Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Surveillance Audit 7.2 or 8.0

environmental monitoring

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

#1 Scampi

Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,832 posts
  • 779 thanks
344
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 29 March 2018 - 07:23 PM

I just completed a surveillance audit for 7.2; audit suggested that air monitoring should be included in a risk assessment when preparing environmental sampling plan. I don't see any suggestion of it in version 8 or the guidance documentation but I thought I would pass it on


Because we always have is never an appropriate response!


#2 gazza1973

gazza1973

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 38 posts
  • 12 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leicester

Posted 29 March 2018 - 07:32 PM

if I was you I would add it because it shows the way you came to your finding. it also backs up you due-diligence. 



#3 FurFarmandFork

FurFarmandFork

    Food Safety Consultant, Production Supervisor

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,264 posts
  • 577 thanks
170
Excellent

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

Posted 29 March 2018 - 08:26 PM

Huh, so a suggestion, not a Non-conformance? Generally I would challenge any auditor "opinions" on my risk assessments.

 

Thanks for the heads up, I just assumed ambient air quality showed up somewhere in the code, confirmed bubkis.


Austin Bouck
Owner/Consultant at Fur, Farm, and Fork.
Consulting for companies needing effective, lean food safety systems and solutions.

Subscribe to the blog at furfarmandfork.com for food safety research, insights, and analysis.

#4 Scampi

Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,832 posts
  • 779 thanks
344
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 29 March 2018 - 08:32 PM

i needed him to sign off on my crapolla surveillance audit (that wouldn't have been necessary had I been here at that time) or I would have argued farther.  I will say I did finally get an auditor who knew my actual process and understood (over the phone) what had occurred and how things were resolved


Because we always have is never an appropriate response!


#5 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,477 posts
  • 4858 thanks
949
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 30 March 2018 - 09:00 AM

I appreciate that "Surveillance" is presumably something else but JFI, SQF8 Manufacturing Guidance (2.4.8)  has -

 

An effective environmental monitoring program (EMP) is in place;

(not stated as such in the Code)

 

"Effective" is a nicely subjective terminology.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#6 Scampi

Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,832 posts
  • 779 thanks
344
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 03 April 2018 - 02:01 PM

always Charles, just like "suitable" or "quality"

SQF requires that water meets a "quality standard" this does not exist in Canada.....potability standards yes, "quality" no


Because we always have is never an appropriate response!


#7 FurFarmandFork

FurFarmandFork

    Food Safety Consultant, Production Supervisor

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,264 posts
  • 577 thanks
170
Excellent

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

Posted 03 April 2018 - 02:53 PM

always Charles, just like "suitable" or "quality"

SQF requires that water meets a "quality standard" this does not exist in Canada.....potability standards yes, "quality" no

 

Hahaha, I would love to see a NC for failing to perform regular sensory on your incoming municipal water to ensure highest quality.  :roflmao:


Austin Bouck
Owner/Consultant at Fur, Farm, and Fork.
Consulting for companies needing effective, lean food safety systems and solutions.

Subscribe to the blog at furfarmandfork.com for food safety research, insights, and analysis.

#8 Scampi

Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,832 posts
  • 779 thanks
344
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 03 April 2018 - 02:59 PM

I agree!!!!!!!!

 

The folks maintaining these systems need a head check..........we test the water monthly for potability.................and i've always just downloaded the local/closest water reports yearly for "quality" parametres

 

If that report says DDT in the water is lower then it was the year before and year before etc etc and DDT is now banned.......why would i spend $2500/year to test for the same stuff??

 

 

AND SQF has not defined "quality" nor could they   sheesh!

 

In my next life I wanted to be a cat, but now I'm thinking i want to sit in an office and make changes to codes that are indecipherable and non sensible just to mess with people!!


Because we always have is never an appropriate response!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users