Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Glass Auditing - Pointless Exercise or Critical Control


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

Poll: Glass Auditing is: (152 member(s) have cast votes)

Glass Auditing is:

  1. A pointless exercise (75 votes [49.34%])

    Percentage of vote: 49.34%

  2. A critical control (77 votes [50.66%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.66%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#26 Esther

Esther

    Member

  • IFSQN Member
  • 220 posts
  • 13 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Spain
    Spain
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:La Coruña- Spain
  • Interests:Local and international food law; food industrial processes; food safety management systems;GMP; lean manufacturing; share knowledge

Posted 22 July 2006 - 12:00 PM

So you've minimised glass and brittle plastics in the factory, you don't allow any glass or brittle plastic to be brought into the factory by employees and you have a finely honed glass breakage procedure that everyone understands.

So can anyone tell me the point of walking around the plant once a week clipboard in hand to check the computer hasn't spontaneously exploded and the skylights in the roof are still there.

I believe this exercise is completely pointless, can anyone convince me otherwise?

Regards,
Simon



Hi Simon and the others participants

Totally agree: pointless work.

As said before, the important and sensible thing is to write the glass risk procedure having the maintenance responsible help, he knows well the equipment. And, of course, to make him aware of the importance of this procedure. And, besides all the employess, I think it is a good idea to explain this to the cleanliness & disinfection personnel.

By the way, what else you can do apart from get the glass certificates stating it is a unbreakagle glass ( is "laminated glass" the english word ? ) and put adhesible plastic on/over the others glass items that have not the certificate ?

Regards
Esther
  • 0

#27 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 15 August 2006 - 07:55 PM

By the way, what else you can do apart from get the glass certificates stating it is a unbreakagle glass ( is "laminated glass" the english word ? ) and put adhesible plastic on/over the others glass items that have not the certificate ?


Hello Esther,

Minimising glass and brittle plastics and protecting the unavoidable remainder is the best policy, along with, as you say, employee education. Laminated is an OK word to say. I think they call tubes with plastic coating "shatterproof" over here.

Sorry it has taken such a long time to respond to your post. :bye:

Regards,
Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#28 Sathish kumar.R

Sathish kumar.R

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 05 March 2008 - 05:17 AM

As far as Hazard is concern we should not discuss wheather it is pointless or critical. you feel some where glass are used and may be hazard if it is not audited properly, there ends every thing. In HACCP anything which we thought as critical should be giveh due consideration. wheather it cause an health hazard or not is doesn't matter.


  • 0

#29 Vik

Vik

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 07 March 2008 - 08:16 AM

It is all about how u categorize these issues.Glass/ BP audits are intented to confirm the integrity of the material used either glass/brittle plastic/fixation for that.Reduction of these things seems more practical but glass/BP audits are always helpful to identify minor deviation before it turns major.

Good day..............


  • 0

#30 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 11 March 2008 - 08:55 AM

As far as Hazard is concern we should not discuss wheather it is pointless or critical. you feel some where glass are used and may be hazard if it is not audited properly, there ends every thing. In HACCP anything which we thought as critical should be giveh due consideration. wheather it cause an health hazard or not is doesn't matter.

You are correct Sathish. If you stick around you will learn not to always take what I say literally. I sometimes need to prod and provoke to generate debate. It worked. :biggrin:

:welcome:

It is all about how u categorize these issues.Glass/ BP audits are intented to confirm the integrity of the material used either glass/brittle plastic/fixation for that.Reduction of these things seems more practical but glass/BP audits are always helpful to identify minor deviation before it turns major.

Good day..............

Good point Vik.

Welcome to the forums to you also.

Regards,
simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#31 cazyncymru

cazyncymru

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • Banned
  • 1,604 posts
  • 320 thanks
121
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 March 2008 - 05:24 PM

You are correct Sathish. If you stick around you will learn not to always take what I say literally. I sometimes need to prod and provoke to generate debate. It worked. :biggrin:

:welcome:


Good point Vik.

Welcome to the forums to you also.

Regards,
simon



I have a glass register, which i have risk assessed, and split into low, medium and high risk areas.

