Are You Ready for Edition 10?

LeAnn Chuboff: Okay, good afternoon everybody. My name is LeAnn Chuboff. I'm the vice president of technical affairs with SQF. We are at the top of the hour, so I'm going to begin this webinar on are you ready for SQF Edition 10 hosted by Mérieux NutriSciences and we have with us Martin Fowell with Mérieux NutriSciences who is going to be our guest presenter today. But before we begin we do want to share with you FMI's and SQF's antitrust statement. So, while we food safety is typically not competitive, we do want to remind you of SQF and FMI's antitrust policy. So, any discussions whether in the chat or here today regarding price fixing, boycotting, any other violations of antitrust law need to be avoided. If we feel that the conversations are headed in that direction, we will speak up and we hope you do the same. If you would like a copy of this antitrust statement, please send us a message and we will send one right away. Thank you. And as I said, today our guest speaker is Martin Fowell. Martin is the director of auditing operations at Mérieux NutriSciences. And so he's an auditor, a trainer, witness auditor, basically Mérieux NutriSciences's go-to person as it relates to auditing. I don't mean to say that, but you certainly are.

You're our go-to person as well because I can say from our perspective, Martin plays a key role within SQF. He sits on our technical advisory council representing the 31 certification bodies that we have at SQF. He also participated in the Edition 10 working groups, part A, specifically scoring. So definitely a good person to have on this webinar and Martin is also and has played a role within GFSI and has served as a technical liaison for Mérieux NutriSciences and certification bodies with GFSI in a global role. So Martin has been there and done that and we are very happy to have him here. So everybody says hello in the chat there. Martin, it's good to have you. Very, very, very happy to be here. Very excited to I know Edition 10 was a long time coming and now that it's here, it seems like time is going so fast. It's like, I'm looking at the calendar thinking, "Wow, January is going to be here before I know it." So, this is this is great timing.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yes, it certainly is because this webinar actually has been set up so that we answer your questions and we asked you to submit questions ahead of time and apparently there aren't any, Martin. This is going to be a very short webinar. nobody submitted questions, but we know you have questions and so feel free to put them in the chat when you got it. But before we start, we have a poll for you because I am so curious. I always ask this question. I want to know when did you start with SQF? Is Edition 10 your first? did you start with Edition 5? So, think about it, Martin. I'm asking you as well. Edition 6. I think there might have been an Edition 6. No, I think edition seven. Any version. There was an 8.1, but I'm not really counting that one. Edition eight or edition nine. When did you start with SQF, Martin?

Martin Fowell: Wow. So, I think I think it would have been 2007 is when we did the initial training. kind of when SQF started. I would say edition five or Yeah, before maybe before because I think Yeah, five.

LeAnn Chuboff: I started at the end of five, beginning of six and that was in 2009. So you had to have been I don't even know if there was a four honestly I think it just became it was SQF and then we went into version. So right it was SQF member 1 2000 but it looks like majority have started with nine which is good because I think most of the significant changes that we made addition of food safety culture incorporation of change management the concept of change management that was in nine. So I think there a lot of proficiency testing was either eight or nine. So there were some key changes there, but yeah. but yeah, most of them with nine, but we still have some fives, edition fives here. So we got some I don't want to say old-timers, but really committed SQF people. Yes. Yes. So today, we're going to talk about Edition 10 and all, I want to just give you just a really I rough idea, a general overview of Edition 10. As we have all the different food safety court codes. I always I say farm to fork, boat to throat, gate to plate. SQF has a solution no matter where you start or where you are in the supply chain. So, we have those solutions even in a quality aspect if you want to incorporate quality within your codes as well.

So, I know that we do plan on having a webinar just on the quality code because I think that's just one of the most underestimated codes that we have out there, but most of our code our questions today I know will be about food safety, but feel free to chat in quality as well. And I'm pretty sure we're going to be committed to January the way that it is laying out. I know we do talk about when do you think we'll be benchmarked to GFSI and we are moving quickly through that process. So, just to give everybody a heads up, we think January is doable, but it would be definitely time any it won't be any sooner than January. That I guarantee you. So, our commitment to January is still holding. and I just wanted to give everybody that update. So, you're right. It is going to be right around the corner. We don't have much time, only about five or six months to implement. So, I'm glad this is a really good webinar. So in our on the next slide I want to share with you the resources we have available right now. We have resources as it relates to guidance documents. Our YouTube channel has tons of different videos on there.

I know we even go to our YouTube channel just to recreate some of the old information that was shared. we have on our website FAQs, our guidance documents, checklists for all codes, the code changes per code. we have training available either via self-paced and our online training through ZOSI or instructor-led training and I know Mérieux NutriSciences has a training center and so is able to offer that instructor-led training as well. So we have all kinds of information and on the next slide I do want to highlight the guidance documents because we did create some good guidance documents out there top and we did convert to topic specific guidance documents. So we did update these guidance documents to be in a sense evergreen so that they are compatible either to Edition 9 or Edition 10. So no matter what code you're going to be audited to next, we have the guidance documents and we did add new guidance for change management and food safety culture assessment plan. So we do have those available there. And just to emphasize that because we have now everything is posted online. These are also translated into the languages SQF supports.

