19 replies to this topic

[Tony-C]

Hi everyone,

 

SQF Edition 10 has finally been published.

 

Get Edition 10 Codes here: SQF 10 Code Selector

 

Guidance & New Checklists here

 

There are change documents as well when you select the code for your food sector category:

 

 SQF Food Safety Code Edition 10 Recipe Meals Webpage Image.png   273.8KB   0 downloads

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

 

[TimG]

So, the benchmarking application still needs to be completed with GFSI?

 

 

 

It is anticipated that audits to Edition 10 will begin on January 2, 2027. This date is dependent on the progress of the GFSI Benchmarking application and may need to change to a later date. However, it should be noted that audits to Edition 10 will not commence any earlier than January 2, 2027. 

[jfrey123]

Funny, under the FAQ page the very first topic is "What happened to the PDF versions?" with a weak explanation about how they want to keep them digitized instead of offering downloadable versions.

 

It's a few extra steps, but after you work through the code selector I was able to get it to print Part A, Module 2, and Module 11 that I need to a PDF that I can disseminate to my teams.

 

Now to start digging and finding the changes...  And try to figure out what a "Food Safety Culture Assessment Plan" is supposed to look like in their eyes...

[Scampi]

 

 

Now to start digging and finding the changes...  And try to figure out what a "Food Safety Culture Assessment Plan" is supposed to look like in their eyes...

 

There is a change log---once you select your code, you can access it

 

https://www.sqfi.com...tor/?fsc=fsc-12

[jfrey123]

There is a change log---once you select your code, you can access it

 

https://www.sqfi.com...tor/?fsc=fsc-12

 

I respect you so freakin' much right now lol.

[SQFconsultant]

So much fun!

 

Thank  you Tony.

[Setanta]

Well, now it is offical! 

[Marshenko]

Yeah, whomever made the decision not to publish easily downloadable PDF versions of the various codes, especially with the horrible speed of the SQF website in general, and today especially, should be ... dealt with.  

 

 

Funny, under the FAQ page the very first topic is "What happened to the PDF versions?" with a weak explanation about how they want to keep them digitized instead of offering downloadable versions.

 

It's a few extra steps, but after you work through the code selector I was able to get it to print Part A, Module 2, and Module 11 that I need to a PDF that I can disseminate to my teams.

 

Now to start digging and finding the changes...  And try to figure out what a "Food Safety Culture Assessment Plan" is supposed to look like in their eyes...

[jcieslowski]

I'm going to go ahead and make my code edition 10 compliant and see what happens in my December 2026 audit.

[GMO]

Yeah, whomever made the decision not to publish easily downloadable PDF versions of the various codes, especially with the horrible speed of the SQF website in general, and today especially, should be ... dealt with.  

 

I'd be frustrated by it for sure. The BRCGS code only being downloadable for free in a version which you can't copy from (apart from screenshot) to use as a reference on internal audits is annoying. You can get an unlocked PDF but it's spendy.

I find all of that pretty rubbish really. Whenever I've done an internal audit I like to copy the EXACT wording from whatever standard is in use so you can genuinely see that the clause has been thoroughly audited. It's a decision made by someone who hasn't internally audited for a very long time.

[Marshenko]

I got around that BRCGS problem for free and quickly (both code AND guidance document), but it was annoying for a bit too.  This is just as bad... and then when you do go through the CODE SELECTOR it automatically generates "code for you" and cuts out what are supposed to be non-applicable clauses to the FSC you chose.  Umm... yeah, I still want to see that information guys.

 

I'd be frustrated by it for sure. The BRCGS code only being downloadable for free in a version which you can't copy from (apart from screenshot) to use as a reference on internal audits is annoying. You can get an unlocked PDF but it's spendy.

I find all of that pretty rubbish really. Whenever I've done an internal audit I like to copy the EXACT wording from whatever standard is in use so you can genuinely see that the clause has been thoroughly audited. It's a decision made by someone who hasn't internally audited for a very long time.

[GMO]

I got around that BRCGS problem for free and quickly (both code AND guidance document), but it was annoying for a bit too.  This is just as bad... and then when you do go through the CODE SELECTOR it automatically generates "code for you" and cuts out what are supposed to be non-applicable clauses to the FSC you chose.  Umm... yeah, I still want to see that information guys.

