14 replies to this topic

[Bingo67]

Does anyone have comprehensive Verification & Validation Template/Example they can share? I want to get everything possible on one form.

 

[kfromNE]

Can't find the thread but this document was provided by I'm almost positive Scampi.

Attached Files

•  Example of Validation Summary Report - Allergen Control.docx   18.45KB   960 downloads

Edited by KfromIA, 17 May 2019 - 07:11 PM.

[MsMars]

Can't find the thread but this document was provided by I'm almost positive Scampi.

 

Yes I have and use the same form... cannot remember where it came from, but a likely source! 

[Charles.C]

Yes I have and use the same form... cannot remember where it came from, but a likely source! 

 

The document seems to be rather devoid of methodology.

 

@ Tavish - it would have been helpful if yr query had mentioned Ve/Va for who/ what ?

[Bingo67]

It is for dry blending. Do/Can you put the  Prerequiste Programs and Management systems on the Verification & Validation.

[Charles.C]

It is for dry blending. Do/Can you put the  Prerequiste Programs and Management systems on the Verification & Validation.

 

Hi Tavish,

 

Thks for info but you omitted the "who", eg  BRC, SQF, ISO22000 ??? They all have their own "Validations/Applications"

 

Eg -

BRC require validation of PRPs. And probably "risk-based".

ISO22000, SQF do not require validation of PRPs.(at least for SQF7,iso22000[2005] anyway., haven't checked latest editions.)

[Bingo67]

Opps for SQF . 

[Bingo67]

Here is what I have

 

Program Goals

Owner

Monitoring

Verification

Validation

[Bingo67]

Should I be including the repsponsibilities of the management system on here?

 

Complaints, Regulatory, Trace, Supplier Approval. 

[Charles.C]

Should I be including the repsponsibilities of the management system on here?

 

Complaints, Regulatory, Trace, Supplier Approval. 

 

Hi Tavish,

 

Thks yr replies. I sympathise with yr difficulties. This is a generically complicated topic and particularly so for SQF

 

Which SQF clause are you responding to ?

 

eg

 

2.5.1.1 ?

2.5.2.1 ?

2.8.1.5 ?

 

eg SQF8 Guidance 2.5.1 -

 

The  SQF  practitioner  is  responsible  for  documenting  and  implementing  the  methods,  responsibility  and  criteria  for
confirming the effectiveness of pre-requisite programs and validating critical food safety limits to ensure they achieve
their intended purpose.  The supplier must demonstrate how the validation methods ensure that the selected critical
limits  achieve  the  level  of  control  required  for  the  targeted  food  safety  hazard.    The  supplier  must  also  have
documentation showing that the methods and control measures provide the level of control needed.  
Some  potential  methods  for  confirming  the  effectiveness  of  specific  pre-requisite  programs  are  listed  below.    The
implementation  of  these  specific  methods  is  not  necessarily  required,  but  confirmation  of  the  effectiveness  of  the
program is required. This is not an exhaustive list, but provides some examples:

 

etc etc

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So no PRP validation specifically required. IIRC the Code's text  changed upon release SQF 7.2

(afaik the current Codex distinction regarding Va/Ve particularly involves chronology).

(Also see Post 24 in 1st linked thread below)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This (2018) SQF8 thread illustrates some of the SQF/Va-Ve story's interpretive twists and turns. ( + various SQF7.2 threads also).

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...ion-activities/

 

The example quoted previously in this current thread/Post 2 is in Post 9 (> Brendan Triplett) and also see Post 11.

 

The (non) PRP validation is re-iterated in Post 21 (also note the preceding posts' continuing confusion). + Also note the caveats in 3F's  Post 22 so  do not be surprised if some SQF auditors may disagree these interpretations, SQF (and their auditors) particular  interpretations/expectations for "validation" are deeply entrenched.

