FEATURE Food & beverage
REGULAR REVIEWS REDUCE RISKS
Fortress Technology explores
M
ost food safety assurance systems rely on robust Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)
programmes. But how do you verify that the steps you have taken to ensure conformance to food safety standards are working? Can you wait until the next periodic audit, or should you act sooner?
Successful, industry-leading food manufacturers regularly use audits to identify gaps and potential risks and verify strengthen customer trust and satisfaction. Performed internally, or by a knowledgeable food safety consultant, a typical audit review can last up to three hours depending on the size of the organisation.
Inspection or audit: What is the A food inspection and a food safety audit can both help to improve operational performance. They also both assess conformance to set standards. There are, A food safety audit is a systematic evaluation of food factory documentation to determine if food safety practices, programmes and related activities, including procedures and record keeping, are meeting expectations. Generally, an auditor looks at data over a set time period to see if positive or negative trends are developing. In comparison, food safety inspections
provide a thorough physical review of a food facility to assess what is actually happening in production during a precise moment in time. This snapshot – typically lasting between two and four days – gives a realistic assessment of conditions. These can be both positive and negative.
When inspecting a Critical Control Point (CCP), an inspector may look for any potential contaminant events that if left unaddressed could prompt an investigation. of a HACCP plan and ensure it is being
22 July/August 2025 | Automation
implemented correctly. The Food Standards Agency evaluates and local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although food safety audits are not a legal requirement, by conducting internal or external audits, food processors can be assured their processes standards.
Addressing non-compliance Poor record-keeping and non-compliance with established Food Safety Plans are some of the top reasons that food and beverage manufacturers fail their audits. In audit terms, a non-conformance issue simply needs to be addressed in order to comply with food safety rules, regulations and supplier contractual obligations. For example, when equipment and surfaces deteriorate, they can present a possible contamination risk. Auditing highlights these issues and ensures they are resolved before an inspection. In order to assess performance and knowledge of good manufacturing practices, a Traceability Performance Assessment can also be conducted. This timed traceability recall exercise can be added to any GMP inspection and helps to promote food safety
An audit checklist should cover all practices and HACCP compliance. Most
auditors will expect to examine documentation, records, premises, practices, equipment, and processes. Signs of pest infestation, hygiene protocols, temperature control, and food handler and machine operative training and competence will all be scrutinised. To assist food manufacturers, Fortress published a typical audit-conformance checklist in its Food Equipment Audits Whitepaper. Download a free copy from
https://fortresstechnology.co.uk/food- equipment-audits/.
Post-audit, the successes and non-compliances course of action to address and prevent future non- conformances is established, food processors can implement these changes.
standards should be followed. Particularly the testing of industrial food metal detectors.
Regular risk assessment Given the numerous critical control points in a processing plant, Fortress advises routinely and systematically revisiting potential hygiene and contamination hazards as part of a regular risk assessment and food safety programme. “Food safety is reliant on continuous
quality,” emphasised Fortress Technology Sales Director, Phil Brown.
Fortress Technology
www.fortresstechnology.co.uk
automationmagazine.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40