So, Japanese, Chinese, Traditional and Simplified Chinese, Portuguese, Spanish, Canadian French, and even Italian and Korean. So, we have all kinds of different languages that are supported out there. Okay. next slide. So, what do we want to talk about today? we want to answer your questions. And I see we have a question already regarding the presentation and access to this and to this recording and it will be available and sent to you. So Koo and the marketing team does a fantastic job of making sure you have this information. So a copy of these slides as well as the recording is available and even our previous recordings are available as well if you wanted to watch it. So, we have links to and we'll share that later on, but we have links to our previous recordings so you can look at them as well. So, definitely there. So, tips for preparing to implement Edition 10. we're going to share that and Martin's going to share some of the things that he knows works well being that he started even before edition 5 came out. So, I'm sure you've evolved and really are ready to share some good insights.

We want to clarify some of the Edition 10 requirements that we get questions to and then I want to share with you some new SQF codes that are coming soon. All righty. Next slide. We have a poll question for you. One more or two more poll questions then we'll get into it. So question, what do you even have any concerns regarding Edition 10? I put some of the concerns that I've heard. Maybe you're concerned about the scoring change. Maybe you're concerned about food safety culture assessment plan. Maybe you don't have any concerns. If you do, then put them in the put it in the chat. Let's see what do you have any have you heard of any big concerns, Martin?

Martin Fowell: Yeah. So, I definitely think when it was initially released, I feel like a lot of people had questions on the score, the core clauses, and just really understanding how it would change. And I think SQFI has done a great job of hopefully taking the focus off a number and instead putting it on continuous improvement just doing a good job and having a good audit as as well.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yeah. Yeah. Same. I think we same here. I think the core clauses were maybe misunderstood a little bit and the differences between core clauses and mandatory which there is a difference. So mandatory elements still remain the same. they cannot be exempted. But those core clauses have a different objective and that objective is to identify areas that we believe would lead to recalls or foodborne incidents. So some people scoring but food safety culture assessment. So we're in luck. That is one of our things we're going to be talking about. And a few of you have no concerns and are just here to listen to Martin and I talk and give get some little nuggets out of what we got. Okay, one more question on a scale. Oh, wait. We didn't do the other. Wait, can you go back on the scale of our preparedness? One, I think we skipped a poll question. Koo, just go back one more for poll question two. Yep. On a scale of 1 to 10, how prepared are you for Edition 10? I have a feeling. I don't know. What's your guess on this, Martin? So, I'm going to go with somewhat prepared. That's that's going to be my guess. Yep. I because that's how I feel like I am. I feel like I know a little bit about it.

I I started to, but just not quite quite where I need to be. And we're already talking about training auditors and, kind of trying to decide the timing for that. Do we do it too soon, too late? And so it's I would definitely put myself in somewhat prepared. Yeah, I would be like, yeah, oh my gosh, I was going for six to nine, but you won. I think because I've lived and breathed dead for so long, I'm like, who's not prepared for it? But yeah, I think almost there. That's a good one. somewhat prepared is you're right. I think people most everybody and I would say even if you said zero to three, I think people are more prepared than they think. Yeah, I would agree. I would definitely agree. Yeah. Yeah. Because the changes might look significant, but they're really there are just some few key changes that you need to pay attention to, but for the most part, I think you're more prepared than you think. So, we're going to talk about how do you think we could how you could prepare best, but again, what I wanted. So, next slide. so Martin and I came up with our top we came up with our joint top 10 for Edition 10. So I'm going to let you go first. What do you what your number one? All right.

So my my number one is definite the definitely the changes to the audit rating. I know you've been doing this a long time, and we would so often run into a site where, that they're either a 95 or a 96, and you get in all these discussions about, oh, what is that one non-conformance that puts them over the edge? So, I think getting rid of the audit rating and just going to that, certified certified with surveillance or certified with an unannounced surveillance, I think it's a really good way to put the focus back on driving improvement, having a good audit. And if you get a 90, but it's a good audit, it's probably better than getting a 96 and not having a good audit. So, I really think that it's going to help us take the focus off a score and then put it where it where it needs to be.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yeah, I like that. I like it. I am similar in my number two, but I'll tell you why when I get there. But my number one is actually the vertical audit approach, which we're going to talk about. Somebody had chatted in, hey, can you share how you do a vertical audit? And we are going to talk about that. But the vertical audit approach for me I think is going to be more risk-based, more of an audit. I had somebody they talked to me and they said, "Listen, I we had the worst score we ever had in the history of our organization and it was still a pretty good score in the '9s, right?" And so she she was like, "We had one of the worst scores that we had, but it was the best audit." And that's because the auditor did a vertical audit approach. And so that's the expectation that I want. I want to get to sites that want that want that food safety feedback. And I think the vertical audit approach is a good systematic consistent way of doing that. So that's that's my number one. your number two.

