Writing a Food Safety Manual
Hi Everyone!
I am now on the process of writing our Food Safety and Quality Manual for our company.
I doubt if I should or should not used the word "SHALL" in the document?
Hoping for a response.
Thanks,
Amy
I'd say 'shall' is a pretty reasonable word to use in your procedures in the right context. I tend to use 'must' and 'should' for instructional sentences but I'm sure 'shall' would also be fine
Shall is then a must - must and shall could be interchangeable.
Shall is an excellent word to use as it is an intent.
Good Day!
Your response helps a lot on my doubts.
Thank you.
Then I will be using "SHALL" with this document.
I am using the ISO 22000-2018 as my reference in doing this and ISO/TS 22000-1 for the PRP's.
I hope this is just fine. I did copy some words from it.
As per Sir Charles say, I just have to make an overview of what we do for food safety and that makes up our Food Safety Manual.
Hehe :)
Best Regards,
Amy
I wish there's someone out there who can check my output for this and do corrections for free.
Hehe :) ... I would be very glad.
Regards,
Amy
I wish there's someone out there who can check my output for this and do corrections for free.
Hehe :) ... I would be very glad.
Regards,
Amy
Hi Amy,
You are always welcome to upload yr "output" for comments.
I have one caveat for using "Shall" in Procedures, etc, Preferably avoided if you know that implementation will subsequently, visibly show claim will be unfulfilled.
Hi Sir Charles!
Thank you. But I doubt if its okay to upload my output in here.
Or maybe I can send it to a personal account?
With regards to using "SHALL" in our Food Safety and Quality Manual, are you saying I should avoid using this word in this document?
Regards,
Amy
Word choice is completely up to you. I highly recommend using words that work well in your own culture. Would you normally speak that way? If not, avoid it. In my opinion, too many people write "to the code" opr just repeat the code and this does not add value to your organization.
As Glenn pointed out SHALL = MUST
therefore if you use the word SHALL and you KNOW it's not always going to get done as written then you should use another word, or better yet evaluate why you think it won't always get done
I like to think of my written programs like a legal document (which depending on where you are, they may very well be) and am very careful about word choice; you may or may not want to leave wiggle room for interpretation..... all CCP documents (program, monitoring, deviations etc.) for example should NOT leave any room for interpretation
I'm not really adding much new to the discussion, but I prefer the word 'Will' to 'shall'. I write my sops and procedures very 'plain language'.
For example: "Shipping Filter Baskets will be checked for damages or findings after each load by the shipper. The findings will be recorded on the Filter Basket Inspection Form. If any holes or damages are found, the truck will be unloaded, the filter replaced, and the sugar re-run through the new filter."
The language is 'plain' and easy to understand, but it is not ambiguous. I hate 'should' in a procedure. If you 'should' do something it means it's up to the person doing it if they want to or not. And if it's an optional step it doesn't really belong in a procedure.
For example: "Shipping Filter Baskets should be checked for damages or findings after each load. The findings should be recorded on the Filter Basket Inspection Form. If any holes or damages are found, the shipper should unload the truck, replace the filter, and re-run the sugar through the new filter."
Should, in this case means that the shipper may decide not to check the filter basket. It also means he might not rerun the truck if he finds damages to the filter. If I put my auditor hat on, the top example gives me some confidence that if the basket is damaged, the product will be rerun. The second example gives me no confidence at all.
I guess my point being: don't confuse style with substance. I've not had any problems with my 'less formal' style because my substance is still specific.