SQF releases version 7 for public comment

The draft revised SQF Code has just been released for public comment.  This has been released with a view to replace the existing SQF 1000 & 2000 Standard.  The Code has undergone a major revision to achieve the following objectives:

  • Ensure the SQF Code meets the requirements of the GFSI Guidance Document edition 6;
  • Remove duplication and repetition in the SQF Codes;
  • Clarify areas of concern or ambiguity in the SQF Codes.

As a result, SQF 2000 and SQF 1000 has been combined into one – the SQF Code edition 7.

System elements (module 2) will apply to all certified businesses, with GAP/GMP modules customized by industry sector.  Suppliers will only be expected to implement the module(s) that apply to their industry sectors.

Changes and comments to the standard are being invited and any comments should be sent to info@sqfi.com.  Those interested in reviewing the code should email info@sqfi.com for the most recent version.

SQF releases CB statistics - NCSI performs very well.

SQF has released performance statistics for each CB based on a limited data set.  We're pleased that the information given to us is reflecting the effort that NCSI has put into service, with NCSI at the top of the pile for 'Audit finished to certification' at just 19 days.

For our clients, this means that they receive their certification quicker than other Certification Bodies - and we're proud that we can continue to offer such efficient service.

A copy of the report is obtainable by contacting NCSI - info@ncsiamericas.com

BRC Global Standard for Food Safety - Issue 6


The revised BRC Global Standard for Food Safety – Issue 6 is due to publish in July 2011 and will be a requirement for audits from January 2012.

The Standard has been updated to provide increased emphasis on good manufacturing practice and ensures that the requirements of manufacturers and retailers are met.

http://email.tsoshop.co.uk/rp/48/process.clsp?EmailId=98300&Token=207AAFB994EFE1A48631FD5854C00FA95

Pulsed light poised for wider industry adoption

http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/Pulsed-light-poised-for-wider-industry-adoption


By Rory Harrington, 24-Jun-2011

Take up of pulsed light (PL) as a decontamination technique is set to take off over the next few years as food companies increasingly realise its safety, cost and environmental benefits, said a leading French research institute.
In the first part of our special edition on dry decontamination technology, FoodProductionDaily.com looks at the prospects, challenges and developments in the PL field for food processing and packaging players.

Great potential

Dr Cecile Lacoste, project manager at the Centre Technique de la Conservation de Produits Agricole (CTCPA), said much of the PL technology has already been developed and was waiting for industry to recognize the huge potential it offers in order to spur faster and more widespread commercial adoption.

Pulsed light systems expose food or packaging surfaces to intense bursts of white light, which have a lethal effect on micro-organisms such as bacteria, spores, yeast and moulds.

While there are a number of commercial applications, particularly in packaging lines – with companies such as Claranor and Montena already well-established – Dr Lacoste said she believed PL would achieve wider acceptance in the medium term.

She was particularly referring to its use on foods such as eggs and meat and said systems, currently in the pipeline, could be brought to market within two years if industry interest was keen enough.

“Once the first few systems are installed commercially, word will spread among companies,” she added. “I think we will see real growth in take up of the technology within two or three years as it has great potential.”

As well as applications to sterilise food and packaging, PL can also be used to decontaminate clear liquids, said the expert. This means that not only can it be used for some beverage products but also across a raft of sectors to cleanse waste water in food processing plants, doing away with the need to used chemicals.


“We believe this application has huge potential benefits for the food processing industry given the focus companies are putting on reducing their water usage,” added Dr Lacoste.

She said that it is also cost effective and forecast that the technology could be cheaper to use than chemicals within a few years.

Take up of the technology could also have been curbed by the global recession in 2008, making industry player more cautious in investing in a novel technology, suggested Dr Lacoste.

Aseptic applications?

The regular surfaces offered by packaging and closures means that PL has been more widely adopted in this sector - with regular developments coming through.

French company Claranor has been successfully developing systems deploying the technology for the decontamination of closures and cups since 2004.

Morgane Busnel, marketing manager, said it had focussed more on packaging because of the challenges presented by using the technique on foods. The irregular surfaces of foodstuffs made it more difficult to ensure full exposure to PL blasts.

There have also been questions over whether products treated with pulsed light should be subject to the Novel Food Regulation, with companies faced with submitting dossiers to prove that the process had not altered the food’s structure in a fundamental way, she added

Busnel stressed, however, that the company was open to developing PL systems for food, citing a project it was currently involved in with a leading European beverage producer to decontaminate sugar syrup.

However, the majority of their attention remained on packaging – initially beverage and, in the last two years, expanding into dairy.

Its PL techniques were currently able to realise microbial reductions of between 3 and 5 log on bacteria and moulds, said Busnel

“This means our technology now complies with industrial requirements for packaging for refrigerated products in the dairy sector such as drinking yoghurts and milk, as well as fresh juices,” she explained.

