Inspections versus audits

[Robert W. Powitz]

Over the past several months, the thread of discussion on inspection/audit seems to take on a life of its own, depending upon the current view of the world of food safety.  We banter about the words inspection and audit and use the terms interchangeably to meet our needs.   In popular parlance, an inspection is noting violations on a check-sheet, whereas an audit takes its time to detail the observations.  This is not necessarily so.  In reality and by definition, there are four distinct types of inspections; each with a few sub-types depending on need and expediency.  In an attempt to sort out their differences and get us to use the proper term for the proper setting, here is a brief description of each:   Forensic and Investigative inspection – in this type of inspection, the background information is known; it is relatively detailed and focused, as are the reports; it uses specific instrumentation and sampling criteria, and there are no surprises or time constraint.   Regulatory or Compliance inspection – This is the “classic” inspection form we have all grown to know and love.  While the regulatory or compliance inspection is impartial (or should be), it is not always objective (most of the criteria and observations follow a Boolean logic).  It is formally structured (via a check sheet or some variant thereof) and broad in scope, and, there are usually time constraints in their completion.  A variant of the regulatory inspection is a multimedia inspection (e.g. Food Code + OSHA + Building Code).  This type of inspection is more risk based and yields an integrated report; making it more of a win-win for both the regulated and the regulator.   Audit – the audit is a highly structured inspection.  It uses a formal approach to evaluate a product, system or process.  It has defined methodology and follows a sequential order of activities without a time constraint.  It is impartial and objective through the use of pre-determined criteria such as HACCP, ISO or criteria set up by the entity being audited. Therefore, an audit is a process of investigation and examining evidence to determine whether agreed-upon requirements are being met.  The criteria of an audit are quite different from a regulatory inspection and  I seriously doubt that the regulatory community can afford the luxury of routinely conducting audits.     Evaluation – And finally, there’s the evaluation which is performance based and goal oriented inspection.  It is the most subjective of all inspection categories because it relies on personal expertise (and biases).  It does not use a defined methodology; there is no sequential order of activities and it’s generally performed by experts and consultants.  Because evaluations are open-ended, their outcomes are quite different from that of any other inspection type; oftentimes resulting in considerable changes to the product, system or process … and ultimately changing the audit criteria of the entity being evaluated.  Evaluations are generally the most costly.

[Robert A LaBudde]

Perhaps you could increase your font size or use
highlighting. I find your post difficult to read. Perhaps all capitals?

At 11:32 AM 8/27/2010, Robert W. Powitz wrote:

>
>Over the past several months, the thread of
>discussion on inspection/audit seems to take on
>a life of its own, depending upon the current
>view of the world of food safety. We banter
>about the words inspection and audit and use the
>terms interchangeably to meet our needs. In
>popular parlance, an inspection is noting
>violations on a check-sheet, whereas an audit
>takes its time to detail the observations. This
>is not necessarily so. In reality and by
>definition, there are four distinct types of
>inspections; each with a few sub-types depending
>on need and expediency. In an attempt to sort
>out their differences and get us to use the
>proper term for the proper setting, here is a brief description of each:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Forensic and Investigative inspection – in this
>type of inspection, the background information
>is known; it is relatively detailed and focused,
>as are the reports; it uses specific
>instrumentation and sampling criteria, and there
>are no surprises or time

>constraint.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

>--
>You received this message because you subscribed to the "Foodsafe" group.
>To post to this group, send email to Foodsa...@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>Foodsafe-lis...@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
><http://groups.google.com/group/Foodsafe-list?hl=en>http://groups.google.com/group/Foodsafe-list?hl=en
>If you're having problems with the list, contact
>Cindy Roberts at foodsa...@gmail.com

================================================================
Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS e-mail: r...@lcfltd.com
Least Cost Formulations, Ltd. URL: http://lcfltd.com/
824 Timberlake Drive Tel: 757-467-0954
Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3239 Fax: 757-467-2947

"Vere scire est per causas scire"
================================================================

[Roy Costa]

Hi Robert and Pete: Nice descriptions. Thinking this thru, we have an inspection that uses static criteria, ie Food Code, one that uses a process approach the audit, one that is an investigation (but the investigation might also use both the standard criteria of code and the application thereof (process approach). The evaluation one I kind of get, this is what we call a GAP study where we evaluate the food safety needs of the organization and how the food safety management system functions to accomplish that need. I am not sure in reality of the cost. But the regulatory inspection is probably costs the most and the investigation the most costly. I have developed a very detailed GAP assessment tool to use in understanding the food safety system components in a retail establishment, it can be modified for light manufacturing and small processors. I make it available to anyone who can use it.
 
Pete's point of view of verification is valid. We have to test food safety knowledge. The beauty of HACCP verification is that the CCP operator must answer questions and demonstrate competence in running whatever test they run, and the manager must demonstrate how he trained his employees in HACCP. If they have proper training the CCP operator should be able to answer everything critical about their role in HACCP. And as I said in my early comments, it can be complicated information to ferret out in a processing environment.
 
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A. Public Health Sanitarian Consultant Environ Health Associates, Inc 1.386.734.5187 www.haccptraining.org www.safefoods.tv rco...@cfl.rr.com


 

---

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:32:51 -0700
From: pow...@sanitarian.com
Subject: [Foodsafe] Inspections versus audits
To: food-la...@googlegroups.com; foodsa...@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you subscribed to the "Foodsafe" group.
To post to this group, send email to Foodsa...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Foodsafe-lis...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Foodsafe-list?hl=en

[Robert W. Powitz]

Hi Roy and Pete, Pete's comments are spot on.  I purposely didn't elaborate on the categories of inspection, but rather left it to the rest of the the list serve denizens to fill in the details of what should or shouldn't be to . Have a great weekend, Bob Powitz Robert W. Powitz, PhD, MPH, RS, DLAAS: Forensic Sanitarian R.W.Powitz & Associates, PC P.O. Box 502, Old Saybrook, CT 06475-0502 Office (860) 388-0893, Mobile (860) 395-9214 Email: Pow...@sanitarian.com Web: www.sanitarian.com --- On Fri, 8/27/10, Roy Costa <roye...@hotmail.com> wrote: