In this article
A menu usually goes through drafting, review, approval and execution. When all of these stages use the same file with no history, a change made after approval can erase the reference used by purchasing, production and billing.
Versioning means giving each set of information an identifier, recording its state and keeping the link to the previous version, instead of making loose copies. An approval also needs to say who decided, when, for which period and with which comments.
The basic model
Direct answer
Separate the menu into draft, approved version and executed record. Freeze the approved version, create a successor for changes, and keep the author, approver, dates, justification and scope identifiable.
Planning and execution are different records. The approved version shows what was supposed to be done. The executed record shows substitutions, changes and what happened during the service. If the executed record overwrites the planned one, the team loses the difference it needs to analyse.
A food service inspection manual from UFFS (a Brazilian federal university) offers a useful example: it provides for a monthly plan submitted for approval and a record of changes during the month, preserving the menu that was actually served. This is an institutional reference, not a universal requirement for every private kitchen.
Clear states for each version
The names of the states can vary, but each one must have a defined effect. Draft allows editing. Under review means the content is being checked. Approved freezes the reference. Superseded means another version has taken over, without deleting the previous one.
Avoid a generic finished state that mixes approval, publication and execution. A version can be approved and not yet in force. Another can have been sent for review and still be waiting for a reply.
Swipe the table to see all the columns.
| State | What it means | Can it be edited? |
|---|---|---|
| Draft | Content being drafted | Yes, by authorized people |
| Under review | Content submitted for checking | Only according to the defined rule |
| Approved | Reference accepted for the scope and period | No; changes create another version |
| Rejected | Version not accepted, with a reason | Not as an approved version |
| Superseded | Another version came into force | No; it stays in the history |
Information that should accompany the approval
The version needs to identify the period, Unit, services and dishes. The decision should say who drafted, who reviewed, who approved and when. When an adjustment is requested, the comment should say what needs to change.
Documented information serves communication, evidence and the preservation of knowledge. ISO guidance on this topic supports the importance of review, authorization and traceability, but it does not mean that a Unit needs ISO certification to version its menus.
- Version identifier and reference to the previous one
- Period and Unit of application
- Services, serving modes and dishes
- Person responsible for drafting
- Person responsible for review or approval
- Date and time of the decision
- Comment, requested adjustment or reason for rejection
- Effective date and successor version, when there is one
Sources for this section: [4]
A repeatable approval flow
The flow needs to be simple enough for daily routine. Too many stages without clear responsibility lead to informal approvals by message. Too few stages can leave risks unreviewed. Start with the decisions that really change how the menu is used.
The contract may require approval by the Client, but this is not a universal rule. Some operations do an internal review and only communicate the menu. Others need an external decision for each period. The system should reflect the applicable obligation, not create a requirement with no basis.
- The team creates the version and defines the period, services and people responsible.
- Dishes are linked to recipe sheets that are valid for the Unit and the effective period.
- The review checks composition, restrictions, cost, operation and contract as the scope requires.
- The person responsible approves, requests an adjustment or rejects with a comment.
- The approved version is frozen and available for planning.
- Later changes go into a successor version.
- What was executed is recorded without erasing what was planned.
How to handle changes after approval
A one-off swap can happen because an ingredient is missing, a supplier is unavailable or an operational decision is made. The record needs to show the date, the original dish, the substitution, the reason and the person responsible. If the change affects several days or the rest of the period, a new version may be clearer.
Not every change needs to restart the whole flow, but the rule should be defined beforehand. Changes that affect the contract, safety, nutritional information or cost may require a new review, depending on the operation's responsibilities.
Swipe the table to see all the columns.
| Situation | Possible handling | Watch out for |
|---|---|---|
| Substitution in a single service | Record the change as executed | Keep the original item and the reason |
| Change spanning several days | Create a successor version | Define a new effective period |
| Correcting an error before approval | Edit the draft | Keep relevant comments |
| Change to an already approved version | Never overwrite silently | Assess whether a new decision is needed |
Who can draft, review and approve
Responsibility should be defined by role, Unit and type of decision. The person who drafts may not be the one who approves. An external reviewer should access only the version needed and should not see other information from the Organization.
The CFN (Brazil's Federal Council of Nutrition) keeps Resolution No. 600/2018 published as the reference for professional duties in UANs (the Brazilian term for food and nutrition units that produce collective meals), although it has stated that the rule is under revision. A digital flow does not replace professional practice or the applicable contract rule.
How MEPO handles this topic
MEPO keeps successor versions of the menu, copies the previous composition, records the people responsible and deadlines, and allows external review with comments. The decision can approve, request an adjustment or reject. An approved version is preserved and changes go into a new version. This record is not presented as an electronic signature.
References
The sources support the general concepts. Specific rules can vary by contract, technical lead and local regulations.
- [1]Manual de Fiscalização dos Serviços de Alimentação (food service inspection manual). Universidade Federal da Fronteira Sul.
- [2]Resolução CFN nº 600/2018 (CFN Resolution No. 600/2018). Conselho Federal de Nutrição.
- [3]Áreas de atuação do nutricionista (areas of practice of the nutritionist). Conselho Federal de Nutrição.
- [4]Guidance on documented information. ISO.
- [5]RDC nº 216/2004 (Brazilian food safety rule for food services). Anvisa.