Martin Fowell: So first of all, I do like your number one. I do like the vertical audit approach and I'm hoping I'm hoping it's just an expansion of what auditors are already doing in terms of kind of focusing on specific pieces of information and specific details but I'm excited excited about that. And second one I have was the updated timelines. I know this seems like an odd one but I run into a lot of issues where in the current edition nine sites think that 30 days is the amount of time they have to close corrective actions. and we forget that it also includes the amount of time the auditor needs to review the corrective action to come back with any questions and close things out. So, I really think, giving the site a few more days is really going to help them do a better root cause analysis, hopefully come up with some some better preventive actions and instead of just trying to put a band-aid on the problem, really get to the root cause and really fix what's causing it. So I think that extra 10 days is going to be very helpful for the for the closure of corrective actions.

LeAnn Chuboff: And if you look at where we have our CAPA for root cause, we want you to we want sites to identify the methodology they're using for root cause because we really want them to focus on that root cause. That's going to be just systematic improvement once they do root cause. So that's a good one. I saw that on there and I was like, what's he talking about? But no, that's a good one. That is a good one. for me the change in scoring is so similar to year one where you got rid of the audit rating. For me it is about those core clauses and being more weighted. So I think that is and we did if you look at the scale of the score we did do a good job of expanding that. So I don't think it's going to put anybody at a disadvantage but the core clauses are going to be that emphasis because it is more weighted. if there is a non-conformance there, there needs to be attention called out to it. And so that's for me why I picked the change in score. So similar to you, I liked I like both of them. Yeah, I think it's going to make a big difference in how the auditor conducts the audit and how the audit and how the site receives the audit results. So yeah. Yeah. Number three, so I went with the environmental monitoring program clarification. Mhm.

I know it seemed a little bit obscure. and I, when when I was coming up with my list, I kind of went back and forth on on whether to put it on here, partly because, I think sites hopefully have have already done this, but I think changing the code to say that they need to do a risk-based environmental assessment really helps to kind of clarify what that expectation was. before as an auditor if it just had a risk-based program it's hard to really come to where where did they do the risk assessment and this really formalizes that process I think it also really allows a site to look at the uniqueness that they have so I always say an older facility with open product open exposed product is going to have much different risks than a fully enclosed dairy processing facility that the product's never exposed the age of the facility, the traffic flow patterns, all of these things I think are are are things that should be part of a risk based environmental assessment. and I really like that for Edition 10, it's going to require sites to actually go through that process and think about what's, kind of what's important in in their environment. So that's why I picked that for number three.

No, that's a good one. there's more emphasis on risk assessments and it's not that just environmental monitoring but I know in the food manufacturing code 11.1.1 identifies the risk assessments that are required within the GMP module. so and it's nothing new. It's just it's just organized that way to call it out to make it visible for the site to better understand what those risk what risk assessments are needed. So more attention to risk assessments this go around. My number three was it's similar but a different requirement but it's the enhanced change management. so we now pulled that out as its own unique requirement. It was in there. It was always in I like I said I think it was in addition eight or nine where we put in change management. but it was not formalized. There wasn't a procedure required. So, anytime there was changes in the process, it did need to be documented. but it was specific like if there was a change in a CCP or something, a processing change or whatever, all that needed to be documented, but now it's actually it's its own requirement. So, for us, this was a change based off of the technical working group and the technical working group identified. It wasn't a GFSI change, so it wasn't in there.

And it's funny, neither one of us put food safety culture assessment plan in there, even though I think that was a significant change, but I think for this this was a this this was courageous. that's what I like to say. It's courageous for us to put it in there because this is unique to SQF and it's something that we know will help prevent outbreaks and recalls. So that's why I added it. Mhm. Good one. Number four.

Martin Fowell: For number four, I went with the management review changes. and I added this one. I was actually on a call yesterday with Kim Onet and we're talking about the changes and she made the comment because we were talking about monthly communication versus a man management review and the way she described it is you can get a lot more value from a once a year assessment of the overall performance than from individual monthly communications which are are equally important. we need to have that constant communication. but I think the new version of the code really explains what a management review should be in particular when it talks about the trends related to the food safety management system. I think that's something that a lot of sites are missing right now. they'll review their program, they'll have monthly communications, every month, they talk about complaints, but really once a year taking a step back and, really doing that in-depth trend analysis. identifying, what's happening, what might be going on. and I think the Edition 10 really clarifies it much much better than it was before. So, I'm excited about that.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yeah, I agree. It's more of like an agenda format and it provides some guidance for the site, which I like as well. So, n my number four is the required recall response. And you can tell you're answering yours from an auditor. I'm answering mine from an SQF perspective because I think the required recall response is going to provide to us some of the near misses that we see and how the different training that we need to create or different communications that we need to provide to the site. We're not calling out going to call. So just to be clear, we never call out a site or a particular recall or anything like that. It's very generic whether it's a food sector category or the particular pathogen or allergen or whatever it might be and so we want to we will make it generic and how we want to communicate. So we would never call out a site for a recall or anything but we will get this information and we'll use it to drive continuous improvement at the site. So from us, from my perspective, I like this because I think it will help enhance food safety because we'll kind of have the answers to the test in a sense, .

