8 replies to this topic

[TimG]

Am I wrong in assuming that GFSI/SQF code requires certified packaging suppliers to provide the finished good lot#'s (accurately) to their customers in the paperwork? I don't have the packaging code to research, so I was hoping to get some feedback here.

 

I have a long-time supplier who is SQF certified that consistently doesn't match their provided paperwork with what they ship us for FG lot#'s. I kind of thought that was a big deal for traceability, but they seem to think it's not.

 

I guess I want to make sure I'm not overreacting before I submit a formal complaint with them..

[kconf]

Are you calling packaging materials "finished goods"? 

[TimG]

Are you calling packaging materials "finished goods"? 

MM, sorry. Food grade/food contact bottles.

It's their finished goods..we also buy resin and make some (less than 10%) of our own bottles, so it's an in-house distinction that doesn't translate well.

Edited by TimG, Today, 04:43 PM.

[kconf]

They should be providing you with lot numbers then since it is direct food contact. Do they provide you with COC?

[TimG]

They should be providing you with lot numbers then since it is direct food contact. Do they provide you with COC?

They do; that is the only lot# documentation we receive from them. The amounts we receive are not at all matching the amounts listed on their COC. We've even had a few lots that weren't listed at all on the COC, causing us to request a separate COC for them. In those instances, their replies are basically 'oh tell us what we sent ya and we'll write a new COC for it.' That is why I am at a bit of a loss..it seems a very nonchalant response to something I assumed was or should be a big deal.

[jfrey123]

I think you're on point TimG.  If they're listing the lot #'s and quantities of what they're sending you in the records, then it should be accurate.  If they have to recall packaging due to FM or other contamination, they might miss notifying you because they didn't properly record the lot # in their systems.  And if they're sending you multiple pallets, cases, or even a truckload of stuff, having to verify every single case would be a huge labor cost on your end due to not trusting what they send.

 

Sure, you can just record what you received and make sure traceability is intact on your end, but every error should add up to a mark against your score of that supplier.  Eventually it should trigger a formal complaint.  Depending on how they respond, it should trigger at least consideration of delisting them and finding a new supplier.

[TimG]

I guess I assumed they HAD to list lot#'s and qty's as part of the SQF packaging code? Or do they just have to track it internally and it's up to their customers to sort out?

[GMO]

Even just to check that you've got the loads expected, I would be wanting the load details to match up. So for example, when I am showing to an auditor that the delivery was clean according to our records and it contained "x" batch, I need to be able to prove "x" batch was on there. 

 

It's a GFSI requirement that primary packaging is traceable I thought. So I can't see how they can miss this off as it transfers from one to the other unless they're arguing as it's on the product itself? But they MUST have that data or else their trace won't work, so why not provide it?

 

COCs are a waste of time as we all know but if you need them for an audit requirement it's a pain in the butt if the number you need isn't on it.

[SHQuality]

If their documentation doesn't add up with what they're sending, their own traceability clearly isn't in order and I'm surprised they're so blasé about it. It is the main data requirement to do a successful recall, so if they cant deliver on that data, they're not following certification standards. Also, how are we supposed to know they deliver FIFO or FEFO if they just ship stuff randomly?

 

You should definitely take action on this, Tim. Delist them if they don't clean things up.

Edited by SHQuality, 17 minutes ago.