ISO 22000 internal auditor training with FSSC 22000 Version 7

Starts with a question: how do you know your food safety controls really work, when the honest answer is often that the records are signed? After a self-rating, three major cases follow: Salmonella found in a buttermilk tank at Ferrero's chocolate plant in Arlon, Belgium, in December 2021; an ingredient faked for money; and repeated sanitation problems at Boar's Head's deli meat plant in Virginia. Each gives an auditor a question to ask, such as what happens to product made since the last good result. You then meet Riverside Snacks, a snack manufacturer in Bangkok on three shifts, plus a dairy in Sydney and an airline catering kitchen in Dubai. The module explains clause 9.2, outlines the twenty-seven modules in seven parts, and ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Explain why a food safety internal audit is worth what it finds
• Turn a major food safety case into questions an auditor would ask
• Describe the company the course audits and how the course works

Why it matters

Auditing the floor, not just the files, finds failing food safety controls before a pathogen or recall does.

Practice: Practice: Welcome: why food safety internal audit matters · 3 questions

Opens with a new Riverside auditor who built her checklist from ISO 22000 alone, then saw the certification body raise findings on the pest control trap map and the food fraud plan, both from other layers of FSSC 22000. You then learn how ISO 22000:2018 is built: ten clauses, the PDCA cycle at two levels, and risk at two levels, organisational in clause 6 and hazards in clause 8, with hazard analysis based on the HACCP principles, OPRPs, CCPs and the hazard control plan. The module explains the three layers of FSSC 22000: ISO 22000, the sector's PRP standards chosen by food chain category in Table 1, and the additional requirements, such as section 2.5.16. A packaging film maker in Frankfurt shows the scope. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Explain the structure of ISO 22000:2018 and its two PDCA levels
• Describe the three layers of FSSC 22000 audit criteria
• Identify which PRP standard applies from the food chain category

Why it matters

Knowing all three layers means your checklist covers what the certification body will check, not just ISO 22000.

Practice: Practice: ISO 22000:2018 and the FSSC 22000 scheme · 3 questions

Starts with Riverside's old internal audit checklist, which still quotes the 2009 technical specification for food manufacturing, while the scheme now names two documents of 2025. You then learn that the PRP series was rebuilt in 2025: ISO 22002-100 for everyone, plus the part for your sector, such as ISO 22002-1 clause 17 on rework. The module explains the clearer food chain categories, with a dairy in Sydney in subcategory CI and the one exception for subcategory FII, and Part 2's eighteen headings, reading the brackets to see which apply, such as environmental monitoring. It shows how food defence and food fraud now fit across the layers, with an extra point for brokers and traders. It ends with upgrade audits from May 2027 to April 2028, and a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Explain how the ISO 22002 PRP series changed in 2025
• Identify which FSSC 22000 Part 2 headings apply to a site
• Update an internal audit checklist to FSSC 22000 Version 7

Why it matters

Auditing to the version you are certified to stops an old checklist missing requirements that have moved or are new.

Practice: Practice: What changed in FSSC 22000 Version 7 · 3 questions

Opens in Riverside's packing hall, where a supervisor says the roaster is validated daily by checking its temperature chart, and that a failed metal detector test is not serious because it is an OPRP. Both sentences misuse the standard's words, and the second could let unsafe product leave the plant. You then learn the key terms the way an auditor uses them: a hazard and risk, prerequisite programmes in clause 3.35, acceptable level in clause 3.1, and control measures managed as OPRPs with action criteria or at CCPs with critical limits. You see how Riverside's food safety team categorised four control measures. The module explains validation before, monitoring during and verification after, and why a correction is not a corrective action under clause 3.10. A seafood processor in Tokyo repeats the language. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Tell validation, monitoring and verification apart
• Explain how OPRPs and CCPs differ in action criteria and critical limits
• Distinguish a correction from a corrective action

Why it matters

Using the standard's words correctly stops a misused term from letting unsafe product leave the plant.

Practice: Practice: The language of food safety, for auditors · 3 questions

Starts with what the certification body found at Riverside two years ago: twelve internal audits done on time with neat reports filed in the QA office, but never seen by the food safety team, while seasoning sieve findings sat open. You then learn clause 9.2 requirement by requirement: whether the system conforms and works, a programme that considers importance, changes and previous results, impartial and competent auditors, and results reported to the food safety team and relevant management. The module covers follow-up that verifies actions and reports the results, clause 10.3 evaluation, and what FSSC 22000 adds, quality elements in every audit scope and multi-site rules. A small bakery in Paris and a beverage plant in Mumbai repeating the same audits show common gaps. It ends with a sample finding and a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Explain each ISO 22000 clause 9.2 internal audit requirement
• Check that audit results reach the food safety team
• Describe what FSSC 22000 adds to internal audit scope

Why it matters

An audit only counts when its results are used, so reporting to the food safety team turns findings into action.

Practice: Practice: What is required of internal audits · 3 questions

Begins with the guidance itself: ISO 19011:2026, the fourth edition published in May 2026, replacing the 2018 edition, guidance rather than requirements, with the requirement to audit in ISO 22000 clause 9.2 and its note pointing to ISO 19011. You then learn the language of auditing: criteria, such as Riverside's metal detection procedure requiring an hourly test with test pieces, evidence, findings and conclusions, including when the statement and record disagree with what you see. The module covers how findings can also identify risks, opportunities and good practice, and roles such as a guide under clause 6.4.2. It explains the three types of audit, with internal audit as first-party, and the seven principles, including fair presentation and independence, tested with a short scenario. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Explain the chain from audit criteria and evidence to findings
• Describe the three types of audit and the internal audit's place
• Apply the seven audit principles, including independence

Why it matters

Basing every finding on criteria and verifiable evidence turns an auditor's view into something managers must act on.

Practice: Practice: Principles of auditing ISO 19011:2026 · 3 questions

Opens with a Riverside audit three years ago, planned in one line for one day, starting at reception and following the manual in clause order until time ran out. You then learn the risk-based programme: considering importance, changes and the results of monitoring and previous audits, covering all three scheme layers, often as a grid of areas and months, with an extra July audit of supplier approval when risk changes. The module explains each audit's objectives, as clause 5.5.2 of the guidance adds, scope and criteria, with every requirement named by number and title, such as FSSC section 2.5.6 on allergens. It covers a plan that puts the riskiest area first, on site where it matters, on every shift over the year, with a fresh-cut salad maker in Los Angeles. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Build a risk-based food safety audit programme
• Define an audit's objectives, scope and criteria by requirement
• Write an audit plan that starts with the riskiest area

Why it matters

Planning from risk reaches the riskiest line while there is still time to dig, instead of running out of day.

Practice: Practice: A risk-based audit programme and plan · 3 questions

Starts at Riverside's roaster with an old checklist asking whether there is a HACCP plan, whether CCPs are monitored and whether records are kept: all yes, while two night shift batch charts had no profile recorded. You then learn checklist types, and Sterling's recommended fourth type for food safety audits, built from the area's significant hazards and control measures. The module explains preparing from five sources: ISO 22000, the PRP standards, the additional requirements, the area's own system and the last report. It shows turning requirements into open questions with a sample and expected evidence, such as ISO 22002-1 clause 12.4 on covering open product, and one topic, allergens, at three levels. A packaging film maker in Frankfurt is a second example. It ends with checking coverage across the year, and a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Build a checklist from all three layers of FSSC 22000
• Write open questions with a sample and the evidence expected
• Check checklist coverage across the year's audits

Why it matters

Questions that ask to be shown, not answered yes, stop a checklist hiding a failing control.

Practice: Practice: Building the checklist from three layers · 3 questions

Opens with Riverside's management review file, holding an issues list from three years ago on prices, competition and turnover, although Riverside has since started exporting and changed its main peanut supplier. You then learn clauses 4.1 and 4.2: issues, including food fraud, food defence and cybersecurity, and interested parties, identified, reviewed and updated, with the clause 4.2 note on climate change, such as a retailer's supplier code. The module explains clause 4.3: a scope specifying products, processes and sites, including everything that can influence food safety, as Riverside's scope of extruded snacks, coated peanuts and rice crackers in Bangkok does. It covers clause 4.4 and a juice maker in New York starting online sales with courier delivery. It ends with a sample finding and a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Check that context issues are reviewed as the business changes
• Audit interested parties and their food safety requirements
• Test whether the scope covers everything that affects food safety

Why it matters

A scope that follows what the site really does keeps new exports, suppliers and sales channels inside the system.

Practice: Practice: Context, interested parties and scope · 3 questions

Starts with Riverside's food safety team records: no meeting since May, six open actions, and two new members from production and purchasing with no training in hazard analysis or the PRP standards. You then learn how to audit what leadership leaves behind: clause 5.1's eight ways top management shows leadership, through decisions, resources and presence, such as supplier approval before the first order and budget for verification testing. The module covers clause 5.2: a policy that fits, commits, frames objectives and is understood at all levels. It explains clause 5.3: roles assigned, a multi-disciplinary team named in an appointment letter, and a team leader responsible for training under clause 5.3.2, plus everyone able to report problems, tested at a chocolate maker in Boston. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Audit leadership through decisions, resources and presence
• Check that the food safety policy is understood on the floor
• Verify the food safety team's competence and the leader's duties

Why it matters

Auditing what leadership leaves behind shows whether the food safety team is supported or left without training and time.

Practice: Practice: Leadership, the policy and the team · 3 questions

Opens with Riverside's only roaster engineer resigning at two weeks' notice, and an outside consultant reprogramming the roasting profile over a weekend with no contract defining his competence or responsibilities. You then learn clause 6: organisational risks and opportunities, kept separate from food safety hazards such as Salmonella in peanuts managed under clause 8, actions whose effectiveness is evaluated under clause 6.1.2, measurable objectives with plans, and changes, including personnel, made in a planned way. The module covers clause 7.1: competent people under clause 7.1.2, infrastructure including software, and the work environment. It explains external experts under a defined agreement, externally developed elements adapted by the team, as a beverage plant in Mumbai shows with a sector HACCP plan, and evaluated external providers. A dairy in Sydney adds an example. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Tell organisational risks apart from food safety hazards
• Check that changes, including staff changes, are planned
• Audit control of external experts and external providers

Why it matters

Checking that everything the system relies on is controlled catches risky changes, like an unchecked roaster reprogram.

Practice: Practice: Planning and resources experts and providers · 3 questions

Starts in Riverside's purchasing office, where an auditor finds a June letter from the barbecue seasoning supplier announcing a new blend with milk powder, filed and priced, while nobody told the food safety team and the allergen list stayed unchanged. You then learn clause 7.2: competence decided by role, acquired, evaluated for effectiveness and recorded, including for those who operate the hazard control plan, checked by asking operators how they were signed off. The module covers clause 7.3 awareness, tested on the floor by asking about the work, and clause 7.4.2 external communication with suppliers, customers and authorities. It explains clause 7.4.3 and the thirteen changes the food safety team must hear about in time, with a sample finding and a second from the roaster. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Check that competence is evaluated, not just training attended
• Test awareness by asking operators about their own work
• Trace a supplier change until it reaches the food safety team

Why it matters

Following information until it arrives catches the recipe change that would otherwise put an undeclared allergen in a pack.

Practice: Practice: Competence, awareness and communication · 3 questions

Opens with a traceability test an auditor ran at Riverside on one lot of cheese corn puffs: forward to two retail customers went well, but backward it stopped at the corn grits lot. You then learn clause 7.5: documented information from three sources, available where needed, protected and controlled, with retained records such as last March's monitoring, current forms at the roaster, and night shift values changed without a record. The module explains clause 8.3: traceability one step back and one step forward, including rework, kept for the shelf life and tested with quantities reconciled, including at the third-party warehouse. It covers clause 8.4: emergency procedures relevant to the business, tested and reviewed after tests and real events, as a bakery in Paris plans for flooding, and informing the certification body. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Run a traceability test on a lot you choose yourself
• Check that records are protected from unrecorded changes
• Audit emergency procedures, tests and reviews

Why it matters

Choosing the lot yourself and watching the trace shows how fast the site could really answer a customer or recall.

Practice: Practice: Documents, traceability and emergencies · 3 questions

Starts with an audit walk that began outside Riverside's building, behind the warehouse, where old wooden pallets were stacked against the wall. You then learn clause 8.1 operational planning, including changes and outsourced processes, and clause 8.2: PRPs that fit the site, approved by the team, documented, considering the ISO 22002 series and legal and customer requirements under clause 8.2.3. The module gives four questions for every PRP: is it defined, done, monitored and verified? It then works through ISO 22002-100 clauses 4 to 8: the site and its drains, the layout, utilities, with a dairy in Sydney using well water to rinse tankers, pest control with a designated competent person and target pests, and waste, plus part 1's additions and a film maker in Frankfurt. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Apply four questions to audit any prerequisite programme
• Audit site, layout, utilities and water against ISO 22002-100
• Check pest control and waste programmes and their records

Why it matters

Starting the PRP audit outside the building finds the pests, water and waste risks that enter from outside in.

Practice: Practice: Operational planning and PRPs, part one · 3 questions

Opens in Riverside's seasoning room during a cheese corn puff run, where a hopper chute is held together with tape, called a temporary repair three months ago, with no permanent repair request logged. You then learn ISO 22002-100 clause 9 on equipment that is hygienic, maintained and released properly, and purchased materials verified before use, stored and transported well. The module covers clause 12 contamination control, including zoning, allergens, and physical and chemical agents, with brittle materials inspected and breakages recorded. It explains cleaning programmes with parameters, shown at a chocolate maker in Boston cleaning tanks in place, personal hygiene and health reporting, product information, and rework used as specified, checked against a batch record. It ends with watching the work before reading the record, and a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Audit equipment maintenance and release after repair
• Check contamination controls for allergens and foreign bodies
• Verify cleaning, hygiene and rework against what is specified

Why it matters

Watching the work, then reading the record, finds the taped chute or worn sieve before it puts a foreign body in a snack.

Practice: Practice: PRPs on the floor, part two · 3 questions

Starts on Riverside's peanut line, where the flow diagram shows four steps, roast, cool, coat and pack, but the line has a fifth: a hopper returning broken peanuts as rework into the coating drum. You then learn clause 8.5.1 preliminary information: raw materials with their characteristics and origin, end products, and intended use under clause 8.5.1.4, including vulnerable groups, which auditors often find thin. The module explains flow diagrams confirmed on site, then clause 8.5.2: hazard identification for every hazard reasonably expected, at every step where it can appear, grow or persist under clause 8.5.2.2.2, with acceptable levels justified. It covers hazard assessment of likelihood before controls and severity by a described method, and a sample you could defend. A fresh-cut salad maker in Los Angeles is a second example. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Verify a flow diagram by walking the line
• Check that hazards are identified at every relevant step
• Audit the hazard assessment method and its significant hazards

Why it matters

Walking the diagram before reading the analysis reveals hazards a desk-written study never saw.

Practice: Practice: Preliminary steps and the hazard analysis · 3 questions

Opens at the metal detector on Riverside's packing line two, where the night shift sheet shows a ferrous test piece not rejected at twenty past ten, and the operator adjusted sensitivity, retested and carried on. You then learn how control measures are categorised as OPRPs or CCPs by a systematic, documented approach, checking the reasoning rather than your preference. The module explains the hazard control plan: critical limits that ensure, action criteria that contribute, monitoring in time, corrections, and clause 8.5.4.4 actions that hold product and find causes. It covers keeping the plan and PRPs up to date, and clause 8.7 on calibrated, protected measuring equipment and validated software, with a juice maker in New York whose pasteuriser thermometer was never calibrated. It ends with a sample and a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Check how control measures were categorised as OPRPs or CCPs
• Audit what happened the last time a CCP or OPRP failed
• Verify calibration of monitoring equipment and software validation

Why it matters

Asking what happened the last time a control failed shows whether suspect product was really held.

Practice: Practice: OPRPs, CCPs and the hazard control plan · 3 questions

Returns to Riverside's roaster and the consultant's April change to a shorter, hotter profile, while the validation study on file is for the old profile and nothing shows the new one destroys Salmonella. You then learn clause 8.5.3: control measures shown capable before use and again after any change, since monitoring a limit does not make the limit right. The module explains verification under clause 8.8: planned, done by someone other than the person monitoring, confirming PRPs and the hazard control plan are effective, and analysed by the team. It covers clause 8.9: at a CCP never released, for an OPRP released only when one of three conditions applies, disposition approved, and withdrawal and recall under clause 8.9.4.1, tested. A dairy in Sydney is a second example. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Check that control measures are revalidated after a change
• Audit verification activities and their independence
• Explain when nonconforming product may be released

Why it matters

Proving a control works, checking it worked and holding what failed keeps unsafe product off the market.

Practice: Practice: Validation, verification and nonconforming product · 3 questions

Opens with the minutes of Riverside's last management review: forty pages of charts on complaints, swabs, metal detector checks and audit findings, with one detector line drifting every month for half a year and no decision. You then learn clause 9.1: deciding what to measure, analysing for trends that indicate potentially unsafe products or process failures under clause 9.1.2, and reporting to top management, plus FSSC section 2.5.6 on trending allergen verification data. The module explains clause 9.3: a review with complete inputs that ends in decisions, owners and dates, where a one-page record with three decisions beats forty pages, shown at a beverage plant in Mumbai. It covers clause 10: corrections, causes removed, continual improvement under clause 10.2 and updating the system. It ends with following one decision to the floor, and a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Check that monitoring data are analysed for trends
• Audit management review for decisions with owners and dates
• Follow one review decision from minutes to the floor

Why it matters

Data are only useful when someone decides, so auditing the review shows whether the system learns from its records.

Practice: Practice: Analysis, review, improvement, update · 3 questions

Starts on Riverside's rice cracker line at two in the morning, past culture posters and a survey run once two years ago, asking a packing operator three weeks into the job what she would do about a broken sieve. You then learn section 2.5.8, which adds to ISO 22000 clause 5.1: culture objectives supported by a documented plan with targets and timelines, included in management review. The module covers section 2.5.9 quality control: quality policy and parameters, quantity control, clean changeovers and quality inside the audit programme, with a changeover finding on line three. It explains section 2.5.17, telling the certification body within three working days, shown at a sauce maker in Singapore, and section 2.5.5, keeping the logo off product and packaging, unlike a meat plant in Chicago. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Audit a food safety culture plan for targets and timelines
• Check quality control, quantity and changeover requirements
• Verify certification body notification and correct logo use

Why it matters

Asking the newest operator before reading the records shows whether food safety culture exists beyond the posters.

Practice: Practice: Culture, quality, reporting, the logo · 3 questions

Opens in Riverside's purchasing office: since June, paprika for the cheese seasoning comes from a new broker thirty percent cheaper, while the food fraud vulnerability assessment, last reviewed in 2023, still names the old supplier and rates paprika low risk. On the walk back, the auditor sees a food defence gap in the seasoning room. You then learn ISO 22002-100 clause 16.1 and the scheme's food defence requirements: a method, a threat assessment, a documented plan and measures really in use on the floor. The module explains food fraud: a vulnerability assessment that changes when suppliers, materials or prices change. It covers what the scheme adds: competent people, plans in the management system, the full scope, and plans from suppliers for brokers and traders. It ends with two findings and a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Check that a food fraud assessment is updated when suppliers change
• Audit food defence measures on the floor against the site's plan
• Verify the competence of those who write the assessments

Why it matters

Testing the plan on the floor catches cheap new suppliers and open doors where food fraud or tampering could enter.

Practice: Practice: Food fraud and food defence · 3 questions

Starts at Riverside's goods-in dock in September, when a flood closes the main peanut supplier's warehouse and purchasing buys twelve tonnes from an unknown trader with only a certificate of analysis. You then learn section 2.5.1: accredited laboratories for critical tests, specifications that are reviewed, and a documented procedure for procurement in emergencies, with a sample finding. The module covers section 2.5.2, adding to clause 8.5.1.3: labels right for the country of sale, claims backed by validation and mass balance, and print under control. It explains sections 2.5.10, 2.5.14 and 2.5.16: stock rotation by date, a risk-based tanker cleaning plan, shown at a dairy in Paris, carcass traceability, and food loss and waste managed safely, as a bakery in Tokyo does with donations. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Audit emergency procurement against the scheme's procedure
• Check labels and claims for the country of sale
• Verify tanker cleaning, stock rotation and food waste controls

Why it matters

The scheme fills the gaps that hurry creates, so auditing them protects the product when normal supply breaks down.

