By: Stephanie Stephen  

2.28.2019

Topic: Quality    

With the digitalization of documentation these days, it can be challenging to understand exactly what is needed when a “signature” is requested. Sometimes it is simply typing a person’s name in a box, when other times it is required to provide an actual hand-written signature. Whether this is on a contract or something as simple as an attendance sheet, the purpose of a ‘signature’ is to provide evidence of acknowledgement for a specific document to maintain its authenticity.

In order to maintain document authenticity, there are some helpful points to consider. In cases where a wet signature (ink on paper) is necessary, like on a contract or attendance sheet, free smartphone applications like Tiny Scanner make it easy to snap a photo of the document directly into PDF. If the signature is required within a database that requires a private login and password, it is sometimes acceptable to use a typed “signatures” on non-contractual documents such as internal audit reports sent through email or uploaded to internal databases.

If one does not have access to a stylus to hand-write signatures electronically, there are also online signature services such as mylivesignature.com, which have tools and resources to help create a personalized signature. Having a unique signature can eliminate the confusion about whether or not a typed font will be acceptable and prevent the “back and forth” of getting documents signed and completed in a timely manner. With these tools, one can create a unique signature for all digital documents that can easily be inserted into word, excel, PDF and other formats.

Finally, there are times when documents are deemed incomplete due to the appropriate signature not be obtained. This means that the signature that was given may have been done electronically when in fact a handwritten signature was required. For the sake of being environmentally friendly and avoiding printing, there are options such as Adobe Acrobat’s “fill and sign” option, in which case a signature can be added via photo, unique typed signature font, or stamped electronic signature requiring a pin to access for more security and protection from copying.

The topic of signatures is evolving so continuously with the rapid developments in technology and security. For this reason, we find it necessary to discuss and provide resources for safe and effective ways to get documents signed so that this one aspect does not slow business processes. Whatever the case may be, we are willing to help ensure our documents are safe and meet the requirements of each situation to provide a smooth cooperation effort.

By: Lisa Perry & Praveen Yerramsetti

1.29.2019

Topic: Food Safety

BRC announced it would be updating to version 8 in August 2018, which will then go into effect February 01, 2019. This new version encompasses changes in order to integrate the GFSI (Global Food Standard Initiative) and the FSMA (Food Safety Modernization Act) rules. With these new changes, we feel it is important for everyone to be as prepared as possible.

One major change that BRC has implemented is that there are now nine sections instead of the previous seven sections for auditing. The two new sections are 'Production Risk Zones' and ‘Traded Goods’. ‘Production Risk Zones’ cover High Risk, High Care and Ambient High Care Requirements and ‘Traded Goods’ includes items that are stored at a facility but not manufactured there.

Other additions to the standard includes measuring the food safety culture of the site, incorporating Pet Food Manufacturing, more robust food defense, cyber security measures, added requirements for assessing the food safety hazards on the HACCP plans, a more comprehensive pest management requirements and adopting a whistle-blower reporting system.

The BRC standard now features additional color-coding options to help auditors and the site personnel in preparation for the audit.

In addition, the BRC has added voluntary modules such as:

1. Meat Supply Chain

2. Gluten Free

3. Global GAP

4. FSMA Preparedness

If you or someone you know is interested in BRC Certification please contact us at: request-us@tuv-nord.com or call us at PH: 844-488-8872

2.28.2018

By: Lori Carlson & Paul Fallaw

Topic: Food Safety

Maintaining compliance with the requirements of a Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) benchmarked scheme is a long-term marriage between the site, its elected certification body (CB), and the scheme owner; once the commitment is made, you’re in it for the long haul. Four popular schemes available to food manufacturers include the BRC Global Standard for Food Safety, Food Safety System Certification (FSSC) 22000, International Featured Standards (IFS) Food standard, and Safe Quality Foods (SQF) Food Safety Code for Manufacturing.

Each scheme is fundamentally similar as it is based on a core set of minimum standards established by the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements document (also known as the GFSI Guidance Document). This provides a framework for scheme owners (also known as certification program owners or CPOs) in establishing and maintaining certification standards and audit protocols, which result in certified food safety management systems (FSMS) of similar quality and effectiveness. At the most basic level, the benchmarking document requires scheme owners to develop standards that contain a core set of FSMS programs based on current, global regulation/ guidance and industry best practices. Notably, some of these programs include a food safety (HACCP) plan, good manufacturing practices (GMPs), food defense plan, food fraud vulnerability assessment, and supplier management program. However, each scheme offers a unique structure, set of requirements, and protocol for assessing a manufacturing site’s food safety system to meet both GFSI requirements and scheme stakeholder input. continue reading...

12.21.2017
By: Lori Carlson & Paul Fallaw 
Topic: Food Safety

Issue 8 of BRC’s Food Safety Standard is out for public comment and TUV USA is excited about the proposed new changes! At first glance, it’s hard to miss new sections 8 and 9 and about two dozen new clauses, but what results is a food safety management standard improved in the areas of efficiency, functionality, and consolidated industry best practices. Are you curious about issue 8, new requirements, and how to get involved and comment? Read on as TUV highlights some of our key takeaways from the upgraded Standard.

While two new sections may seem daunting at first glance, BRC has its stakeholders’ best interests at heart with streamlined efficiency and enhanced competency in food safety management and certification. All high risk, high care, and ambient high care requirements are now centralized in section 8, which lends itself to more focused management and auditing against high risk/ high care requirements where applicable. Section 9 incorporates voluntary module, Traded Goods, which is now under the framework of an accredited standard providing increased confidence in the certificated module. While section 9 remains voluntary in issue 8, non-conformities assigned against section 9 requirements will now be included in a site’s audit grade. keep reading..

11.15.2017
By: Lori Carlson & Ashley Smejkal 
Topic: Food Safety

Over the past five years, the U.S. food industry—and those supplying the U.S.—have seen regulatory expansion in food production and handling systems with the advent of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). But, what impact have the mandated controls and management system requirements had on keeping contaminated food out of the marketplace. As 2018 draws near, TUV USA was curious to examine Class I recall trends of the past five years as a barometer of enhanced food safety management success.

Since 2013 (pre-FSMA implementation), the number of Class I recall events has steadily climbed, including the number of recalls for (potential) contamination from Listeria monocytogenes, which remains on the rise in 2017.   read more... 

10.12.2017
By: Lori Carlson & Ashley Smejkal 
Topic: Food Safety

In last month’s white paper, Managing cross-contamination and cross-contact across the food supply chain, TUV USA touched on cross-contact risks and controls for identity preserved foods. In this month’s newsletter, we are expanding the discussion by focusing on those elements of identity preservation (IP) systems aimed at preventing cross-contact, commingling, mislabeling, and false claims.

Generally speaking, IP systems reflect practices, which ensure the purity and integrity of a food commodity or product.* This includes organic, non-GMO and gluten-free production systems. At first glance, components of an IP system may seem adjunct to a food safety management system (FSMS) where the primary focus is the production of food, which ensures consumer safety. Rather, these systems are natural partners and should be aligned for maximum effectiveness as both build off of supply chain transparency (i.e., visibility across supply chain operations beyond tier-1 suppliers). READ MORE ⇒

10.11.17
By Katie Lehoulier
Topic: Training Academy

Companies increasingly require employees with proven knowledge specifically tailored to their functions within the organization. Investing in your employee shows how you value them as a worker and certifies a person's competence to perform certain practices. Here are 5 reasons why investing in your employees training is essential to growth and successful in your business.  Read More...