My low risk i do monthly with my H & H inspection, medium risk i do weekly (same time as my black bag audit), and high i do daily on my morning constitution.

i don't take the paperwork with me, but fill it in at the office.

We have a glass breakage procedure too; new dust pan and brush, etc.

also any glass or perspex that is damaged is marked up as inspected by myself with a separate risk assessment.

if i could, i'd drop the glass register, but it is driven by our customers.
  • 0

#32 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,216 posts
  • 469 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 29 March 2008 - 11:16 AM

I think it's useful but I've not seen it work well yet. I think it's about how well both the QA and production teams buy into it. I'm prepping for BRC and it's been a nightmare with glass audits. The QAs audit and find something is missing, write that down but don't follow up why it's missing (after all, it could be in some food!) They report broken items to the engineers (which should have been reported by the production person who broke it but wasn't). The engineers then don't repair things that need it and then the QAs don't chase them up. The glass audit sheets contain plastic items that aren't clear plastic and items which were removed years ago. That kind of attitude means it's a waste of time in my view.

Best practice would be:

- production are trained to and do report breakages to QA and a breakage procedure is followed (the QA manager at my factory has laughably put together a glass breakage kit in a clear plastic box lol!!!)
- if a QA finds glass broken or missing, they find out why and when it happened as well as arranging repair (so repeat incidences are at least reported)
- the register is kept up to date and regularly challenged
- a timescale is given by the QA to the engineer for repair appropriate to risk (or the item is removed immediately) and the QA follows it up with evidence to prove something is repaired in an appropriate timescale

I'm sure you can add more but doesn't it all drive you mad when auditing is done and not followed up? Drives me potty!


  • 0

#33 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,216 posts
  • 469 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 29 March 2008 - 11:25 AM

On the justification side for doing it; when the glass in rice thing hit, I did a full factory glass audit. Turned out my QAs there were doing a cr*p job at noticing anything too! I ended up getting about 10 light units replaced and organising for repair elsewhere.

The reason for it is not just to see breakage where contamination has already happened but also to see where there is a crack which in a few days or weeks time might become a breakage and end up in your product. I picked up an issue like that this week while trying to sort out the tangled mess that is the glass audit system - got the item removed from the shop floor before it was an issue.

We once got a point raised on PIU (Tesco) about a light above a multipond being broken (above open product) and as it was cracked and a piece was missing which hadn't been picked up on an audit the week before, it meant we weren't in control of our glass procedures, as I argued above though, it's not just about auditing, it's about reporting when the breakage happened and getting across to the employees "look, we won't tell you off, we just need to know!"


  • 0

#34 cazyncymru

cazyncymru

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • Banned
  • 1,604 posts
  • 320 thanks
121
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 March 2008 - 09:09 PM

On the justification side for doing it; when the glass in rice thing hit, I did a full factory glass audit. Turned out my QAs there were doing a cr*p job at noticing anything too! I ended up getting about 10 light units replaced and organising for repair elsewhere.

The reason for it is not just to see breakage where contamination has already happened but also to see where there is a crack which in a few days or weeks time might become a breakage and end up in your product. I picked up an issue like that this week while trying to sort out the tangled mess that is the glass audit system - got the item removed from the shop floor before it was an issue.

We once got a point raised on PIU (Tesco) about a light above a multipond being broken (above open product) and as it was cracked and a piece was missing which hadn't been picked up on an audit the week before, it meant we weren't in control of our glass procedures, as I argued above though, it's not just about auditing, it's about reporting when the breakage happened and getting across to the employees "look, we won't tell you off, we just need to know!"



I can't believe you swore in a Forum!!

Simon..ban him...he said TESCO!
  • 0

#35 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,462 posts
  • 3247 thanks
347
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 31 March 2008 - 07:48 AM

Dear Cazx,

LOL. Actually I think it's the second occurrence. perhaps you were rounding up the cows at the time ?? :biggrin:

The more noticeable thing about GMO’s comments to me was the seeming number of actual incidents requiring attention. Normally IMEX breakages, etc are quite infrequent for the items on the glass / plastic inventory sheet so that the checking procedure is fairly routine apart from the considerable effort required at its original inception (and I do agree that it can be massively frustrating to train people of all departments to meaningfully relate to this function).
Perhaps the particular product / process / quantity of items/ vulnerability locations is related ?? Not criticising, just curious. :smile:

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#36 Ynci

Ynci

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Germany
    Germany
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fischbach
  • Interests:BRC/IoP; EN 15593; ISO 22000; ISO 9001; FEFCO; HACCP<br />Food safety management systems

Posted 24 June 2008 - 04:27 PM

Hmmm...if this exercise is indeed pointless, why do I - a humble BRC auditor - discover so many cracked objects during my inspections...(?)
But listen: it's a "yes" and "no" thing: I would definitely say NO to QA staff carrying a huge "glass bible" around trying to address all breakable objects and getting cross-eyed after 10 minutes...I would definitely say YES to a logbook of breakables broken down to individual process lines which is checked in conjunction with other activities eg maintenance works or shift changes. Many of our clients operate a documented shift "hand-over" which is not only supporting the "clean-as-you-go" policy for the individual work place control but also helps to do routine checks on "tape engineering" and other recent problems.

It's the same with those companies who swear that they have banned all snap-off knives years ago, but....

Don't forget, there is a God for all auditors...and his name is Murphy...


  • 0

#37 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,216 posts
  • 469 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 24 June 2008 - 07:23 PM

Too true.

Back to the number of breakages thing - trust me, if you don't regularly do the glass audit and there's a major issue breaking, you suddenly see things you and others have missed. I've always counted hard clear plastic as being the same as glass which is where most of the issues come from. I've found that the plastic covers for fluorescent tubes get broken very quickly in rooms with high humidity, e.g. cooking and cooling areas.


  • 0

#38 Ynci

Ynci

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Germany
    Germany
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fischbach
  • Interests:BRC/IoP; EN 15593; ISO 22000; ISO 9001; FEFCO; HACCP<br />Food safety management systems

Posted 24 June 2008 - 08:24 PM

Exactly! And that happens in companies with a long history of certified management systems...BTW the breakable plastic items are usually underestimated. ALSO: how about checking mobile objects which belong to the line "inventory" such as stop watches (eg for viscosity testing), little glass laboratory bottles (for corona testing) etc.?

(I know, a completely new dimension...)


  • 0

#39 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 26 June 2008 - 08:09 AM

Exactly! And that happens in companies with a long history of certified management systems...BTW the breakable plastic items are usually underestimated. ALSO: how about checking mobile objects which belong to the line "inventory" such as stop watches (eg for viscosity testing), little glass laboratory bottles (for corona testing) etc.?

(I know, a completely new dimension...)

And bigger mobile things like fork lift trucks are a menace. They have a strange desire to crash into things smashing the light lenses. I think sticky tape was invented for holding these vehicle together.
  • 1

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#40 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,216 posts
  • 469 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 29 June 2008 - 07:58 PM

Oh I once hauled an NPD person over the coals for not reporting a broken mobile phone screen. It's as much about culture as auditing I think.


  • 0

#41 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 02 July 2008 - 07:47 AM

Oh I once hauled an NPD person over the coals for not reporting a broken mobile phone screen. It's as much about culture as auditing I think.


Not one for going off topic, but…

Many years ago we had an extension to the factory that was officially opened by the mayor and lady Mayoress. The Managing Director was very old school and a member of lot’s of different clubs with strange handshakes and rituals (you know the ones I mean). Anyway the mayor and his entourage and all of the press arrived to officially declare the factory open, although it was actually already running. The MD brought everyone in without any recognition of the personal hygiene rules (jewellery, hairnets, overalls etc.); in fact I’m sure one of them was smoking a fag (maybe not). As you can imagine it went down a storm with the workers. :thumbdown:

Regards,
Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#42 MRios

MRios

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 157 posts
  • 11 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Guatemala
    Guatemala

Posted 11 April 2009 - 11:37 PM

And probably going further off topic (as I usually do):
One of the people that trained our staff in GMP´s showed them a picture of Pope John Paul going into a food processing facility wearing a hairnet, no papal ring on his finger or any other jewelry,etc. The thing is, the customer is not going to say: Hey! How lucky of me! I have a papal hair in my bread!!!