Practice: Practice: Suppliers, labels, transport, waste · 3 questions

Opens on Riverside's line two, which packs roasted peanuts and cheese corn puffs, where a may contain peanuts warning was added in March and allergen swabbing after changeovers then stopped. You then learn section 2.5.6: a documented allergen management plan, risk-based verification testing, and warning labels only when risk remains after the controls. The module explains section 2.5.7: a risk-based environmental monitoring programme, trended and reviewed every year and after each trigger, shown at a fresh salad plant in Los Angeles. It covers sections 2.5.11 to 2.5.15: foreign matter assessed and controlled by breakage procedures, routine PRP inspections, a product design and development procedure, with a meal maker in Hong Kong and its oven times, and equipment specified and commissioned. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Check that allergen controls come before precautionary labels
• Audit an environmental monitoring programme and its triggers
• Verify product design, PRP inspection and equipment commissioning

Why it matters

Auditing controls before labels stops a warning on the pack from replacing a properly cleaned line.

Practice: Practice: Allergens, monitoring, design, equipment · 3 questions

Starts in Riverside's seasoning room, where an auditor walks in with no opening meeting, wearing a watch, carrying a pen with a loose cap and skipping the hand wash, while the supervisor hears about the audit from an operator. You then learn the opening meeting's three purposes from ISO 19011 clause 6.4.3: agreeing the plan, introducing the team and roles, and confirming the audit can run, with languages such as Thai on the floor and English in the report. The module covers keeping every hygiene and safety rule you audit, reporting illness, not touching equipment, and using guides. It explains remote methods for records and trend charts, shown at a chocolate maker in Sydney with a plan B, and interviewing with open questions, closed confirmations and asking to be shown. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Run an opening meeting that confirms the audit can go ahead
• Apply food hygiene rules to yourself during the audit
• Interview operators with open questions and ask to be shown

Why it matters

Opening well and keeping the rules builds the trust that makes people tell an auditor what really happens.

Practice: Practice: Opening meeting, interviews, site walks · 3 questions

Opens with a QA supervisor saying every peanut lot is tested before use, and the point that this is information, not yet evidence. You then learn to investigate to the depth necessary, following the trail from answer to record and stopping when the sample is sufficient, such as looking at three more intake records from the same month. The module explains verifying information as complete, correct, consistent and current, sampling by judgement or statistics sized to risk, and notes anyone can check, stating at the closing meeting that evidence was sampled. It walks one product from receipt to dispatch, checking approval of externally provided products under clause 7.1.6 and tracing the lot under clause 8.3, then repeats the checks at a bakery in Boston. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Verify information before treating it as audit evidence
• Size and record an audit sample of food safety records
• Trace one product from receipt to dispatch

Why it matters

Following one product end to end, and looking harder where the thread breaks, finds what a recall would expose later.

Practice: Practice: Evidence, sampling, following a product · 3 questions

Starts with a question: does the auditee have to accept a nonconformity before you report it? No; it must be understood and its evidence acknowledged. You then learn to share findings area by area, review each nonconformity with the auditee as ISO 19011 describes, record good practice, and grade findings, noting that FSSC 22000 Part 3 grading is for certification bodies. The module explains writing every statement in four parts, criteria, evidence, the statement and the grade, with a worked example on allergen training attendance records sampled from January to June. It covers the closing meeting with the plant director, technical manager and line supervisor, a report stating that audits are a sampling exercise, and clause 9.2.2 f) correction and corrective action within the agreed time, verified until each action works. It ends with a recap.

What you will be able to do

• Write a nonconformity in four parts with criteria and evidence
• Run a closing meeting and report with no surprises
• Verify that corrective actions worked before closing findings

Why it matters

Clear findings and real follow-up mean the audit ends when the actions work, not when the report is filed.

Practice: Practice: Findings, report, and follow-up · 3 questions

Starts with a question: should the audit of an area start with its procedure or with the standards? With the standards, and the module shows why. You then walk through an effective internal audit step by step: identify the ISO 22000 requirements that apply, then the PRP standard and the FSSC additional requirements, review the last audit report and its findings, then check that the procedure describes what the area really does. A practice audit at Riverside Snacks follows, including training records of people met, ten pallets traced from the dispatch log with two shipped ahead of older stock, and good practice recorded so the rice cracker line can copy it. It sets out five key takeaways, ending with an audit lasting until actions work, then the practice questions and final exam.

What you will be able to do

• Plan an area audit from the standards before the procedure
• Apply every audit step in a practice audit of one area
• Record good practice as well as nonconformities

Why it matters

Working through a full practice audit prepares you to run your own and follow findings until food is safer.

Practice: Practice: Practice audit, exam and certificate · 3 questions