(Note that SQF auditors' "earlier" interpretation of validation is not necessarily incorrect since many variations exist, however SQF Code's claim to be in line with Codex is  "debatable")

 

 

If you still want a SQF example for when Ve/Va for many PRPs was mandated (and I suspect other users may also), this older SQF layout has afaik been much borrowed -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...ams/#entry56545

[Bingo67]

Yes 2.5.1 & 2.5.2 - last time my auditor suggested one form. I guess I am confused - should I add methods on here? Can I combine with Monitoring? I AM CONFUSED - haha.

 

Thank you for any help. 

 

Program

Owner

Monitoring

Verification

Validation

Water

 

Monthly Inspection of Backflow devices

Annual water test - external lab

Annual Plan Review of Customer Complaints, CAR, Nonconforming, FSIR’s

Foreign Material Prevention

 

 Pre-op Inspection,

Per batch metal detection

 Pre-op Inspection,

Per batch metal detection

Annual Plan Review of Customer Complaints, CAR, Nonconforming, FSIR’s

Supplier Approval

 

Monthly HACCP Meetings

Monthly HACCP Meetings/7 days if bringing in high risk ingredients (preventative control)

Annual review of receiving records, Annual review of Customer Complaints, FSIR, Nonconforming & SCARS

[Bingo67]

That table didn't print correctly. Here it is.

[Bingo67]

Second time :)

 

Attached Files

•  V&VA.docx Calendar . 2.docx   22.59KB   622 downloads

[Charles.C]

Second time :)

 

Hi Tavish,

 

I suggest you study the Guidance although some portions of it look self-contradictory to me, eg the Audit Guidance for 2.5.1

 

IMO most of the entries in the Validation column of yr attachment are redundant, ie all except the critical limits.

 

IMO, in a Codex haccp context, "confirming the effectiveness" and "Verification" for PRPs is  essentially the same activity. However SQF seems to think they are not so i  cannot offer any suggestion for distinguishing them.

 

I am not a SQF user but Interested to hear what SQF users think.

 

PS - Previous discussions on this SQF topic (Va/Ve) have mostly concluded that it is ultimately necessary to  submit what yr auditor interprets as the Code's requirements regardless as to whether you agree with their interpretation or not.

 

PPS - I suspect one primary source of continuing confusion in this section is that SQF have still not accepted the later Codex viewpoints on Validation. Particularly chronological aspects. This is illustrated in their Glossary definitions, eg -

 

Validation
As  defined  in  the  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization’s  CODEX  Alimentarius
Commission.  Hazard  Analysis  and  Critical  Control  Point  (HACCP)  System  and
Guidelines  for  its  Application  –  Annex  to  CAC/RCP  1  –  1969,  Rev.  4-2003),  –  “A
system, which identifies, evaluates and controls hazards which are significant for food
safety.  Essentially  validation  as  applied  to  control  limits  seeks  to  prove  that  the
intended result was achieved and that it actually worked.

 

 

I believe most current HACCP viewpoints would be that the red ^^^ would either be classified as "Verification" or perhaps (IMO less preferably) "on-going Validation" as per FSIS (2015)

 

For example see this  interpretation -

 

 Validation-Verification,Techni-K (2016).PNG   46.96KB   0 downloads

Edited by Charles.C, 21 May 2019 - 02:39 AM.
added

[Charles.C]

Hi Tavish,

 

After some more searching, I suggest you have a study of this thread (will take some time) -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...m-verification/

 

The above thread (2016) was pre-SQF8 but I anticipate that most of it is SQF8-compatible. (I noted one sample which looks to have inspired Brendan Triplett's SQF8 attachment)

 

Note the innovatory use of "Validation and Effectiveness" Caption.

 

Note the volume of effort involved. As per the link's Post 10, an Excel Document would probably simplify things.

 

As would be predicted, I find some of the manouevring of what I would call Verification into Validation bewildering but if that's what it takes to satisfy SQF, ..........

 

 

PS - Also see these relatively recent threads (and probably more) -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...isite-programs/

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...ion-activities/

 

It's truly scary how much confusion/headaches/Forum posts SQF have achieved over the years with this topic(s).

Edited by Charles.C, 21 May 2019 - 03:52 AM.
expanded