Martin Fowell: Yep. And hopefully, maybe a year down the road or whatever, we can share that information also and, kind of use it to drive improvement. So that is that is what I like about the recall response is just kind of that consistency and being able to get the data that hopefully helps helps prevent things in the future.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yeah, I see a webinar 365 a year from now. Martin, we're going to share some. All right. Sounds like a plan. Yeah. so the last one I had on my my top 10 list was the core clauses. And you mentioned it a little bit already with the change in scoring, but I do like kind of going through the code and trying to put focus on certain areas to really make sure that they're getting the level of respect or or implementation that they need. So I like the change to core clauses and adding some emphasis to certain clauses.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yeah, absolutely. And our my number five and again it's from SQS per second but we went to a digital code and the digital code experience I think is fantastic one I think it's better organized it's easier access accessible so I've done nothing but use the digital code I don't I printed a code I haven't opened it once so it's all for me it's always I was just online and it's easy to use and I can just for me it's easy the way that I use it. The other thing that I think maybe goes unnoticed except for the fact that now everything is translated. So because we went digital, our codes are automatically translated in the languages we support. No word, no waiting for specific codes to be released. Everything is all their codes are now translated along with the guidance documents and any other digital documents that we have. But you can use your AI agent as well. So you open up the code and you have it open and you have Gemini, Claude, whoever your AI agent and you can ask Gemini where is all the references to training or how can I where are some how do I where do I start with HACCP or anything like that. you can ask your AI agent as it relates to the SQF code and utilize AI a little bit as it relates to SQF.

So the digital code experience I think is something that we need to dive in and explore because this is obviously the future but I love the incorporation of how you can use AI with with our code now. So I think that's pretty neat.

Martin Fowell: Yeah. So, and the different languages.

LeAnn Chuboff: Different languages. of expanding, growing, and Yep. Yes. All righty. Ne. So, let's dive into some of the questions that we have here. and I know we're going to get going on implementing the Edition 10\. So, when we get to the next slide, I just want to ask you, Martin, for what are some of the tips you have? Nope. Yep. for implementing Edition 10 like what are some of the things you think a site could do to start preparing for Edition 10?

Martin Fowell: Yeah. So the first thing I always say, I get this question once in a while and it's really just communicating within the organization what's happening, what the key changes are. just to let everyone know, we want to make sure that the SQF system isn't just a QA manager, running it. they're in charge, but we need the maintenance, we need sanitation, we need senior management. And so I think first of all would be kind of communicating the changes just letting everyone know what's happening helps put them at ease I think. it's a little bit less scary if if people talk about it and if you're upfront with it. the second I I would definitely say training. You mentioned kind of at the beginning the training resources that SQF has. Mary we're a training center as well. So definitely taking advantage of any opportunities like that. These 365 webinars are are incredible, too. Just easy ways to get little pieces of information. and then finally, I would definitely say conducting an internal audit against the Edition 10 requirements. the code's available to download. So, I would say it's never too early to start that internal audit. get other people involved in the internal audit.

So you have different people looking at it, different people interpreting it. but I think that's going to be one of the keys key ways of preparing is doing that internal audit of yourself. Well, and I you have to do it to Edition 10 anyway. So, you might as well do it. You have to do it. So, just do it. SQF has checklists. So, we already have a checklist an Excel checklist that sites can use for that. But they can use the in the vertical audit approach for an internal audit, right? definitely I would recommend it. I think that will help get their staff members a little bit more prepared for it to kind of understand like what kind of questions what kind of records they may need to pull. So definitely I would say the using the vertical audit approach is something that should be done with the with the internal audit.

LeAnn Chuboff: So the next slide actually I did kind of spell out what the vertical audit would look like from our perspective and again it's a you'll be getting this copy of the slide so don't have to write everything down but basically it I would call it almost like an enhanced traceability exercise because it is a traceability exercise that the auditor would be doing but you would be selecting your product like the lot code or the batch or whatever it might be you would choose a product that's shipped that's in commerce because then you can trace it backwards and forwards like you need to be able to do. and what you want to do and so you're going to be looking at all the materials inputs going into it and your outputs and you're going to be looking at all those ingredients, but you would also be including any of your subcontracted processes like your co-manufacturers. You want to make sure that you have all your records involved. you want to make sure that all your policies and procedures are being followed for that particular lot code. Think of SQF certifies product. So, in the end, whatever your site makes, whether it's a cookie or a cracker or honey or soup, it's the product that's certified.

So, what goes into making that product is what you're evaluating within your internal audit. sanitation for the day, your GMP checks for that day, whatever went into that lot code to make that lot. And that's what you would be doing and that's how we would how our expectations are. The other thing we would be adding is a mass balance exercise. So we would want to make sure that everything adds up and you would identify if there was any any variances to that and then obviously keep maintaining your traceability readiness which is also part of the SQF audit. So in your experiences Martin how do you approach a vertical audit? What are your steps as it relates to some of the steps that I've outlined here?

Martin Fowell: Yeah. No, I think this is a great outline. several years ago, it's probably I'd say eight or 10 years ago, we worked with Bill McBride to actually do a vertical. it was a great pilot exercise. Yes, it was edition eight. It was eight, I believe. Yeah. So, it's it's it's been a little while coming, but I'm I'm glad it's finally here. but I was I was talking to someone earlier and what I had done when I did the trial or the pilot audit was actually go to a grocery store. So I started the audit on day one kind of did some programs that evening I went to a grocery store and I bought the product that they were making. and I actually used that lot code to do the vertical audit. and it worked really well. It was a kind of a real life situation. and then just having them pull all of the records that related to it.

So the weight control records, the label checks, the process control points even to the point of selecting some of the people who had done those tasks to make sure that they were trained in how to conduct, how to conduct the label check and so it really, I think it gives us a lot more specific information. and I think it's a really good test of are you really doing everything you say you're doing for this, this particular product. And, I'm glad you mentioned the product certification because I think this is more like what a true product certification would be is looking at that product and checking everything about it. So, it's it's going to be exciting. I'm I'm I'm curious to see how the auditors the rest of the auditors like it as well. So, yeah. so there's questions. somebody just wanted to know if they were doing internal audits, right? like somebody who was it? Jan said, internal audits and risk assessments. I just want to know I'm doing them right. So, how what would you how do if she's doing them right? I know we don't know how she's doing them, but what are some key things that she needs to know to make sure she's doing it right?

Martin Fowell: Yeah. So, I would say, maintaining the independence. So, making sure that you have someone who's not auditing their own work, it's great to, if you have a couple trained people, who know how to do internal audits, definitely using the SQF code, I think, is probably the easiest. it's not the only way to do it, but I really think that forces you to look at at at all the different steps. The other thing I would say is dedicate the time to it. So don't try to work on the internal audit while you're, also trying to do other tasks or or get other stuff done. Really set aside, a couple days and say, what, I'm going to spend these two days doing the internal audit. and then kind of do what an auditor would do. talk to employees, check the records, record your, record positive, evidence as well as, non-conformances. and then also formalize it all. have an opening meeting with with your staff before you start and then at the end a closing meeting kind of to review everything and set up the corrective action plan. I think that's going to help you be successful with with an internal audit.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yeah. Is there anyone in particular that should be doing the internal So there's a question that says DB asks can you clarify who should be completing the internal audits?

Martin Fowell: So I would say a trained individual who has an understanding of what it is. we want to try to make sure that we don't audit our own work. So if if you do have the resources to have at least two people trained in internal audits. the other good approach is using a team. So a lot of times the QA manager might be the person who really has that kind of high level understanding of food safety systems. they might be the team leader but also have other team members who are helping to assess the information, ask questions, get different ideas and I would say be as hard as as hard as you can on yourself as well. yeah because this is this is your opportunity to identify things and fix it before the before the real audit.

LeAnn Chuboff: Do you need all departments? Like should it include so for internal audit Edition 10 who are the members of the audit team? Should it include all departments?

Martin Fowell: I think it should. So my response it's the more the more different perspectives you have I think the better information you're going to get. but also I think it helps the team members learn. So if you have someone from maintenance on the team, they may be learning about, the CCP checks and, they may have some ideas that, other people wouldn't think about. So I would say the more members of the team, the better. and it's just, get as get as much information as you can.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yeah. And you can use your regular internal audit process. You don't it's not a required of the code to use the vertical audit. I was just sharing our approach and Martin sharing his approach. So Margaret asked, "Is it mandatory to use this process?" Not at all, but it is mandatory to have an internal audit to Edition 10. And as we're talking about implementing Oh, and also Carmen says, "Shout out to Bill McBride." So I'm like, "Shout out to Bill." Yes. Excellent. also lot of questions on the implementation date being January. being January and let's say your audit window is December to February, right? You got that 30 days either side and you don't know what to prepare for. So, can you prepare for Edition 10 and still, let's say your audit ends up being Edition 9? Can you prepare for that and not be not have anything any findings to Edition 9 even though you prepared for 10?

Martin Fowell: Yeah. So I think I think the changes for Edition 10 for the most part have been enhancements that make things I don't want to say harder but but kind of make things better. So, I think if you do your assessments a against Edition 10, you're going to have covered everything that would be in in Edition 9\. I know there's one question and I can never remember which one it is that is a little bit different. I think it's the proficiency testing. but if you want to kind of explain the proficiency testing and just that slight difference from from Edition 9 to 10 for that.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yes, I think everything else everything else would be good. Actually, I almost put that as one of my top five is the change to proficiency testing because it was brought to our attention that it we say you have to follow the requirements of ISO/IEC ISO/IEC 17025 I call ISO/IEC 17025 which is about laboratories and so we do and there was a question in here about it says we have to conform to ISO/IEC 17025 do we have a guidance to ISO/IEC 17025 and we do so if you look at I think it's proficiency testing as one of our guidance documents or it's the laboratory. I'll have to look it up and I'll find out. But it is one of our guidance documents. We have the gap assessment, the applicable requirements to ISO/IEC 17025 and how SQF complies with that. So you have to define your laboratory personnel. You have to train your laboratory personnel. You have to have defined methodology as it relates to the testing that you're doing. the frequency is the one thing that changed. So for Edition 9 it says annual proficiency testing, but in ISO/IEC 17025 it's really risk based. It's based off of the test. It's based off of the results of the test or previous whatever your risks factors may be. But we pulled out annual proficiency testing.

So Edition 9 requires annual. So if you're being audited to Edition 9, you would need to have that annual proficiency testing and that's what the auditor would be requiring. If you're being audited to Edition 10, it would be risk-based. So they would want to look at how do you when is your schedule for proficiency testing? How did you determine that etc. So that is one of the key changes between 9 and 10 that we actually dialed back on because of ISO/IEC 17025. But I would agree with you in that there aren't a lot of changes that would that there aren't any changes other than that would spark a non-conformance or anything if you were preparing for Edition 10 but did addition but got audited to Edition 9. But that would be the only one that you would have to do. Yeah. And then there was a comment too. Somebody sent in a question that said there it concerned about the tediousness of modifying our code numbering system. So I know we did make some numbering changes.

We tried to keep the system elements the same, but we I know we did make some changes, but Martin, just a question as an auditor, do they need to have it like does the code need to line up with their policies and procedures or, what would be your advice moving forward preparing for Edition 10 if they're modifying their policies and procedures as they relate to renumbering just in case we have not we're not having a 10.1. I promise you there's no 10.1, but just in case. Yeah.

Martin Fowell: Yeah. So, so it definitely does not have to be numbered according to the SQF or or or any other standard. what I always say is, just making sure that you've when you do your internal audit, you're assessing everything. One good practice I often see is sites will make a like a map of the SQF code to their program number. So, if their policy statement is number 5507, when they do their internal audit, they'll either write that down or or put a hyperlink if they have electronic records. So, that way during the audit, if if the auditor's asking for something, you can look it up what number it is in the code, look at your internal audit, and then see, kind of see where that is with within your program. but to answer the question, I would definitely not re number anything. I would just kind of let the numbers go.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yeah. Yeah. That would be so just from we SQF has to have policies and procedures. Mérieux NutriSciences has policies and procedures and we have GFSI you have ISO and we did honestly we would link ours to the GFSI benchmarking requirement and finally we're like why are we doing this? every time it changes we have to change this policy and procedure. So we wiped that out completely as a reference and now it is more of our internal audit policy and procedure or our internal policy and procedure and not so much one link to a different being. So yeah that would be definitely my recommendation. Okay, next slide is about clarifying some of the Edition 10. in your conversations with sites and just auditors and other stakeholders, what are some of those elements and requirements that you think need clarifying that people think they get it, but you're like, h, I don't think you fully get it. What do you think?

Martin Fowell: So definitely the food safety culture assessment plan. Yeah, is going to be the number one the number one by far. and even myself as an auditor I when when food safety culture first came out I was kind of like ah really what is it how do I how do I really audit as an auditor and so I definitely understand why there's a lot of confusion out there and it is a hard concept to understand but I think if you want to walk through maybe what the expectations would be for that plan the the communication the goals and things like that as as well because I think there is a lot of confusion out there about that.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yeah. So on the next slide we have the requirements. So here's the requirement and some of the things that I wanted to emphasize is this is about the assessment plan. This isn't your food safety culture should have these strategies in place. They should have effective communication strategies. They should have training programs. They should have a feedback mechanism. They should have a regular measurement and evaluation of any of those food safety related activities. So your food safety culture should have these strategies in place and what the assessment plan does is evaluate these strategies to see what you're doing and how successful they are. So it's assessment of these strategies. So in the next slide it does we revert back to the plan do check act so PDCA it's a traditional training guidance that I identifies how you can approach any of these these re big overarching topics and subjects. So just to say we've always had food safety culture in Edition 9. So, but that was only the plan and the do. So, you were planning and identifying your activities.

You were looking at your communication strategies, your training strategies, your feedback mechanisms, and your evaluations and planning how you're going to address these strategies and then you're implementing them, right? You're maybe you have posters on the wall or maybe you have morning huddles as your communication strategies. Your feedback mechanisms could be your complaint box or an employee survey or it could be your daily huddles that say anybody have any questions or anything like that. Right? So that's your do. So you're planning it and you're doing it and that's what you've already done in Edition 9. That's what the auditor was looking for is hey let's evaluate who who's who who goes to you for problems. That's your feedback mechanisms. I'm the practitioner. I'm the bearer of all bad news. Right? So that's what I get. But what's different in Edition 10 is the check in the act part, right? So this is evaluating how successful those strategies are. So you could even in your let's say GMP check. I somebody said, can I do that on a daily GMP check? I'm like, yeah, sure. Maybe you could ask you have daily huddles as a communication strategy. Maybe you could say, what was your huddle about this morning?

And if nobody knows, then maybe that's not a really effective strategy, right? It could be something like that. You could look at somebody said, "I put in a survey, only got 50% responses back, is that going to be good enough?" And the thing is, is it ask the site what is your goal? Maybe next time you want to get 60%. so there could be these strategies that you put into place. And really and truly what we're looking for with this assessment is better understanding of how effective those strategies are. Is your training working? So if you consistently see employees I don't want to say not washing their hands because I don't know if training is the reason why they're not washing their hand but if maybe they're using the wrong work order or maybe they're doing something different. Maybe the training's not working right. So that can be evaluated in a different ways like through your GMPs or your like I said talking to some of the supervisors or whatever it might be. So that's how food safety culture what we're the really getting into clarifying is because a lot of people just think I need to have food safety culture at the site. How is this different from what we had in Edition 9 to where we are in Edition 10.

