9 replies to this topic

[best5308]

2.5.2.1 The methods, responsibility, and criteria for verifying food safety controls, including prerequisite programs and critical control points, are operating as intended shall be documented and implemented.

 

The methods applied shall:

1. Ensure that responsible personnel authorize each verified record to demonstrate proper completion of the monitoring activities;
2. Require verification of certificates of conformance, certificates of analysis, letters of guarantee, and/or inspection and testing for all raw and packaging materials; and
3. Include, in the absence of the above controls, confirmation of the absence of potential chemical migration from food sector packaging to food contents.

Question: How are you verifying COCs, COAs, LOGs, in your processes? Our business is pretty low risk. 

 

[Scampi]

Annually via the approved supplier program          We make our vendors sign that they are responsible for notifying us if anything changes  (we are also pretty low risk)

[TimG]

On all 'other' (non-honey) ingredients, review of COA is part of the approval process for that load. Receiving matches the lot# up with it to the shipment. Quality reviews the COA and matches it up to the shipping docs before we approve the load for use. 

For my second most popular sweetener (agave) I send out validation testing at least once annually each for light and dark varieties.

[MDDF]

Supplier approval program, COA hold for ingredients deemed high risk, and an annual review of spec sheets on all ingredients.

[Tony-C]

Hi Best5308,

 

To add to previous posts, there should be additional analysis/monitoring of incoming materials at a frequency based on risk. The results of these are also considered in an annual review.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

[JanBill]

Internal testing is done every day following the process. COA's, letter of guarantees and certificate of conformances are done annually in January.  Even if your business is low risk there is still a risk. 

[MaksimQA]

Not a QA practitioner - I'm a developer who's been reading through a lot of published COAs lately, so this may be a naive question.

Something I keep noticing: the lab's PASS is against the lab's own limit, not the buyer's. One COA I looked at reported lead at 895 ppb stamped PASS - correct against that lab's NMT 1,000 ppb - but it would be a near-2x exceedance against a 500 ppb receiving spec. On another, the spec column just read "Record Only" for every heavy metal, so there was no verdict at all.

For those reviewing per-load: are you comparing values against your own spec every time, or is the lab's verdict generally treated as sufficient? Curious whether this is a real gap or something everyone already handles routinely.

[Tony-C]

Not a QA practitioner - I'm a developer who's been reading through a lot of published COAs lately, so this may be a naive question.

Something I keep noticing: the lab's PASS is against the lab's own limit, not the buyer's. One COA I looked at reported lead at 895 ppb stamped PASS - correct against that lab's NMT 1,000 ppb - but it would be a near-2x exceedance against a 500 ppb receiving spec. On another, the spec column just read "Record Only" for every heavy metal, so there was no verdict at all.

For those reviewing per-load: are you comparing values against your own spec every time, or is the lab's verdict generally treated as sufficient? Curious whether this is a real gap or something everyone already handles routinely.

 

Hi MaksimQA,

 

 

Welcome to the IFSQN forums.

 

The COA’s provided should be to the limits in an agreed specification with the supplier.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

[MaksimQA]

Hi MaksimQA,

 

 

Welcome to the IFSQN forums.

 

The COA’s provided should be to the limits in an agreed specification with the supplier.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

 

Thanks Tony, and thanks for the welcome.

Where there isn't one, though: material through a distributor rather than the manufacturer, or a one-off from a new supplier. Is an agreed specification usually still in place, or do you work to whatever the certificate happens to state?

And once it is agreed, is confirming that each certificate conforms to it a manual read every time?

[Tony-C]

 

Thanks Tony, and thanks for the welcome.

Where there isn't one, though: material through a distributor rather than the manufacturer, or a one-off from a new supplier. Is an agreed specification usually still in place, or do you work to whatever the certificate happens to state?

And once it is agreed, is confirming that each certificate conforms to it a manual read every time?

 

 

Hi MaksimQA,

 

Your purchasing and supplier monitoring procedures should be such that all purchases including emergency supplies are monitored to ensure the materials supplied meet your food safety requirements.

 

For approved suppliers, your acceptance procedures should be based on risk and may include confirmation that certain elements on the COA meet specification prior to acceptance.

 

When you have established suppliers with some history of supply of compliant material, the frequency of checks may be reduced. Although if you have a COA and are using it for acceptance why would you not check it every time?

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony