Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Packaging - Food Fraud Assessment

Foodfraud

Best Answer Charles.C, 02 September 2018 - 11:36 PM

Morning Charles, actually I saw comments on the excel giving some provkems so now I'm doing the online version. How does impact me that the tool offers less spiders?

Thank you

I don't think it matters all that much. The missing ones give detail for selected (associated) factors.

 

Pwc/ssafe's program  is undoubtedly a very insightful tool but it may represent an overkill for SQF despite the SQF Guidance mentioning it. The tool also offers no help with "Mitigation".

 

There now exists on the Forum afaik 3 VA's specifically designed for SQF. All have some similarities plus a lot of variations. All seem much shorter than pwc. All seem to have been readily accepted..

 

PS - It seems to me that SQF's current requirements for food fraud VA may ultimately not differ substantially from BRC except that the former additionally requires -

(a) Specific inclusion of "likely" "mechanisms" of fraud within the 5 Code-stipulated possibilities. (Presumably prioritised to historical events).

(b) Evaluation of vulnerabilities within the site (not required by BRC).

(c) VA for Manufacturing be referenced to Safety. Seems likely this will simultaneously encompass "Quality Food Fraud" (as solely required for BRC).

(d) SQF requires VA for Packaging.

Comments (a,b) could be respectively achieved by (i) an additional column in BRC typical layout, (ii) appropriate additional column(s)

Go to the full post


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

#1 jeanc1990

jeanc1990

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 56 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 30 August 2018 - 05:56 PM

Hello everyone, I need a little help with my Food fraud plan so far I've just read a little about the VACCP and TACCP, and what I'm thinking to do is register those under the HACCP as a PRP, could be this a good way to establish a food fraud program or i'm interpreting this in a wrong way?

 

Would you recommend any tips or any template that you've used?

 

Thank you, guys!



#2 FurFarmandFork

FurFarmandFork

    QA Manager/FS Blogger

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

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

Posted 30 August 2018 - 06:05 PM

I've got a guide to making a simple plan for Module 2 here that could also apply to packaging: http://www.ifsqn.com...272-food-fraud/

 

The obvious vulnerability in a packaging manufacturer would be materials purchased that were not of the purity ordered to meet a food grade standard or FDA LNO standard.


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 2 Members:

#3 jeanc1990

jeanc1990

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 56 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 30 August 2018 - 06:25 PM

We're actually a food packaging company, our product is in direct contact with food but we do not handle food at our facility. 

 

Reading right away!



#4 jeanc1990

jeanc1990

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 56 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 30 August 2018 - 06:30 PM

I've got a guide to making a simple plan for Module 2 here that could also apply to packaging: http://www.ifsqn.com...272-food-fraud/

 

The obvious vulnerability in a packaging manufacturer would be materials purchased that were not of the purity ordered to meet a food grade standard or FDA LNO standard.

 

Oh man, you just made my life so much easier.

 

Can't thank enough!



#5 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 14,131 posts
  • 3909 thanks
480
Excellent

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

Posted 30 August 2018 - 06:57 PM

Now wait for the SQF Guidance.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#6 jeanc1990

jeanc1990

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 56 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 30 August 2018 - 07:11 PM

Now wait for the SQF Guidance.

 

Wait, do you think that won't be enough?



#7 clrmwebb4350

clrmwebb4350

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 28 posts
  • 3 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 30 August 2018 - 07:12 PM

Now wait for the SQF Guidance.

 

Which comes out when????



#8 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 14,131 posts
  • 3909 thanks
480
Excellent

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

Posted 30 August 2018 - 07:13 PM

addendum

 

No offence to the elegant table but TBH, as presented, the VA in above link appears to me somewhat limited in comparison to the various other VA's presented here. But it was netherless auditorially accepted. The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating. But does it apply to all (SQF) auditors  ??

 

See this comment (et seq)  -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...e-2#entry130231

 

@clrmwebb,

 

the last predictive sighting i noticed was November (this year)


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#9 jeanc1990

jeanc1990

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 56 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 30 August 2018 - 07:20 PM

Oh god, this is so frustrating.......



#10 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 14,131 posts
  • 3909 thanks
480
Excellent

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

Posted 30 August 2018 - 07:31 PM

Oh god, this is so frustrating.......

 

Actually the agonies now being generated by SQF mirror the confusion which followed BRC's pioneering start to the FF Drama.

 

Thanks GFSI.

 

PS - Unfortunately it seems not many people are prepared to follow SQF's Food guidance recommended VA providers.

 

PPS - Note that BRC (ultimately) excluded Packaging from their VA requirements. Presumably since considered of low significance. Although a few  publications sort of preemptively issued some thoughts over it.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#11 jeanc1990

jeanc1990

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 56 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 30 August 2018 - 08:28 PM

Guys quick question, on the SSAFE tool it says at the end of each question "Expert answering the question" 

 

the assessment team is not knowledgeable enough to answer all the questions? how this thing work then?



#12 clrmwebb4350

clrmwebb4350

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 28 posts
  • 3 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 30 August 2018 - 09:02 PM

addendum

 

No offence to the elegant table but TBH, as presented, the VA in above link appears to me somewhat deficient in comparison to the various other VA's presented here. But it was netherless auditorially accepted. The Proof is in the Pudding. But does it apply to all (SQF) auditors  ??

 

See this comment (et seq)  -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...e-2#entry130231

 

@clrmwebb,

 

the last predictive sighting i noticed was November (this year)

Of course this will probably come out after my audit which is in November .... Frustrating :- /



#13 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 14,131 posts
  • 3909 thanks
480
Excellent

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

Posted 01 September 2018 - 10:08 AM

Guys quick question, on the SSAFE tool it says at the end of each question "Expert answering the question" 

 

the assessment team is not knowledgeable enough to answer all the questions? how this thing work then?

 

Hi jean,

 

I assume this is excel version.

Can probably ignore  the column you refer.

My PC refused to give me a report so i hope you are more lucky.

 

The on-line version has somewhat more intelligible English IMO but seems to offer less spiders. It is also more laborious than using a spreadsheet. However if the report from excel is the same as that from the on-line system, I didn't miss much.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#14 jeanc1990

jeanc1990

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 56 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 01 September 2018 - 12:45 PM

Hi jean,
 
I assume this is excel version.
Can probably ignore  the column you refer.
My PC refused to give me a report so i hope you are more lucky.
 
The on-line version has somewhat more intelligible English IMO but seems to offer less spiders. It is also more laborious than using a spreadsheet. However if the report from excel is the same as that from the on-line system, I didn't miss much.



Morning Charles, actually I saw comments on the excel giving some provkems so now I'm doing the online version. How does impact me that the tool offers less spiders?

Thank you

#15 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 14,131 posts
  • 3909 thanks
480
Excellent

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

Posted 02 September 2018 - 11:36 PM   Best Answer

Morning Charles, actually I saw comments on the excel giving some provkems so now I'm doing the online version. How does impact me that the tool offers less spiders?

Thank you

I don't think it matters all that much. The missing ones give detail for selected (associated) factors.

 

Pwc/ssafe's program  is undoubtedly a very insightful tool but it may represent an overkill for SQF despite the SQF Guidance mentioning it. The tool also offers no help with "Mitigation".

 

There now exists on the Forum afaik 3 VA's specifically designed for SQF. All have some similarities plus a lot of variations. All seem much shorter than pwc. All seem to have been readily accepted..

 

PS - It seems to me that SQF's current requirements for food fraud VA may ultimately not differ substantially from BRC except that the former additionally requires -

(a) Specific inclusion of "likely" "mechanisms" of fraud within the 5 Code-stipulated possibilities. (Presumably prioritised to historical events).

(b) Evaluation of vulnerabilities within the site (not required by BRC).

(c) VA for Manufacturing be referenced to Safety. Seems likely this will simultaneously encompass "Quality Food Fraud" (as solely required for BRC).

(d) SQF requires VA for Packaging.

Comments (a,b) could be respectively achieved by (i) an additional column in BRC typical layout, (ii) appropriate additional column(s)


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Foodfraud

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate