13 replies to this topic

[rgomez]

Good morning all, 

 

Just finished my second audit with SAI global after the Intertek acquisition. 

 

Just curious, has anyone else started to receive lower audit scores since this happened? 

 

I'm seeing auditors just want to hand out non-conformances based on personal interpretation of code, almost opinions & are not discussing or allowing you to elaborate on non-confiormnaces, wether it's because you weren't clear or they are not interpreting what you're presenting properly. The point is, I'm experienceing less discussions & more dictating on their behalf. 

 

This is the second time we've had to redirect auditor back to code, show what we actually do to meet compliance & they took it as "push back". 

 

I'm having a hard time wrapping my thoughts behind this since our program enhaces every time we have an audit. Same program for years, but extensively enhanced. This auditor has actually audited us before & gave us a higher score. Went from Excellet to Good. 

 

I work for a company that takes pride in food safety, food safety culture, our customers & employees and there are companies that do the bare minium to pass SQF audits & get higher scores. 

 

I don't mean to whine but I want to understand what's happening in the industry or if it's all politics within a company due to new management. 

 

I asked the question straight out about this specific CB because I'm looking to see if more people are experiencing the same or if it's across the industry. 

 

Thank you in advanced!

Edited by rgomez, 13 November 2023 - 02:02 PM.

[SQFconsultant]

You pay for quality, or you pay for garbage. Learned that a long time ago along with the need for completely checking out the CB and auditors before contracting with them.

 

Really look into their training, are they employees or on contract basis, what does the company pay their auditors, etc.

 

I have found the worst CBS are the bigger ones and the best are smaller and pay their auditors good rates.

 

Another thing is to check if they took the bio weapon, we for instance will not allow an auditor to work with a client or with our company if they did that as it is an indicator to us that they will lack in several areas.

 

Personally I worked for two of the largest CB outfits and must say that auditors were 50/50. The one company paid terribly but at least in advance and the other paid 30 days after completion but at a high rate. Incompetence was still about 50/50 and this was well before the bio weapons, tests and masks came out to dumb down people.

[AltonBrownFanClub]

 

Another thing is to check if they took the bio weapon, we for instance will not allow an auditor to work with a client or with our company if they did that as it is an indicator to us that they will lack in several areas.

 

 

 

SQFConsultant, would you mind clarifying what you meant by this?

What is the indicator and what areas of auditing would it affect?

[SQFconsultant]

Sure, in general they lack discernment.

 

People that took the jabs have been proven to shed spike k proteins that can have adverse effects on those that did not. This can cause amoung other things bloodclots.

 

We will not hire anyone that took  ial 2 or vial 3 sourced jabs and/or booster and v shots unless they are going for remediation such as attending ees sessions, wearing nicotine patches, taking nattokinase, drinking conifer tea etc. 

[SQFconsultant]

Forgot to add, the shots dumb people down and that effects the audit process. 

[AltonBrownFanClub]

With all due respect, believing in pseudoscience EES light treatments and "medicine" not approved by the FDA also feels pretty dumbed down.

 

Workplaces should be free of political and personal agendas.

[SQFconsultant]

Oh please stop it. With all due respect I don't care what your opinion of me is.

 

And considering that the FDA approved the bio weapon for emergency usage I rather listen to a stage 4 cancer survivor that got "cured" by a scaler light energy system than the so called experts. Damn the FDA, every single one of them should be hung for crimes against humanity. 

[jfrey123]

Sometimes pushback needs to happen.  Now 100% I acknowledge that a finding is a finding, and correcting the issue while the audit still occurs is not acceptable to cancel the finding in the eyes of an SQF auditor.  But I still find a need for auditors to be open minded to discussion around a finding, especially when their "interpretation" is counter to the code.

 

Once while my partner and I were consulting for a spice company, auditor went to a locked mandoor and noted the door closer device was inoperative.  She marked it as a finding.  Reviewing the code, we pointed out that the door in question was an inoperable mandoor:  it was marked on facility maps as non-accessible, and the door was marked twice itself that it was not to be used for entry/exit.  The door itself was well sealed to prevent pest intrusion.  So we pointed out that 11.1.5.2 only requires self-closers and other means for pest control if "...used for product, pedestrian, or truck access."  She acknowledged our logic and removed the finding.

 

At a plant for my current job, auditor wrote us for a critical violation of our own HACCP plan.  We showed a CCP for a PAA wash for fruits and veg with a minimum dwell time.  Auditor observed an employee dump pre-bagged baby carrots into the bath and remove them well under the declared time.  The washing of pre-bagged carrots was not a requirement of our HACCP plan (bagged carrots were to be packaged with a dip), but the plant was washing them to remove debris from the boxes they came in.  But because our plan stated we wash cut product for x time, and they didn't follow that step, she wrote it as a finding and escalated it to critical as she felt it violated our CCP.  We tried to discuss that the critical was unwarranted, because per SQF code, a critical must be "...judged likely to cause a significant public health risk" or direct product contamination (of which neither was true).  She disagreed and submitted the report.  We filed for review and got the finding overturned by SQF.

 

Long story short, SQF auditors in particular sometimes really get upset with "push back", and they'll call any questioning of the finding "push back" and it can turn the audit environment slightly hostile.  But there are many circumstances in my mind in which a discussion is warranted.  Sometimes auditors have stronger backgrounds in unrelated industries, and things they're "used to seeing" at other types of plants don't translate over to your type of operations.   I know it reflects poorly on an auditor and the CB when their findings get reversed by SQF.  We could have helped them avoid that.  If you're having problems with a particular set of auditors, or a CB as a whole, I encourage you to consider looking into other options for a CB and see if your experience changes.

[Simon]

Reminder sqfconsultant please let's not bring politics, personal, or pseudoscience into an academic discussion.

 

Many Thanks,

Simon

[Hoosiersmoker]

Our last 2 auditors were from SAI global. Both of them are top notch auditors with extensive background. One of them, never here before, was one of the best auditors I have worked with. Both of them had been "jabbed" and I put either of them against sqfconsultant any day. No opinion, just a fact.

[SQFconsultant]

Why? Because I was not stupid enough to take the bio weapon?  What an idiotic statement. 

[rgomez]

Is there a way to delete this topic?

 

I asked an honest question & this took a life of its own. 

[Madam A. D-tor]

Dear Rgomez,

 

I am an auditor for 17 years now. I was never involved to SAI Global or Intertek and not working in your region and not with the standard you are audited against, but from my experience I can tell you that scores depends on many factors.

 

As you know an auditor can only audit your company 3 times on a row.

I noticed for myself the following:

1st audit at a company: introduction to the company, more involved in getting to know the company and the processes. Focus mostly on general compliance with the standard.

2nd audit at a company: audit more in depth because I have been there before.

3rd audit at a company: I am even more strict, because next year one of my colleagues is coming here and I do not want them to think that I did not perform a good audit.

 

Next to this scores also change from auditor side when:

- new version of the standard is introduced: the scores are always lower because there are more/other requirements or other focusses from the standard;

- after a training or instruction: e.g. if I just had a (refresher) training on some topics (e.g. validation, pest control), I will be more focussed on this topics and there will be more deviations.

 

And ofcourse scores might change due to small changes in your company.

 

However the auditor should listen to your explanation and try to see and understand your interpretation. And he/she neds to be able to explain why it is not correct.

 

But ofcourse this is not answering your question specific for this CB.

If you are not happy about the communication skils of the auditors, speak about it with the CB or change to another CB.

Good luck.

Edited by Madam A. D-tor, 07 December 2023 - 11:22 AM.

[Scampi]

Dear Rgomez,

 

I am an auditor for 17 years now. I was never involved to SAI Global or Intertek and not working in your region and not with the standard you are audited against, but from my experience I can tell you that scores depends on many factors.

 

As you know an auditor can only audit your company 3 times on a row.

I noticed for myself the following:

1st audit at a company: introduction to the company, more involved in getting to know the company and the processes. Focus mostly on general compliance with the standard.

2nd audit at a company: audit more in depth because I have been there before.

3rd audit at a company: I am even more strict, because next year one of my colleagues is coming here and I do not want them to think that I did not perform a good audit.

 

Next to this scores also change from auditor side when:

- new version of the standard is introduced: the scores are always lower because there are more/other requirements or other focusses from the standard;

- after a training or instruction: e.g. if I just had a (refresher) training on some topics (e.g. validation, pest control), I will be more focussed on this topics and there will be more deviations.

 

 

You've just shown us why GFSI doesn't work as intended