The company is now seeking to enhance the technology for use in aseptic processing, she said.

“In order to do this we need to be able to deliver reductions of six log,” she added. “It would mean it could be used in the production of shelf stable products such as UHT milk and fruit juices.”

She said it could also be used in flavoured waters and could allow the development of “more authentic” products with reduced levels of preservatives.

Claranor has partnered with the French industry innovation institute to reach the goal and is confident the technology will be realised within the next two years.

So Many Standards...

Within the food sector, there are a number of competing privately owned standards which are GFSI benchmarked, as well as some which are not GFSI benchmarked.  Organizations who set out to achieve certification can find that choosing the best standard that fits their particular operation can be a very time consuming and frustrating process.

Drawing upon our experience, NCSI in conjunction with NQA, have created a short multiple choice quiz asking a variety of questions.  Based on the responses inputted by the user, a set of results identifying standards that may be an appropriate fit for your industry and operation and displayed.

The quiz will be available online shortly at both the NCSI and NQA websites.

GLOBALG.A.P clarification - version 4

Elme Coetzer, Technical Manager with GLOBALG.A.P, visited Washington State May 27th and helped offer us some guidance on interpretations for Version 4 of the standard.

FV 3.2.1 - Please refer to compliance criteria rather than the procedure.
AF 10.1 - So long as traceability is maintained, and the GGN is identifiable through supporting documents, bin or lot numbers are fine to be used in place of the GGN.

The Integrity of the Audit Process

There is a little known story that occurs behind the scenes of every certification processed, guaranteeing the continued reputation of the industry as unbiased, informed and providing assurance that is recognized worldwide.

Certification Bodies, also known as 'registrars' to some on the East Coast of the US and in the UK, are heavily regulated.  Certification exists across every industry - medical, accounting, mining, government, food - and each industry relies on certification for a different reason.  Any auditing firm, prior to becoming a Certification Body, must apply to ANSI, JAS-ANZ or another Accreditation Body for recognition.  This recognition only comes after several audits, extensive documentation systems to be put in place, and being completely free of any conflict of interest.  A conflict of interest may include where the organization operates a laboratory or a consulting company within the same aegis as certification.

This accreditation is an ongoing process with witness audits conducted several times a year on a sample of auditors, audit reports reviewed for consistency and accuracy, and an extensive head office audit reviewing technical sign off procedures, any corrective actions that have occurred, and indeed many other areas.

In addition to this, auditors are registered with an auditing association such as RAB-QSA who calibrates audit competency, and standard owners also have their own individual requirements.  In addition to this, as we know reputation is key to this industry we take this one step further with all new auditors being required to meet the following:


(1)     New auditors, or auditors upgrading to new streams remain at level 1, or ‘Trainee auditor’ level, until they have successfully completed relevant audit courses depending on scheme and standard could be either 5 days or 2 days where appropriate. During this time, auditors may only observe on these audits.
(2)     New auditors are also required, in conjunction with their Division and State Office Managers to submit relevant code allocation forms for relevant standards or personal certification scheme.
(3)     Once an auditor has passed the course they are designated as level 2. In order to progress to level 3, there must be a demonstration that adequate experience has been gained, AND witnessed examples of the auditor’s work must be sighted and signed off by the relevant Verification Auditor.
(4)     Auditors must be signed off at Level 3 before they can go on surveillance audits unattended. To gain sign off as an ‘Auditor’, the employee must have successfully completed the following within EACH stream for which sign-off is sought:
(i)    Observe a minimum of 2 audits within the standard stream
(ii)   Audit a minimum of 3 audits in the standard stream under direct supervision of a signed off Lead Auditor
(iii) Complete all requirements of an ‘Auditor Level Performance Review Pack’
(iv) Complete 2 successful witness audits within the stream. These may either be conducted by the Verification Auditor / Technical Manager, or by two different Lead Auditors who have been signed off within the standard stream.
(v)  Auditor Core Training Modules must be completed and returned to the Technical Manager. A satisfactory result must be achieved.
(5)     The Division Manager is to notify the relevant Verification Auditor (VA) that an auditor requires sign-off by submitting the Training Schedule Summary as completed so far. This allows the VA to determine that all of the requirements have been met, and to determine which records to review:
(i)     1 document review
(ii)    3 audit reports that the auditor has been primarily responsible for
(iii)  2 witness audit reports as described in point 4(iv) above.
(iv)  Commentary and feedback from 2 certification pack submissions by the auditor
(6)     Where the VA has comments to make, it is their judgement call as to whether these are to be treated as points for auditor development, or as issues that prevent auditor sign-off.
(7)     When sign-off is achieved, the VA provides all information to the Technical Manager via a signed Training Schedule Summary Form for review and approval and updating of the auditor status within the NCSI intranet
(8)     The Technical Coordinator or delegate will issue the NCSI Auditor status certificate for the standard stream.
(9)     From this point on, the auditor can start gaining experience and progress to seek other external RABQSA certification, and to begin leading audits under supervision to allow eventual sign-off as a Lead Auditor.


The end result is a Certification Body that enjoys an excellent reputation as being a leader in their field.

Even without the additional requirements that NCSI imposes upon itself as its own quality control, the regulatory requirements for the industry means that certification services should be almost completely homogeneous, offering the same quality service as their competitors.  In reality levels of service vary as they do in any industry, as does price, and that auditors can differ in quality.  At NCSI regardless of the body you use for auditing, we always recommend ensuring that your auditor is from your industry and understands the product they are auditing.

At NCSI this is one thing we use to separate ourselves from the competition.  And when a client books their audit with us they know the auditor they will receive will know their product as well as they do - from bottled water to eggs, from apples to cheese.

To conclude, have faith in the Certification process.  It's a rigorous, well enforced, well informed industry that provides assurance to buyers on many levels.

Clarification for GLOBALG.A.P AF10.1

Following feedback from industry about the new version of GlobalG.A.P, Susan Pheasant has provided us this response:
Some questions have been raised with respect to ALL FARM 10.1 (especially within the tree fruit industry).

The text below is provided to answer those questions.
Given that there are multiple scenarios of how business is actually transacted within the industry (i.e. tree fruit), I have attempted to provide a number of options in the “overall implementation” section.  This is neither an exhaustive nor a prescriptive list; each grower will need to work with his/her warehouse to identify the best working solution in their particular situation.
If there are remaining unanswered questions (or if this generates more – which is not the intent), please let me know.
Please feel free to disseminate this to others in the industry who have similar questions about AF10.1.
Kind regards,
Susan

ALL FARM 10.1
CONTROL POINT:                
Do all transaction documentation include reference to the GLOBALG.A.P Status (certified/not certified)?

COMPLIANCE CRITERIA:    
Transaction documentation (e.g. sales invoices) and, where appropriate, other documentation include the GLOBALG.A.P Status of the product. 
No N/A.

LEVEL:                                   
Major Must

OVERALL INTENT:                           
Documentation exists for purposes of mass balance and traceability so as to eliminate the possibility of more product being sold as GLOBALG.A.P certified than is produced on the registered farm.

IMPLEMENTATION:             
·         Demonstrate that there is a control procedure in place for traceability that includes utilizing the GGN (GLOBALG.A.P Number).
o    It is possible to maintain use of current industry (e.g. tree fruit) recognized traceability practices based on lot numbers.  In this situation, there needs to be a document which ties the GGN of the producer to the lot number(s) of the producer.  For example, this information could be included in the contract/agreement between the producer and the warehouse with an appropriate link to receiving records.
o    It is possible to utilize the GGN as the communication means on appropriate documents for traceability.
o    It is possible to utilize documents such as sales invoices.
o    It is possible to have another system for implementation … refer back to “overall intent.”
·         Grower would need to provide warehouse/packhouse with his/her GGN.
o    A grower receives a unique GGN from the Certifying Body or Farm Assurer within 14 days of initiating registration process.
o    A grower can begin the registration process at any time (i.e. do not have to specify date for audit at time of inspection). 
o    A grower must have a GGN (or in the case of a subsequent surveillance audit, renew their GGN) prior to the audit/inspection taking place. (General Regulations Part I – 4.3 Acceptance.)
·         Sales invoices are one option (but not the only option) available to provide the necessary documentation.  The sales invoices would be coupled with production records in order to be able to conduct a “mass balance” exercise such that quantity of certified product produced equals quantity of certified product sold (subject to normal shrink/waste).
·         In situations where the producer is not in control of the product for produce handling functions (e.g. delivers product to warehouse/packhouse owned by another entity and product is sold at a later date), then a) producer needs to have written evidence (e.g. contract, agreement) that indicates he/she is not part of the sales process nor is produce returned to the grower when there is a dispute over product characteristics and b) producer needs to have documentation of delivery indicating quantity of product delivered and that these records are traceable back to the farm or block as is appropriate for the operation and the crop. 
o    In such a situation where produce handling is not included in the certificate, sales documents would most likely not be a useful means for documentation.
o    It is possible to utilize a Chain of Custody Audit at the packhouse/warehouse level.  (Both BRC and IFS have this component and an arrangement with GLOBALG.A.P to share this information if requested by the producer.  GLOBALG.A.P also has a voluntary Chain of Custody available http://www.globalgap.org/cms/upload/The_Standard/IFA/English/CPCC/GG_EG_IFA_CPCC_CoC_V2-0_4_Jan10.pdf )
·         Specific to Option 1 Individual Producer in situation of initial audit and no produce handling.
o    Three months of records for first time involved in GLOBALG.A.P certification process.
o    Demonstrate the produce comes from a farm source that is in the process of being certified.
o    Demonstrate that there is a control process in place for traceability that includes utilizing GGN (GLOBALG.A.P Number).
·         Specific to Option 1 Individual producer in situation of surveillance audit and no produce handling (i.e. audits that take place after the first year)
o    Two years of records
o    The aggregate of all certified crop receipts (i.e. from delivery records to the warehouse) does not exceed the quantity of certified product produced.
o    May be possible to use sales records from previous crop year as it is the process that is being audited and producer is in a situation of renewing the certificate.
·         Specific to an Option 1 producer for which produce handling is included.
o    Sales documents would be the most likely method for demonstrating compliance with AF10.1 because the producer is fully responsible for production, harvest, handling, and sales (at least to another entity if not the retail buyer).
o    Still need to be able to conduct mass balance exercise.

