Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

SQF Ed 8 - 2.4.3.3 multidisciplinary team


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

jgerthe

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 1 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 14 November 2018 - 09:21 PM

Hello! I have a question in regards to SQF Ed 8, Quality Code 2.4.3.3.

 

This states: The food quality plan shall be developed and maintained by a multidisciplinary team that includes the SQF practitioner and those site personnel with technical, production, and marketing knowledge of the relevant products and associated processes.  Where the relevant expertise is not available on site, advice may be obtained from other sources to assist the food quality team.  The composition of the food quality team may be different from the food safety team.

 

While we were conducting our desk audit, I was able to provide documentation that all members of the food quality team have been trained on HACCP. Our auditor gave us a minor, stating: Training for all of the HACCP team members was not presented. When I asked for clarification on this, he stated that the training for the team needs to be conducted as a team, not individually. He also stated that for the last 8 years, this is how it has been translated. When I look at the Guidance document, it just says Training must be provided for all team members (refer to 2.9.4). 

 

I'm wondering if anyone else can give me some guidance on this. I'm wondering if this is a matter of interpretation or if that is what they are actually wanting....

 

 



jenky

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 77 posts
  • 36 thanks
12
Good

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female

Posted 15 November 2018 - 01:12 PM

There is no requirement that members of the Food Quality Team be trained as team.  This is not a requirement listed in the code, nor is it even suggested in the guidance.  They need to be trained in HACCP principles - that is all.  Team members can be trained externally, on-line, or internally by a qualified person.  

 

This definitely seems to be an interpretation by your auditor, and I would definitely appeal this minor if I were in your shoes.  


Edited by jenky, 15 November 2018 - 01:12 PM.


QA-Tech

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 20 posts
  • 4 thanks
4
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 15 November 2018 - 02:28 PM

I agree with Jenky; I would appeal this one too. Seems like ridiculous auditor interpretation. I think what he should have said was "for the last 8 years, this is what I thought it meant." 

 

As long as the team members have record and understanding of their training and are apart of the development process of the plan- you should not have an issue. 



SQFconsultant

    SQFconsultant

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,781 posts
  • 950 thanks
843
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:American Patriot
    WWG1WGA
    Never give up, never give in - always win!
    Martha's Vineyard Island, Massachusetts

Posted 15 November 2018 - 03:08 PM

So for 8 years this Auditor has been knocking people for a non-issue!

 

Challenge this one to the CB and tell them they need to re-train their stuck-on-non-issue Auditor.

 

I would also suggest you fine tooth comb the audit for any other slips by the Auditor.


Kind regards,
Glenn Oster
 
GOC BUSINESS GROUP | SQF System Development, Implementation & Certification Consultants
Internal Auditor Training - eConsultant Retainer Subscriptions - Pre & Post SQF-GAP Audits - Consultant Training
Visit us @ http://www.GlennOster.com  or call us @ 772.646.4115 US-EST 8am-4pm Anyday except Thursday
 
 

jgerthe

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 1 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 15 November 2018 - 03:40 PM

Thanks for the responses!

 

We are definitely appealing this one, I just wanted to see if anyone else had come across something like this. I will be notifying the CB on this issue as I agree, he may have docked others for something they were doing correctly because of his interpretation. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users