So Martin as an auditor what what do you think you would be looking for? And if we could go back a slide I just want to refresh everybody of this is the requirement that we have for food safety culture assessment plan. So what would you be looking for in an assessment of the these particular strategies communication training feedback mechanisms? Yeah. So I think looking for possibly having some of those those goals or the targets set up ahead of time. So, I thought that was a great question that popped up in the chat about, only getting a 50% response rate on on the survey. So, I think that would be a great starting point to say, okay, we're at 50% right now. By the end of 2027, we want to have 80% of the people participating in it where that way you could, kind of check to see if if the engagement has gotten better. the communication of the information.

So, I'll often see during an audit, the QA manager, the people I'm working with are able to walk me through the food safety objectives, but when I get out on the floor and start asking the employees, a lot of times they don't know, they're like, "We don't know what our complaints are." So, I think the communication piece of the plan, but then also the evaluation of it and what are we doing? How are things getting better? I think that's kind of a couple key things I would look for.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yeah. And it would have to be documented because it does say it has to be documented. Yeah. So I just we can't say oh we talk about that in our monthly practitioner meeting or whatever. It does it would have definitely have to be documented implemented and maintained. So if you see any anomalies or if you see where there's improvements or if you see where there's even successes is I asked 10 out of 10 employees knew what the daily huddle topic was today. That's success. It's working right. So I think you need to make sure that it's documented for sure. Yeah, that's some of the one of the things that sometimes often gets overlooked. some question go ahead. Yeah.

Martin Fowell: Also included in the management review making sure that's part of senior management review as well. Yep. No, that's a that's a really good point there. a lot of questions about the implementation. There's not a lot, but there's a couple questions about the implementation date, and I did want to clarify it before we move on. but the implementation date is going to be January. That means audits will be effective in January. So again, our target is January 2nd, but it will be there. what we are waiting for benchmarking notification from GFSI prior to release prior to implementing any Edition 10 changes. So or prior to audits to Edition 10. So we don't want any certificates out there that aren't recognized by GFSI. Our retailers and your buyers, there's a reason why they want GFSI and they want our codes recognized by GFSI. So, we're undergoing that benchmarking process right now. Again, it looks like we will be on target to meet that January deadline. So, we're not we're not moving that January deadline. I can guarantee you they won't be before January, but I would, anticipate January being that deadline as it relates to the implementation of Edition 10.

And then there there's a question about do we need to have an internal audit to Edition 10 if our audit is within a week or two of the implementation. If you're getting audited to Edition 9, feel free to get audit Edition 9. do your internal audit to Edition 9. Just know that if you're being audited to Edition 10, the expectation is that audit would be to Edition 10. That's the code you're under, right? So the checklist has to match the code that you're under and that would be Edition 10\. So you don't have to do it to Edition 10 if you're going to be audited to Edition 9. You don't have to do a vertical audit, but you do have to do an internal audit. So yeah. and just to clarify the we did we have I know the question is well once you establish the implementation date then do we have 6 months after that implementation and the answer is no. Once that implementation date is established which we're shooting for January that's when that would date would due. So if you're if you get audited, so all audits would commence on that implementation date to Edition 10.

If you are audited to Edition 9 and you received a surveillance audit that just happens to fall in the Edition 10 window, you would be audited to that surveillance audit would be to Edition 9. You don't have to switch codes during a surveillance audit. That certificate would be recognized for an entire year to Edition 9. And that's what that's the intent of that. So the surveillance audit would be in there as well. let's see. is there the question here is there a back to food safety culture. Is there a requirement or recommendation on how often to do the assessment food safety culture assessment? Would you have a recommendation on that Martin? So I would definitely say not less than annually. but also I would kind of base it on risk and in and what you're seeing. So, if you are seeing that there are some issues with communication or or or maybe you're you're getting that feeling that the staff members aren't engaged, then I think more often is better than than less often. it gives you more information, it gives you more details. and there are a lot of, tools that you can use to kind of help with with the assessments as well.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yeah. Yeah. That's what I think it's an SQF favorite, which is it depends. I think it just it depends on the what your assessment strategy. It depends on what you're looking at. posters on the wall, anything that's there. They did a study actually, and I don't know the answer to it, but they did a study that says soon the posters on the wall that remind employees to wash their hands just is just another piece of the wall after a time. So, not changing out the posters or whatever. So there needs to be something if your communication strategy is a poster on the wall and measuring that effectiveness. So maybe when you over time, you might do a one month, three month, six month, understanding if people are still recognizing that. Yeah. so you don't have to do two internal audits unless again it would be to the to the code you would be audited to. So, right now, January 2nd is our implementation date, and that's what I would stick to for now. And that's kind of where we're going. And there are some like there's a question about what if GFSI identifies some of the some gaps, and we are undergoing that right now. And from what we can tell, they're minimal.

And there may be some some gaps that were identified, but it would be minimal and not definitely nothing that would be a program change or anything like that. So, right now, again, January 2nd is what what we're targeting for as it relates. let's see. Where could we find tools and examples to develop, implement, and record food safety culture assessment? So, one thing that I know we have is in our SQF advanced practitioner course. the SQF practitioner course, we updated it to Edition 10. And I believe Martin, you probably offer that at Mérieux NutriSciences in training. So, I know our practitioner course has some helpful documentation and whatnot, but I don't know if Mérieux NutriSciences has anything that's out there.

Martin Fowell: Yeah. So we actually have recently developed it, and I'm not an expert in it, so I hesitate to say too much about it. but we have kind of developed a tool that you could use to help with the with the assessment. I'd also definitely recommend looking at the guidance documents. It's LeAnn mentioned those at the beginning and I do think there's a lot of really good information there that can get you started started in the right direction. Yep. one question I didn't mean to skip over but the question is about the change to the requirement to the SQF practitioner being on site at the site not so much on site but at the site while those practitioner duties are being performed. So it's about the practitioner which is at the site which typically everybody has but the backup practitioner. So just to clarify that expectation is that as long as that backup practitioner is at the site then that would be it. And when the when their duties are being performed if the backup practitioner is somewhere else and they're not the primary practitioner for the most part then they don't have to be at the site. So just to clarify that, I don't know, Martin if you have any other insights on that one, but we get a lot of questions about that practitioner.

Yeah. And I think, for that one, what I always say is making sure the practitioner is available to do what they need to do. So if an employee has a question, we need the SQF practitioner there and interacting with the staff on a on a regular basis. Y let's see. I think I we have I think we have most of the questions answered. proficiency testing we answered. just one quick question is what is the best approach to have employees understand the importance of SQF? Do you have an approach for that? That's a hard one.

Martin Fowell: That is a hard one. I think getting them involved Yeah,

LeAnn Chuboff: I like that. Getting them involved in explaining the why. So, I think if you explain why they're doing the job that they're doing, understanding and you don't have to get into pathogens and how viruses replicate or anything like that, but you I think understanding why their particular job, how it relates to them. Is it? Yeah. Yeah. Just real quick, and I know we have three minutes. can you go back to slides to the brokers and agents? I do want to talk about two new codes. agents and brokers. It's released now. So it's available. Brokers and agents code is available. And this is for any organization that buys and sells food, not stores. If they store food, they buy store sell food at their storage and distribution center. But agents and brokers are buying and selling food. And the next new code that we have, next slide please, is on food safety services. So this is regarding laundry providers, pest control operators and let's see reusable agricultural containers. They sat on this working group because they're like we are a service provider and we want to get certified by SQF. And so this would be recognized by GFSI. We're going to apply for benchmarking next year, but we are launching this code August 1st.

So, real last question for you, Martin, right now is Mérieux NutriSciences going to do are are you offering audits in either one of these codes, agents and brokers or food safety services? Well, we are we are definitely on board with it. agents and brokers, we actually our Australia team used to do quite quite a lot of the agent and brokers. It was much much more popular there. so we are we are definitely doing them.

LeAnn Chuboff: Excellent. Excellent. Happy to hear that. So if there's anything we can do to support you in that. Yes. So one quick question. last question. Erin said needed clarification on Edition 9 and 10 again. can we still use Edition 9 if audit is in February? Can they accept Edition 9 for the internal audit? If your audit's in February, you would probably need to do your internal audit to Edition 10 cuz my guess is we will have our implementation date would be in in by then. So I would do it to Edition 10. Martin, if they did the checklist to Edition 9 to 10 and it was an Edition 9 audit, you would would that would be acceptable?

Martin Fowell: Yeah, that would be acceptable. Yep.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yes, everything. Everything's covered. Nothing's changed except for proficiency testing, but we just discussed that. So, even if you prepared for 10 and the audit was to nine, you would be fine as well. Yep. Even your unannounced audits. yeah, your unannounced audits. So, I would prepare for 10 at that versus nine. Yeah. Yeah. okay, so another question. this is their first webinar for Edition 10 and no and they need a basic summary and I know Koo is going to put in the chat a link to all of our previous webinars. So there are a lot there is a lot of information that's out there for Edition 10. I would look at the code change documents. I would look at these previous webinars. I would look at the the previous 365 webinars that are out there. So feel free to go there. And I know we're out of time. It's exactly 1:00. hopefully you can join us on July 29th. We have our next 365 webinar, the power of role-based training. It is with WorkForge and Laura Dunn Nelson is will be the sponsor and the presenter with along with Kristie Grzywinski who runs our training. So, join us on July 29th. And Koo, our marketing guru, just put in there the links to the webinars and the link to our recent training on Edition 10.

And with that, thank you so much for attending. We appreciate all your questions. And Martin, thank you for joining this webinar and sharing all your insights. I appreciate you very much.

Martin Fowell: My pleasure. I'm excited. Exciting to see it implemented.

LeAnn Chuboff: Yes, same. Yes. Thank you so much everybody. Have a great day. Bye.