice.

 

 

Challenge that one. Your auditor was incorrect to issue it. Assuming you're under module 11 for human food. The affected clause is:

11.3.1.3 Personnel with exposed cuts, sores or lesions shall not be engaged in handling or processing products or handling primary packaging materials or food contact surfaces. Minor cuts or abrasions on exposed parts of the body shall be covered with a colored bandage containing a metal strip or an alternative suitable waterproof and colored dressing.

 

 

The module 11 Guidance specifically states:

Bandages are to be brightly colored to ensure they can be easily seen and include a metal strip for ease of detection, if the site uses metal detection.

 

 

 

So challenge that one, they auditor is not following the code or SQF's guidance.

 

 

Not including something in the scope of certifiation, we're going to need more detail. Did you plan to include all areas of your business and forgot to list them all?


QA Manager and food safety blogger in Oregon, USA.

 

Interested in more information on food safety and science? Check out Furfarmandfork.com for more insights!

Subscribe to have one post per week delivered straight to your inbox.

 


Thanked by 1 Member:

#4 Sabear

Sabear

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 54 posts
  • 3 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 09 February 2018 - 08:34 PM

NON-CONFORMANCE: The facility has not identified the SQF food sector category applicable to its scope of certification (14).

 



#5 bacon

bacon

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 173 posts
  • 74 thanks
15
Good

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:NOAA HACCP & Better Process Control School Certified, GFSI Schemes (BRC/SQF) Certified, Woolworths Quality Assurance (WQA), USDC, FDA, U.S. Army and client audit preparation; Seafood Processing, Supplier Approval

Posted 09 February 2018 - 08:39 PM

On your bandage issue:

 

Yup, all the "Bandage" requirement in the other sections are pretty much the same: you got BRC audited it seems  :sleazy:

 

The clause itself is open to interpretation: "alternative suitable" is in the clause... arguing the point remotely via email and throwing the Guidance document at the auditor can be rather... awkward.

 

I have had issues with auditors for doing this; and there is no mechanism to really address it (that is an entire other discussion) apart from convincing them of their error during the audit 

-B


____________________________________________________
><((((º> Salmon of Doubt & NOAA HACCP lover of Bacon

Thanked by 1 Member:

#6 Sabear

Sabear

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 54 posts
  • 3 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 09 February 2018 - 08:55 PM

I am not worried about the bandage issue. We have fixed the nonconformances. But when filling out the form to return to the auditor I just don't know how to address the root cause. As they are such simple fixes that didn't really require a root analysis.



#7 Sabear

Sabear

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 54 posts
  • 3 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 09 February 2018 - 08:58 PM

With the food sector. We got a minor because we did not state that we were under sector 14.



#8 FurFarmandFork

FurFarmandFork

    QA Manager/FS Blogger

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,091 posts
  • 490 thanks
92
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 February 2018 - 10:35 PM

I guess I'm confused on that one...how did your CB assign an appropriate auditor to you if they had no idea what your category was? That requirement doesn't show up anywhere in the "Code" other than establishing which modules apply and that it needs to be communicated to your CB.

 

Bandage root cause: I'd be a little sassy and state that the auditor interpreted the code differently than us. The preventive action would be to work with the CB and determine why our interpretation was incorrect.

 

I literally have a root cause response I submitted last year that states:

"During the audit and in post-audit review, it was noted that in neight the SQF Code (7.2) section 2.7.1, nor in the associated guidance for implementation and auditing makes reference toa requirement for a formal risk assessment as part of the food defense plan. The guidance specifically states that the firm must provide responsibilities and methods of protecting specific areas including employee identification, visitor access, physical security, chemical storage, sensitive areas, storage of materials, transportation, and tamper evident packaging. All of these areas were addressed in our plan, which is further supported by SOP's covering visitor procedures, receipt of materials, etc. Root cause: this requirement was not available in either the SQF code nor the guidance for implementation and auditing, therefore we had no way of knowing that this was required."

 


QA Manager and food safety blogger in Oregon, USA.

 

Interested in more information on food safety and science? Check out Furfarmandfork.com for more insights!

Subscribe to have one post per week delivered straight to your inbox.

 


Thanked by 1 Member:

#9 SQFconsultant

SQFconsultant

    SQFconsultant

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 944 posts
  • 202 thanks
73
Excellent

  • Panama
    Panama
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:We specialize in helping small to mid-sized food, logistic and packaging companies to develop & implement SQF Systems to achieve certification in a relatively short period of time. In addition we offer a low-cost highly effective eConsultant Subscription, SQF Compliance Reviews and Internal Auditor Training. Don't let our location throw you off - Our market is the United States.
    Call us to discuss your needs 800-546-1452

Posted 11 February 2018 - 05:25 AM

Sarah,
 
Considering the miss-call by the Auditor on the bandages, I am surprised that the scope of certifcation thing only got a minor.
 
You need to challenge the minor finding on the bandaids, that's just a stupid call.

Warm regards,

 

Glenn Oster

 

SQF Certification & Implementation Consultant

Serving clients in: USA, Centro America & Caribbean Islands

International Toll-Free: 800-546-1452

USA Skype Number: 772-646-4115

 

www.GlennOsterConsulting.com


Thanked by 1 Member:

#10 Ryan M.

Ryan M.

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 474 posts
  • 202 thanks
34
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham, AL
  • Interests:Reading, crosswords, passionate discussions, laughing at US politics.

Posted 16 February 2018 - 05:00 PM

It is quite humorous (I chuckle) because the NC's we've had, after the RCA, was "management misunderstanding of code requirements" or "misinterpretation..."

 

So yes, you can absolutely use this.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate