lol so the SQF - Validation and Effectiveness.pdf that Charles sent is for "Validating" not for verifying. So, I would have to add the elements in it to the verification schedule, if not already there, and then validate them and the CCP limits.
I am going to talk myself through this to try and get some self-clarity. Anyone please correct me if I am wrong.
- Internal Audits - Pretty simple - I am going to use the SQF provided checklist.
- Verification - I will use the verification schedule, that I have in OP, and the daily records to verify that the activities are being completed. Some of the elements do not have records to check but I have methods in my verification schedule that give guidance on how to check those items. I can put records of all of those checks in our meeting minutes and maintain the other sheets in our files.
- Validation - I can use the Validation Sheets that Charles sent me for each PRP but also for each major section, not already created by the sheets, as validation paperwork for each major system element group (ie. Management Commitment 2.1, Document Control 2.2, Food Safety System 2.4, etc.).
This is a pretty serious document-heavy part of the process. BUT maybe this is it. Let me know what you all think. Thanks.
Cheers!
Hi Brendan,
Few thoughts -
Re - No. 2 - Some care may be required as to what you specifically meant by "completed". I assume that the term "completed" (eg OP attachment) implies coverage of items (a-d)(notably [d]) below in this quote from Tip Sheet 16.
Verification activities should be outlined in a verification schedule, which should include [a] a description of verification activities, [b] monitored frequency of completion, [c] designated responsible personnel, and [d] proof of proper implementation and record keeping (see example at end of this Post).
Re - No. 3 - It does appear that SQF still accepts that Review-type activities (eg audit) may also be used to "Confirm Effectiveness of Prerequisites" (aka Validation) within section 2.5.1 (Validation and Verification), eg from Tip Sheet 16 -
Critical food safety limits are said to be validated when they have been confirmed by scientific analysis. Prerequisite programs and other food safety controls, however, are confirmed by observation, inspection or audit to ensure that they are achieving the desired result. It is required that Critical Control Points (CCPs) and Critical Quality Points (CQPs) be validated at an agreed upon frequency.
(Note the above textual distinction for PRPs between "validated" and "confirmed")
In the case of PRPs it appears that the same audit might perhaps satisfy both "Validation" and Verification (eg see Tip Sheet 16, 2(e). !
PS - the "Va and Effectiveness" attachment in Post 20 (Credit erin) also had a paired document giving details of the individual PRP "Validations" . JFI this is attached below.
Validation Summary Sheets.pdf 1.28MB
20 downloads
PPS - JFI I repeat a paragraph from Scampi's original link -
Both verification and validation are required or else food-safe outcomes may not be achieved.
Validation Without Verification...Hand washing with soap is a valid method for removing dirt/grime from hands. However, if verification does not occur and employees do not actually wash their hands, then it doesn't matter how scientifically-proven the strategy is.
Verification Without Validation...Hand washing without soap is not a valid method for cleaning hands. Even if a manager verifies that hand washing is occurring as required, it doesn't matter because hand washing without soap is not a valid method for cleaning hands
the above is intended to illustrate this definition of Verification -
Verification means conducting a review to confirm a process was performed correctly. Verification answers the question "How do you know it actually happened?"
Example: A manager in a cookie factory reviews production records to confirm that the cookies were baked to the temperature described in the recipe.
