19 replies to this topic

[The Food Scientist]

Hi all. I have been recently hired at a company that became certified last year in SQF 8 Quality code. As I was still trying to review their previous audit and all their procedures I can say I am shocked. So the first shock to me was that the company was granted a score of 100, they had ZERO non-conformances. I did see that they had a consulting pre-assessment. However, as I was going through their things, it seems they have no food fraud vulnerability plan, they have metal detectors that are not even being monitored, no records of verifications or monitoring, they only do get a validation annually, they do hourly weight checks of products but NO records of monitoring, I can name a few more things... my question is how is it possible they got a score of 100? I do believe the things I mentioned are quite important. Could it be the auditor overlooked or possibly just ignored these things? I am a little confused here..

[Alex C.]

SQF 8 Quality code? Perhaps you are missing the other portion of the audit? The Quality module is a separate from the Food Safety module? 

[The Food Scientist]

Alex C,

 

they are certified in SQF Food Safety Code for Quality, ed 8

Edited by The Food Scientist, 27 February 2019 - 05:34 PM.

[Scampi]

people just keep adding weight to my argument against GFSI

 

I could understand a 100% for quality.........alot of that could be subjective............

 

but the items you mention.........lack of records alone should have got them a conditional pass at best...........you mention quality.........are they NOT certified for manufacturing as well?

 

 

what were the findings from the consultant? did they also miss the obvious???

 

I really believe it's high time food safety PROFESSIONALS and auditors became regulated trades

[The Food Scientist]

Scampi, 

 

They are certified for manufacturing! the findings from the consultant they DID miss the obvious! They had many more gaps and non-conformances from the consultant pre-assessment, they did develop and correct them, but the ones I mentioned do NOT exist.  I am confused

[Scampi]

Ok, so they are certified for both food safety and quality. Got it

 

What were the results from the manufacturing audit? was it also 100%

 

If so, (and because i'm jaded) you need to contact SQFI and report your findings because it's the right thing to do and because the consultant and CB should be held accountable for taking peoples money and giving nothing in exchange

 

Maybe confused isn't the right word, how 'bout gobsmacked!    

 

Call SQFI and get to work getting this company up to level, even if this means you end up with 2 audits this year------sheesh, these kind of things give the entire industry a bad name......and they wonder why recalls are up not down since GFSI's started 

[The Food Scientist]

I was also told that they are really nervous of who (auditor) they will get this year. Could it be that they possibly had an agreement with last year's auditor to overlook a few things to grant them a 100? 

[Scampi]

i wouldn't be surprised if someone got paid under the table on this.....................it's definitely cheaper for an unethical company to pay upfront that to pay to do it correctly

 

Leaves you in a spot though doesn't it!

 

I would take all of this to your boss and have a tet a tet and put all of your cards on the table, including any repercussions that they may impose on you if they end up in surveillance, because from the sounds of this company it will be ALL YOUR FAULT

 

And be prepared to walk away..........you do not want your name smeared by this company

[SQFconsultant]

Yes, sounds like a look the other way auditor thing, however have you reviewed the food safety audit section and not just the quality code section?

Frankly, much can change (for better or worse) between pee assessments and actual audits.

Having been one of the first SQF Auditors I remember a number of times having offers made to me to look the other way, never did, never would - in one case I was offered a caddy for a year and $50,000.

That plant failed.

The issue is for you if you have reviewed everything and find it reasonable to consider that an audit was thrown would be to report it.

The problem for however is that either the company higher ups knew it was thrown or they are oblivious to the situation.

Now, if they knew about it and that is the reason why they are so nervous, my suggest is that you have an SQF Consultant come in to do a pre-audit, pinpoint the issues and get them corrected prior to audit.

However if they were in on it my suggest is you walk - this is a bad place to be.

[SQFconsultant]

I did not intend to say "pee" I meant to say "pre"... oops.

[Charles.C]

IMEX as an auditor i would seriously question my own capability if I found nothing questionable. Food IMO is itself intrinsically variable + hygiene + Food Safety + Management Systems.

 

Not a SQF user but I recall several previous threads where people have reported scores of 95-99% seemingly with no associated suspicion.

