36 replies to this topic

[okido]

Our policy on jewellery is one set of earrings may be worn if they are of the closed loop type.
All other earrings should be covered with blue plaster.
Somebody made a remark that if these earrings were covered by the hair cover it would be enough.
Who has any ideas or experience with this subject.

Remember to share good fortune with your friends, Okido

[Simon]

Somebody made a remark that if these earrings were covered by the hair cover it would be enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who did? Employee or Auditor?

BTW if I had good fortune Okido I would.

Regards,
Simon

[navigator]

Our policy on jewellery is one set of earrings may be worn if they are of the closed loop type.
All other earrings should be covered with blue plaster.
Somebody made a remark that if these earrings were covered by the hair cover it would be enough.
Who has any ideas or experience with this subject.

Remember to share good fortune with your friends, Okido

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i think you have to do the risk asesssment!! you know your staff and their hat wearing standard....so what is the risk?
ear rings can get caught in the hair net and that could be a bigger hazard?
i would advise keep it simple.
"Our policy on jewellery is one set of earrings may be worn if they are of the closed loop type.
All other earrings should be covered with blue plaster."
clear concise no ambiguity...stick with it!

[Charles Chew]

No jewellery or earrings are allowed in our factory........period not even closed loop type.

However, IMO, if base on a risk assessment, having a hair net over or a plaster covering the ear rings indicate similar risk exposures. IMO, the hair net is a safer bet as a direct catchment trap while the blue metal detectable plaster may likely become a larger risk as there is no secondary control. This is where I find it ironical.

In a burger plant for example, the earrings may have been "ground" to pieces and may not be metal "detected" unless the intensity is "very sensitive"

So each solution poses its own set of problems but I also believe nothing is deemed a non-conformance if there is no historical record of incidence including the fact that if you can prove that existing control measures have been effective in maintaining a FSMS.....if so whats the fuss

Just my opinion.

Charles Chew

Edited by charleschew, 20 June 2005 - 04:17 AM.

[Simon]

Thanks for your comments guys.

I had always thought the BRC/IOP Standard allowed for one pair of sleeper (closed loop) earrings but I was wrong. Rather than offering a positive list the BRC/IOP provides a negative list that says no to watches, stones, gems or anything that is liable to breakage or contamination. Of course nose and eyebrow rings and studs are out. Funny it doesn't mention tongues?

The guidance isn't clear on the number and type of earrings allowed or how to control them. Therefore the important clause in the Standard is 7.6.3 which states 'