![]() ![]() Sometimes including people in the discussion and getting them to think about consequences will get them to be more at ease with a policy change. ![]() Ask them what they think the best way to handle a potential contamination from an unsealed load would be and what they would do if they had a recall due to contamination from a failure in the food defense program. You could try getting together with the team you need to discuss this matter with, and put together a few hypothetical situations. Some testing is also very expensive and time consuming. ![]() It is fairly difficult to test for contamination especially if you don't know what the contamination would be (if it even exists). The reasoning is just as you said a load without a seal is damaged. It's often times hard for me to get cooperation, and rejecting shipments usually turns into a drawn out discussion. I understand the issue of getting people on board with load rejection internally. If you reject a couple of shipments for seal issues, I would be inclined to think those suppliers/carriers would be more careful in the future. It's part of food defense to have seals on shipments, and I wouldn't think you'd have a hard time with the carriers complying with that. I've had a few loads of product with the incorrect seal number written down, or even more seals on the truck than what they had written down. ![]() I had an instance where the FTL arrived sealed, but the product in totes didn't (which was very interesting). Pretty much all of our carriers comply I've only had once instance of a truck arriving without a seal on a port (and that was just one instance out of the hundreds - if not thousands of loads we've gotten from that specific supplier). Even those should be rejected but I suppose you can design your own policy that determines what to do in the event that happens. For LTLs and FTLs that are not of the tanker sort, you're probably going to end up with a lot of discussion internally about the product being safe because it's sealed or wrapped securely. If there is no seal outright (especially on tankers), the load is rejected. If they can't confirm, then the load will be rejected. If the wrong seal number is written down for incoming trucks, but the port or door is locked, I will give the company a call and confirm what seals were on the outgoing truck. We're a small BRC certified company, and we do require all incoming and outgoing shipments on LTLs and FTLs to be sealed. They, operations and invnetory are afraid the carriers will refuse to comply.Īny assistance/ suggestions would be appreciated, I'm tired of having this argument and banging my head against the wall every single year. They just want to make it a suggestion where we monitor it but show no recourse for not following the procedure. I say it is the same as if the product is damaged, we wouldn't accept it, or if the trailer was filthy, so I say if we make a policy that states locks/seals are mandatory that the carriers will either comply or be sent away we should stick to it. Has anybody else had to deal with this and if so, how did you resolve it? I am receiving a lot of negativity from our operations and inventory sector, (naturally) because they don't want to turn a truck away if it doesn't have the proper locks/seals. Every audit we receive, whether it be an SQF audit or from a customer, they all say the same thing, trucks should be sealed/locked when entering and exiting, even partial shipments. We are a small company and SQF Level 2 certified. Every year we have the same debate after our annual audit and every year I hear, "We can't do that." I am talking about requiring locks/seals on LTL shipments to and from our facility. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |