Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Reconciliation tolerance

Traceability GFSI scheme requirements

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

ganderson64

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 41 posts
  • 9 thanks
5
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 14 June 2022 - 03:52 PM

Hello experts!

As many are aware, everyone has an opinion of every subject with food safety and auditing. I need some guidance on traceability reconciliation. Is there a number (95% ?) than is ideal when performing a traceability / recall exercise.

I currently work in a fresh produce processing / distribution operation and accounting for precisely 100% of anything is next to impossible.



SQFconsultant

    SQFconsultant

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,109 posts
  • 1028 thanks
938
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:American Patriot
    WWG1WGA
    Never give up, never give in - always win!
    Banking off of the northwest wind; Sailing on summer breeze! I am home now on Martha's Vineyard Island

Posted 14 June 2022 - 04:42 PM

In a situation like that it would be better to recall over 100% - because the target is 100%.


Kind regards,
Glenn Oster

GOC GROUP |FREE Currency Revaluation, XRP, XLM, XDC & CV Nano-Shedding Consultant

Visit our Telegram website -
www.GlennOster.com

kingstudruler1

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 435 posts
  • 154 thanks
105
Excellent

  • United States
    United States

Posted 14 June 2022 - 05:26 PM

there used to be some auditing standards (maybe there still is) that stated ranges.   something like 98 - 102% as I recall.  

The goal should be 100%.   I think you need to be able to justify or defend the standard that you determine.   In different operations, there are legitimate reasons for not being able to achieve 100% recovery (water loss, spillage, scrap, etc).  What you don't want to do is to set a standard such as 95% and have no idea/justification/explanation/data as to how you determined that standard.  


eb2fee_785dceddab034fa1a30dd80c7e21f1d7~


Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,575 posts
  • 1266 thanks
1,020
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 14 June 2022 - 06:04 PM

The best solution is to follow Glenn's advice---once you've done a full trace exercise a couple of times you'll know what you're actually capable of achieving and adjust your program accordingly

 

For example, we have in process waste containers-however when we have a really bad run (item specific) the waste containers may overflow into the drain and we have no idea how much we've lost (ag commodities too many variables) so perhaps today's trace yields me 99%, tomorrow may only be 85% 

 

Once you have performed a couple of trace, you'll have actual data into where you are losing product (does your product shrink in the warehouse, does it absorb moisture, how often are FG verified for quantity/weight etc.) Then you can adjust your procedure/program with an explanation of where the variance to 100% is coming from 


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users