Just wondering what everyone thinks of this: most of our process is closed and the glass windows are covered (from the inside) with the kind of plastic that is used for tinting windows on cars. Would this be ok? Some people say that we need to have stronger film on windows, which would be very expensive. Others say we need to cover both sides.


  • 0

#43 Abdul Qudoos

Abdul Qudoos

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 308 posts
  • 35 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United Arab Emirates
    United Arab Emirates
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sharjah

Posted 25 June 2009 - 11:23 AM

So you've minimised glass and brittle plastics in the factory, you don't allow any glass or brittle plastic to be brought into the factory by employees and you have a finely honed glass breakage procedure that everyone understands.

So can anyone tell me the point of walking around the plant once a week clipboard in hand to check the computer hasn't spontaneously exploded and the skylights in the roof are still there.

I believe this exercise is completely pointless, can anyone convince me otherwise?

Regards,
Simon


Yes, I agreed and believe this exercise is completely pointless where there is no mobility of glass (just a few fixtures glass lightening in production area covered with film and brittle plastic covered as guards in machinery) ! Unless you deal and there is a usage of glass (mobile activity) like filling in glass jars and bottles where breakage may happen or using raw materials that comes in glass packing.

Thanks for reading my post,
The thread is going to be longer and longer,
:rolleyes:
:off_topic:
  • 0
Join me on
Abdul Qudoos on LinkedIn
Follow me on twitter Healthy_Food_
Visit my website Healthy Food Management



#44 Rosemary4

Rosemary4

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 118 posts
  • 28 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:ashbourne

Posted 01 July 2009 - 11:49 AM

As promised I have checked with the man from Del monte and the plan is first try every month if OK every 3 months and then go to 6 months. Is this a bit better for you.

I am just adding this as we were auditing weekly and it seemed pretty pointless, so I asked our external auditor (the man from Del monte) and he was happy to change to monthly ..........

It might not work for everyone but as a small manufacturing company, it works for us!


  • 0

#45 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 02 July 2009 - 08:44 PM

As promised I have checked with the man from Del monte and the plan is first try every month if OK every 3 months and then go to 6 months. Is this a bit better for you.

I am just adding this as we were auditing weekly and it seemed pretty pointless, so I asked our external auditor (the man from Del monte) and he was happy to change to monthly ..........

It might not work for everyone but as a small manufacturing company, it works for us!

Frequency of audits should always be under review based on the severity of risk and past audit findings. Constant monitoring by operators beats any audit frequency. :biggrin:

Please pass on my regards to the man from del Monte.

Regards,
Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#46 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,958 posts
  • 791 thanks
167
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 25 May 2010 - 04:02 AM

So you've minimised glass and brittle plastics in the factory, you don't allow any glass or brittle plastic to be brought into the factory by employees and you have a finely honed glass breakage procedure that everyone understands.

So can anyone tell me the point of walking around the plant once a week clipboard in hand to check the computer hasn't spontaneously exploded and the skylights in the roof are still there.

I believe this exercise is completely pointless, can anyone convince me otherwise?

Regards,
Simon


Hi Simon

Apologies for replying to a post that is 5 years old but my answer is neither:

It is a verification activity.

Assuming you have procedures and systems in place to prevent glass contamination. Your operators check critical items at the start and end of each production run. This check is backed up by a weekly line management check.

So your auditing needs to done based on risk. I personally would include it in Hygiene/Housekeeping audits (Monthly). The frequency of checks really should be based on incidents of non-compliance with procedures and findings during the audits. If you regularly find broken items then something is clearly going wrong and needs to be monitored as well as the appropriate corrective action taken (such as stringing up the offenders).

So not a pointless exercise nor a critical control point for me.

Regards,

Tony
  • 0

#47 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 25 May 2010 - 06:20 PM

Hi Simon

Apologies for replying to a post that is 5 years old but my answer is neither:

It is a verification activity.

