We had our recertification audit recently, and a question came up with the auditor. I'm a bit surprised by his interpretation, but I guess I could just be misunderstanding the expectations of the code. (Wouldn't be the first time.)
Essentially, he stated that if there is a requirement in a section, it needs to be addressed in an SOP of the same name.
So as an example: 2.4.1. - Food Legislation.
We have a few different SOPs - 1 for handling an on-site Regluatory inspection, a "Regulatory Requirements" SOP (Details the resources we use to keep up to date on both Regulatory changes as well as SQF, (even though I know SQF isn't regulatory), and a Product Recall/Withdrawl" SOP.
The final point of the section, 126.96.36.199 - SQFI and the certification body shall be notified in writing within twenty-four (24) hours in the event of a regulatory warning. Notification to SQFI shall be by email to email@example.com.
So therefore, we considered there are two situations which might involve us getting a regulatory warning. 1) A Warning Letter from an inspection or 2) Product withdrawl and recall. We therefore have the contact information for SQFI and our CB listed in the Recall and the handling of a regulatory audit.
It's considered a minor for not having the contact information (or the instructions to contact) in our "Regulatory requirements" SOP, because that's the section it's listed under in the SQF code.
While I see his point and it's easy to fix, I guess I was just surprised that was the literal expectation of the code. Has this been other's experience? Was this just my mistake in not having a good understanding of SQF expectations?