 

EXACTLY! When a clause is not applicable, I always want to make sure that the plant systems have it recorded somewhere that it's not applicable. I've got more experience in BRCGS than any other standard but often I'd even knock up a risk assessment to explain why it's not applicable. While auditors shouldn't be auditing against non applicable clauses, what if you do something silly and accidentally choose the wrong category?

 

You think that wouldn't be an easy mistake but I've known differences in opinion between retailers about product categories before for exactly the same product (which contained four ingredients!) I also had an auditor claim one time that a very small walk in fridge needed to be temperature mapped to prove the location of the temperature probes was logical. I went to the interpretation guide, found the section which said this only applied to large units and she literally threw the guide back at my QA Manager shouting "I DO NOT AUDIT AGAINST THE INTERPRETATION GUIDELINE!" (but then didn't raise it later). So while it's probably overkill to risk assess the things that don't apply, if I'd done a risk assessment on that and raised we'd put the probe near the top of the small room which is logical (heat rises) then I doubt it would have (almost) led to blows.

So basically I very much urge SQF to make a full standard available and for other schemes not to go down this route.

[MDaleDDF]

I'm just finishing my GAP analysis of the edition 10 code, and while there's a few things that are silly sod, it's SOOOOOOO much better than FSSC 22k.   So glad I decided to switch....

[acarver]

I'll go first with my Ed. 10 confusion.

I am working on internal audit foreign matter control and decided to look at the edition 10 while I am at it. 11.7.3.1 is clearly different although it states no change. No biggie, although the change mentions high-risk. For kicks and giggles I look at the h-r info and find the exact thing under 11.7.1.4.

 

So, is 11.7.3.1 supposed to be no change? 

 

I've attached a screenshot...it's the best I could do! 

 

 

[jfrey123]

I'll go first with my Ed. 10 confusion.

I am working on internal audit foreign matter control and decided to look at the edition 10 while I am at it. 11.7.3.1 is clearly different although it states no change. No biggie, although the change mentions high-risk. For kicks and giggles I look at the h-r info and find the exact thing under 11.7.1.4.

 

So, is 11.7.3.1 supposed to be no change? 

 

I've attached a screenshot...it's the best I could do! 

 

11.7.3.1 did change, a lot, although the change document excel file states "No Change" lol

 

Edition 9: 11.7.3.1

"The responsibility and methods used to prevent foreign matter contamination of the product shall be documented, implemented, and communicated to all staff.

Inspections shall be performed (refer to 2.5.4.3) to ensure plant and equipment remain in good condition and equipment has not become detached or deteriorated and is free from potential contaminants."

 

 

Edition 10: 11.7.3.1

"Personnel shall change into clean clothing and footwear or temporary protective outerwear:

 

i. When entering high-risk areas; and

ii. When clothing becomes soiled or damaged such that it presents a product contamination risk. 

 

Staff access points shall be located, designed, and equipped to enable personnel to change into the distinctive protective clothing and practice a high standard of personal hygiene to prevent product contamination. "

 

 

[acarver]

Yes, jfrey123, but the very weird thing to me is that the new clause is exactly the same as the new clause for 11.7.1.4. Why 2 identical clauses?

[Scampi]

Remember ---code still needs benchmarked   hopefully GFSI catches ALL the errors

[TimG]

Remember ---code still needs benchmarked   hopefully GFSI catches ALL the errors

Yeah, I kind of remember 9 going through a bit of a 'proofreading' type phase when it was first published.

[MDaleDDF]

Yes, jfrey123, but the very weird thing to me is that the new clause is exactly the same as the new clause for 11.7.1.4. Why 2 identical clauses?

After doing my gap analysis there were a few clauses that seemed redundant to me.   I don't recall the exact sections but multiple times while referencing documents in my system I was like 'why do I need to show this doc is covering this again, I already did'....

 

That they still need to benchmark as Scampi says is kind of a pita.    I don't have time to not keep moving forward, but I don't want to have to move backwards to clean up changes either.  Bad time to be right in the middle of a switch, but I guess a good time too so I don't need to update immediately after going SQF.

[Hoosiersmoker]

It appears they got the numbering right the first time! Unlike ed 7 which needed numbering to be changed and a 7.2 issued. The guidance documents for Food Safety Culture and Food Safety Culture Assessment Plan seem to be pretty clear though. In all, I think SQF has done a pretty good job making Ed 9 and Ed 10 codes a little more logically ordered and better organized. The guidance documents are pretty comprehensive too.