Remember, that use of the GGN is not synonymous with certification.  It is the responsibility of the buyer (or the next entity in the supply chain) to confirm via the GLOBALG.A.P database that a given product has certified or non-certified status.

NCS International is an approved Certified Body for PrimusGFS

21st April 2011 - Azzule Systems scheme, manager of the PrimusGFS, announced NCS International a Certified Body (CB) of PrimusGFS.

NCSI, a globally recognized compliance auditing and training organization, will add PrimusGFS to their many other auditing services they provide worldwide: BRC Global Standard for Food Safety, FSSC 2000, GlobalGAP, HACCP/GMP/GHP, ISO22000 Food Safety Management, SQF 1000 & 2000 (including SQF Ethical Sourcing), WQA (Woolworths Quality Assured).

With NCSI expertise and outreach, agriculture suppliers can schedule and certify to the PrimusGFS Food Safety audit scheme worldwide.

“The PrimusGFS is a perfect fit for our company.” said Ben Marchant, NSCI Americas Director of Business Development.  Than he added, “We are very excited about this – we see PrimusGFS as a great solution for the agriculture industry and we’re pleased to be able to offer companies a choice in where they have their PrimusGFS audit conducted.”

To schedule a PrimusGFS audit from NCSI: http://www.ncsiamericas.com/request-a-quote.html
More info on the PrimusGFS scheme: http://www.primusgfs.com/Approved/Approved.aspx


About PrimusGFS

The scope of PrimusGFS is focused on the food safety of those products of the agricultural sector designated to human consumption in their fresh or minimum processed way.
PrimusGFS establishes a series of requirements for managing the production, handling, processing and storing operations, which should be met for consumer safety.

Tom Ambrosia Appointed North East Regional Manager

Tom Ambrosia, previously with TUV, is a recent addition to the NCSI Americas team.  Tom will be based primarily in the North East to help support our growing client base there.

Tom is uniquely qualified, being one of only several SQF auditors in the world to have all 35 industry codes.  The requirements to obtain a code are a minimum of 2 years experience, with many auditors only qualifying for a few at any time.

Tom is a welcome addition bringing with him a lot of experience and knowledge.

Wenatchee Office, Now Open

NCSI Americas is pleased to announce the addition of an office in Wenatchee.  To be staffed by auditors, this will help support our audit audit base covering the produce industry in the Pacific North West. 

Retailers Adjust Food Safety Requirements - what does it mean?

Many in the produce industry have by now heard of the recent changes to Wal-Mart’s Food Safety requirements (for those who have yet to read the official announcement: http://ncsiamericas.com/index.php?id=40). Any producer wishing to supply to Wal-Mart must meet these requirements by July 2012, giving most producers just a single harvest season to become GAP Certified.

This change in food safety requirement has been expected for sometime, although the timing may have caught many people off guard. The produce industry should be prepared for similar announcements from other major retailers (where Wal-Mart leads, others are sure to follow) in the next 12-24 months, and it appears that GAP Certification is to become another cost of doing business with a major retailer.

What is GAP?

GAP stands for Good Agricultural Practices. GAP Certification, in the context Wal-Mart refers to it as, stands for having an audit conducted against a GAP standard, such as PrimusGFS, SQF 1000, or GlobalGAP.

Each standard has a set of slightly different requirements, and you may wish to consider which standard is right for you.

We can provide information on all 3 standards, so if you’re a little lost on which standard to choose we’re happy to talk.

Top 3 Tips

  • Don’t leave it until 2012 before looking at your GAP program
  • Take a training course – understand the requirements that you are being expected to comply with
  • Talk to a Certification Body – book in your audit early. Auditors schedules are set up to 3 months in advance, and sometimes longer.