 

Are these magical numbers in fact the norm for SQF Standard as a result of the (considerably) different scoring system as compared to, say, BRC?

[SQFconsultant]

I've had two clients get perfect scores. To me only 1 made sense but then when we did an analysis we found both auditors took incredible liberty on the use of what we're known as Opportunity For Improvement.

At the time OIP's were allowed to be given by the auditors, something that would be noted but did not carry a score impact.

As you can imagine it sounded like a great idea for something that was below a minor but auditors took off on using the OIP instead of a minor.

In both of these there were over 20 OIPS on them.

The most I ever saw was 50 of them on one audit - became quite the sticky wicket that was finally cut down by SQFI.

With the advent of 8.0 we saw most new audits in comparison to former 7.2 take a hit downward - it was about time.

As an Auditor prior I never used OIPs, I thought they were stupid and I had watched other auditors making good calls for minors but then use OIPS on other findings and getting challenged by the facility to also make minors into an OIP ASAP well.

As a consultant that co-developes SQF systems it was great to say the a client of ours had a perfect score or that most are in the mid to high nineties.

I am just as happy to say that most of our clients are now in the mid 80'a to mid nineties.

The reality is that without a backbone for Auditing and lack of continuing training for Auditors with SQF this has been an issue.

It is difficult these days being a consultant sitting at an out briefing watching an Auditor miss call things, give back points etc because they lack conviction to what they are doing - this results in artificaly high scores.

What a sticky wicket.

[Charles.C]

Hi SQFC,

 

Thanks for the above fascinating post.

 

Indeed the "OIP" is often encountered under different names.

 

Can be an auditor's "little helper" but may also become addictive. Particularly where a prescriptive scoring system exists maybe.

[SQFconsultant]

The problem with those OIPs is that facility personnel were all sorts of happy they got a fantastic score/grade and forget to work on those OIPs (or at least most of them) and then the next Auditor comes in and they get slammed into the ground.  

[Scampi]

And i may add, that if companies were truly invested in doing the right thing and not just passing an audit, more would actually pass a GOOD audit with a handfull of minors...............but since everyone (who doesn't know what they are talking about) seems to think a 90+ = safer food or a better business decision, most are sooooo focused on passing an audit, they can't possibly focus on their process and it's associated hazards.....

 

Good old fashioned, well done and implemented HACCP has taken a back seat once again

[The Food Scientist]

SQF consultant,

 

Thank you for your great insight! They did have and I can see they could have had a few OIPs. But actually not having a written and documented Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment? The NCR report also says that it's in a certain document,  I went back to it and it was Food Defense. It's quite embarassing that an auditor would take the Food Defense program as a Food Fraud one, because they are different. They have no evidence of documented VACCP or Food Fraud Mitigation program, PERIOD. And I don't see how he may counted them not having Metal detector monitoring and verification as an OIP either. And to answer a question you asked, yes I reviewed their Food safety audit, also zero findings. I did ask one of the employees that was present in the audit (not the SQFP), he indicated that the metal detector thing isn't mandatory, he said if it says "shall", we do not need to implement it. However I disagreed, I asked about Food Fraud he said oh its in there somewhere, I told him it's not. But obviously it isn't anywhere. What I will do most likely, is develop and work on these obviously missing items in preparation for their next audit, because who knows they might get hit this time by reality. 

[The Food Scientist]

Scampi, 

 

I so agree with you on that.

[Scampi]

The Food Scientist............i'm going to say the whole thing sounds suspect to me...........tread carefully here..........or you're likely to be thrown out with the bath water

[SQFconsultant]

The word "SHALL" indicates a requirement -

Tell this person there are action words such as - shall and must

And there are wishy washy words such as "should" or may.

You can action SHALL as a MUST.

How anyone can think shall is anything else is beyond a thinking individual.

Food defense and food fraud are different, FF was not under 7.2 and it appears that the auditor either did not look or DID NOT SEE.

[majoy]

Its a challenge for you The food scientist, but have you discussed this with Sr. Management? What are their reactions? I am assuming you replaced someone in the position and this person was there who carried out all these desk audit etc. requirements.

 

I hope they take your findings constructive and willing to improve or else, i would do what scampi said - run while you still can.