Assuming you have procedures and systems in place to prevent glass contamination. Your operators check critical items at the start and end of each production run. This check is backed up by a weekly line management check.

So your auditing needs to done based on risk. I personally would include it in Hygiene/Housekeeping audits (Monthly). The frequency of checks really should be based on incidents of non-compliance with procedures and findings during the audits. If you regularly find broken items then something is clearly going wrong and needs to be monitored as well as the appropriate corrective action taken (such as stringing up the offenders).

So not a pointless exercise nor a critical control point for me.

Tony

Hi Tony,

Over the past five years I've lived and learned a bit, so you will be pleased to know I totally agree with your considered and logical response. Please don't apologies for replying to a post no matter what the age.

I think I was a little more controversial back then. :unsure:

Regards,
Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#48 Abdul Qudoos

Abdul Qudoos

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 308 posts
  • 35 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United Arab Emirates
    United Arab Emirates
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sharjah

Posted 24 August 2010 - 11:07 AM

Since i implemented glass policy, everyone starts glass auditing in my facility, firstly the certification auditor asked about the EFK not included in the policy and the EFK tube lights are not covered with scatter proof film, later supplier auditors raised the issue on glass breakage register where we have not included crack on brittle plastic/conveyer and not replaced with new one (where the finished product travels on belt to labeling and date coding), and so on...

Instead we took all the consideration and made the well written glass policy and the documents/records are maintained.


  • 0
Join me on
Abdul Qudoos on LinkedIn
Follow me on twitter Healthy_Food_
Visit my website Healthy Food Management



#49 RICKG

RICKG

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 8 posts
  • 1 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 27 December 2010 - 09:51 PM

Is anyone willing to pass along a good "glass & brittles" inventory/checksheet? Of course I realize that each and every facility is vastly different, but I'd really l;ike to see the detail (or lack thereof) of items actually inventoried, and inspected. We have revised our machine PM checksheets to have the call-out for broken gages, displays, etc. Our monthly plant product safety audit checklist has a specific item for broken glass, etc. Do I REALLY need another checklist, for all exit signs, plastic viewports on rat traps, lunchroom vendinmg machine displays, etc? I'd really like to take a l;ook at someone's inspection checklist just to get a feel for what othewrs are doing. Frankly, I think a separate checklist/audit fdor broken glass/brittles is not worth a thing.....but, I'm anxious to see what others might be doing. Please feel free to email!


  • 0

#50 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,958 posts
  • 791 thanks
167
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 04 January 2011 - 05:33 AM

Is anyone willing to pass along a good "glass & brittles" inventory/checksheet? Of course I realize that each and every facility is vastly different, but I'd really l;ike to see the detail (or lack thereof) of items actually inventoried, and inspected. We have revised our machine PM checksheets to have the call-out for broken gages, displays, etc. Our monthly plant product safety audit checklist has a specific item for broken glass, etc. Do I REALLY need another checklist, for all exit signs, plastic viewports on rat traps, lunchroom vendinmg machine displays, etc? I'd really like to take a l;ook at someone's inspection checklist just to get a feel for what othewrs are doing. Frankly, I think a separate checklist/audit fdor broken glass/brittles is not worth a thing.....but, I'm anxious to see what others might be doing. Please feel free to email!


I have seen a wide variety of checksheets from listing every single piece of glass/brittle in a factory to literally check for broken glass/brittles in an area.

I believe the best way to tackle this is based on risk. High risk items on process or filling machines or where there is open product need to be checked at least daily. If they are on a separate checklist the checks can be forgotten. I have put these checks on machine/process start up checks on process/production records. These are records that are/should always be completed when there is production and so are highly unlikely to be missed.

The rest of the items you mention seem like thay can be covered on hygiene audits.

Typical items on a checklist:
Clock
Lights
CIP Dials
Fire Point Glass dial
Plastic dispenser
Acrylic mirror
Window
Fire door Window
Control panel lights
Perspex panes
Thermometer cover
Emergency lights
EFK's
Covered Fluorescent lights
Scale digital displays
Pressure Gauge
Vessel Inspection window

Regards,

Tony
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users