3 replies to this topic

[ganderson64]

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]

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

[kingstudruler1]

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.  

[Scampi]

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