From Policy to Proof: What SQF Edition 10 Means for Food & Beverage Manufacturing Leaders
As food and beverage manufacturers prepare for SQF Edition 10, one reality is already setting in across plants: audit readiness is no longer a documentation exercise—it’s an execution test.
While the final SQF v10 code has yet to be released, auditors are already signaling a shift. They are moving away from policies, binders, and verbal explanations, and toward proof that food safety is executed consistently across the plant.
As Jon Shuster, Continuous Improvement Coach at SafetyChain, explains:
“Auditors now want to see how food safety culture shows up in daily execution—not just where it’s written down.”
For manufacturing leaders, this shift isn’t just a quality issue. It’s a plant-wide execution challenge that spans quality, operations, maintenance, and suppliers.
The Shift From Policy to Proof in SQF v10 Audits
Historically, audits focused on whether programs existed and whether teams could explain them. Under SQF Edition 10, that bar is rising.
Auditors are increasingly asking:
- How is this requirement executed on the floor?
- Where does execution break down across departments?
- What happens when something goes wrong—and how do you know it was resolved?
As Jon puts it:
“We talk a lot about show versus tell. That’s always been true with audits—but it’s becoming non-negotiable now.”
This is where many manufacturers feel pressure. Proof doesn’t live in a single policy or department—it lives in connected records, corrective actions, and follow-through across the plant.
Food Safety Culture Under SQF Edition 10: From Concept to Execution
Food safety culture is no longer treated as an abstract value or a leadership statement. Under SQF v10, culture is evaluated through how work is done, how issues are handled, and how consistently expectations are enforced.
Auditors are looking beyond QA to understand how food safety shows up across:
- Maintenance
- Sanitation
- Supply chain and suppliers
“The code says leadership shall lead a food safety culture—not just be a figurehead or a signature on a policy,” Jon explains.
Culture is now evidenced through execution—not intent.
The Five Execution Signals Auditors Are Looking For
In practice, auditable food safety culture shows up through five connected execution areas:
- Leadership visibility across departments—not just policy approval
- Communication that reaches operators, supervisors, and managers
- Training and competency that holds up during non-routine events
- Employee feedback that turns observations into action
- Continuous improvement, supported by documented corrective and preventive actions
“Management commitment isn’t just developing a policy and hanging it on the wall,” Jon notes. “Leaders need to be out there—walking the floor, participating in audits, and following up on corrective actions.”
That follow-up is critical. Without it, culture becomes performative rather than provable.
Why Leadership Visibility Alone Is Not Enough
SQF Edition 10 reinforces an important truth for executives: leadership behavior sets direction, but systems sustain execution.
Food safety can no longer rely on individuals remembering what to do or informal workarounds between departments. With ongoing labor turnover, manufacturers must design programs that survive staffing changes.
“Leadership starts at the top,” Jon says. “But it can’t stop there—not if you want consistency across the plant.”
That consistency requires standardized processes, shared data, and defined ownership across quality, operations, and suppliers.
Change Management Is Now an Audit Risk Area
Change is constant in food manufacturing—new suppliers, spec updates, equipment changes, process improvements. Under SQF v10, auditors are paying closer attention to how those changes are controlled and verified.
“Change management isn’t just about big projects,” Jon explains. “It applies to everything—from equipment changes to supplier transitions.”
Auditors want to see:
- Why a change was made
- How it was communicated across functions
- How risk was assessed
- What corrective or preventive actions were taken if issues emerged
In other words, change without execution control creates audit exposure.
Proof Lives in Execution Closure: CAPA Matters
One of the most common gaps auditors see isn’t the absence of programs—it’s the absence of closure.
Audit findings, deviations, and employee feedback only become proof when they are:
- Documented
- Assigned
- Corrected
- Verified
- Prevented from recurring
This is where CAPA becomes central to audit defensibility.
When corrective and preventive actions are consistently executed and closed, manufacturers can show not just that issues were identified—but that the system works.
As Jon puts it simply:
“You don’t prove culture by what you say. You prove it by what you fix—and whether it stays fixed.”
Reducing SQF v10 Audit Anxiety Through Unified Execution
The uncertainty around SQF Edition 10 has created real anxiety, but the manufacturers best positioned for success share a common approach: they treat compliance as an outcome of disciplined execution, not a standalone goal.
When quality, operations, and suppliers operate from connected systems:
- Records align
- Issues flow into CAPA
- Changes are controlled
- Audits become confirmations—not investigations
“Culture doesn’t survive because of one person,” Jon says. “It survives because it’s embedded in how the organization operates.”
What Manufacturing Leaders Should Do Now
Even before SQF Edition 10 is finalized, leaders can take practical steps:
- Evaluate where food safety execution breaks down between departments
- Identify audit findings or issues that recur without permanent closure
- Strengthen CAPA ownership and verification
- Ensure change management is documented and measurable
- Reinforce systems that connect quality, production, and suppliers
These actions don’t just support SQF readiness—they improve plant performance and resilience.
