Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Safety Seals for Delivery Trucks

Share this

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

K Nista

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 6 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted Yesterday, 06:31 PM

Our small co pack facility is working toward initial SQF certification.  Most of our incoming and outbound shipments are LTL and most LTL drivers will not put a new seal on the truck after each stop.  Looking for advice on how to address this for SQF.  Thanks in advance for your input.


  • 0

kconf

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 500 posts
  • 48 thanks
96
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted Yesterday, 06:39 PM

Then you can simply state "driver lock" in the column where it says "Seal #". 


  • 0

jfrey123

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,232 posts
  • 325 thanks
571
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sparks, NV

Posted Yesterday, 07:51 PM

LTL is always a problem in the world of SQF.  Drivers get lazy and don't want to lock the trailers every stop, so you'll reject a lot of loads if you've written a hard requirement for LTL's to be locked in your SOP.  We rely on the pallets being inspected and seeing that the pallets/case seals are intact as evidence the material is still secure.


  • 0

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,909 posts
  • 1467 thanks
803
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:World
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted Today, 06:39 AM

Hi K Nista,

 

This covered in the SQF Food Safety Code Section 11.6.5 Loading, Transport, and Unloading Practices

 

Clause 11.6.5.3: ‘Vehicles (e.g., trucks/vans/containers) shall be secured from tampering using seals or other agreed-upon and acceptable devices or systems.’

 

As per previous posts, in your situation, a load secured with a lock is the minimum expectation and is more practical than asking the driver put on a new seal after each stop and logging those.

 

You should also ensure that your finished products are truly tamper evident and that you will be able to detect evidence of tampering on incoming goods and that they are inspected to confirm that they are intact on acceptance of the delivery.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony


  • 0

Live Webinar Friday 5th December: Practical Internal Auditor Training for Food Operations - Also available via the previous webinar recording. Suitable for Internal Auditors as per the requirements of GFSI benchmarked standards including BRCGS and SQF.

 

IFSQN Implementation Packages, helping sites achieve food safety certification since 2009: 

IFSQN BRC, FSSC 22000, IFS, ISO 22000, SQF (Food, Packaging, Storage & Distribution) Implementation Packages - The Easy Way to Certification

 

Practical HACCP Training for Food Safety Teams available via the recording until the next live webinar.

Suitable for food safety (HACCP) team members as per the requirements of GFSI benchmarked standards including BRCGS and SQF.


GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,117 posts
  • 924 thanks
479
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted Today, 06:53 AM

I've never worked in logistics but wouldn't it be great if they poke-yoked this out?  So for example, that there was a proximity sensor on the door that would only open when the driver key was nearby or that it couldn't open when the key was in the ignition or something.  I get why that would be hard with interchangeable trailer units but it feels like a clause that's just inevitable will fail and probably won't be reported a lot.

And I type this having had the bitter experience of finding evidence of stowaways in a lorry later and the missing seal not being reported.  Happens far less in the UK than it used to but it's still a risk.


  • 0

************************************************

25 years in food.  And it never gets easier.




Share this

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users