Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
NOTICE OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
ABC AUDITNG COMPANY, Washington DC
Name of Auditee:
Ed Range Produce Co.
Date:
January 15, 2008
Auditor Name:
Ken Petersen
OBSERVATION:
During a records review of Ed Range Produce Co.'s restroom cleaning schedule, records indicate
that the restrooms were only cleaned 1 time a day for the period December 15, 2007, to present.
Records indicated that the maintenance supervisor performed this function and initialed the
“Restroom Cleaning Log” when the task was completed. When the maintenance supervisor was
interviewed, he indicated that he did only clean the bathrooms once daily during the time frame
above. When auditor showed maintenance supervisor the restroom cleaning policy (page 7 of
the Ed Range Produce Co SOP Manual) which states the restrooms are to be cleaned every hour,
he stated that the policy had been changed and the SOP guide had not been updated.
Auditor Signature:
Kenneth S. Petersen
ate:
January 15, 2008
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN: (
To be completed by Auditee)
Based on the auditor's observations listed above, the following corrective actions were taken:
1.
The restroom cleaning policy had been changed December 15, 2007. Verbal instructions
were given to maintenance supervisor on December 15
th
, however the SOP Guide had not
been properly updated. The new restroom cleaning policy has been updated in the SOP
guide and copies distributed to all maintenance personnel who perform that job function.
2.
Management has been reminded that any verbal changes to company policy must be
documented in the company's food safety plan. All supervisors were also notified that if
verbal instructions that supersede written company policy are not followed up with new
written instructions within 7 days, the incidents are to be reported to the Vice President of
Operations.
Signature:
Ed Range
Date:
January 17, 2007
Figure 17.2.
An example of Notice of Correction Action.
not know they were required to wear hairnets, or that the auditee is not supplying
enough hairnets for the number of employees in the fi eld. The root - cause corrective
action would have to examine the implementation of this policy and make sure that
training is provided to employees; that employees are made aware of, understand, and
abide by the policy; and that the supply of hairnets is suffi cient to ensure compliance
with the audit standard.
Conclusions
Third-party audits are an important component of modern food safety policy. These
voluntary, nonregulatory audits serve as tools for major retailers, food service provid-
ers, and government agencies to verify that the fruits and vegetables they purchase
are grown under established good agricultural practices. They are not in themselves
guarantors that produce is always safe, but they do give some assurances that produc-
