11 replies to this topic

[lara_80]

I am be wrong but I know I have to test my Food Defense program. But today I was told that at my new company last year they got a right up for not testing food fraud. This confuses me because I was under the impression that it only need to reviewed and verified that we have no issues. Please help.

[pHruit]

I am be wrong but I know I have to test my Food Defense program. But today I was told that at my new company last year they got a right up for not testing food fraud. This confuses me because I was under the impression that it only need to reviewed and verified that we have no issues. Please help.

Did they specify what sort of testing they were expecting?
I.e. are they somehow expecting you to test the efficacy of the plan, or expecting to see some evidence of analysis of ingredients to verify that they are indeed what they claim to be?

[Charles.C]

I am be wrong but I know I have to test my Food Defense program. But today I was told that at my new company last year they got a right up for not testing food fraud. This confuses me because I was under the impression that it only need to reviewed and verified that we have no issues. Please help.

 

Hi Laural,

 

Just for context, which Standard is involved ? Clause ? Product ?

 

Most Standards require you to initially  present a (Food Fraud) Vulnerability Assessment. The results of the latter determine necessary onward Procedural implementations (or not).

[eatmoreomega3s]

As Charles.C mentioned -

 

A write up from who?

 

What clause in their standard did they write it up against?

[lara_80]

We use SQF.

[pHruit]

We use SQF.

 

Do you have the original wording of the non-conformance that you received, and the details for the clause against which it was issued?
It's difficult to understand exactly what the problem is/was without this!

[The Food Scientist]

Reviewed and verified you said. Can you explain how you verified? Because I did once back in the day get written up for something similar. We claimed that Vanilla Extract is susceptible to fraud. We wrote results in the assessment as to why, but the auditor was like ok and HOW are you verifying with your program that YOU are making sure it is NOT fradulent? Making sure your Vanilla extract is in fact what Vanilla Extract? (there were tests on the COA from the supplier). So what I did for a Corrective Action is sent that Vanilla to test for the tests on that COA from that supplier to make sure they are sending us what they are sending us. I compared both COAs. And make sure the results are normal and within specification. Hope that helps?

 

Oh and you said "last year" they got written up, meaning last year's audit? So I am assuming there was a corrective action there closed out? What was it?

Edited by The Food Scientist, 17 January 2020 - 02:36 PM.

[lara_80]

The Food Scientist- Do you send off the vanilla with every shipment?

 

And I can not find anything on the SQF audit in regards to testing of the food fraud, it only states that it wasn't reviewed.

[pHruit]

And I can not find anything on the SQF audit in regards to testing of the food fraud, it only states that it wasn't reviewed.

Sounds like your colleagues may have misremembered/misunderstood the audit finding in that case, or possibly not explained the system to the auditor well enough that they understood it is/was reviewed?

[The Food Scientist]

The Food Scientist- Do you send off the vanilla with every shipment?

 

And I can not find anything on the SQF audit in regards to testing of the food fraud, it only states that it wasn't reviewed.

 

No not every shipment. Every 3 shipments. (we would buy a lot because it was a bakery). 

[FurFarmandFork]

No not every shipment. Every 3 shipments. (we would buy a lot because it was a bakery). 

Heck, if you already did some testing to check the supplier when you started the relationship, you could probably easily get away with testing annually to verify they're still legit.

[The Food Scientist]

Heck, if you already did some testing to check the supplier when you started the relationship, you could probably easily get away with testing annually to verify they're still legit.

 

I agree but the auditor recommended that until we get stable results. And for some reason senior management wanted it like that too (Strange they would want that since its pricey).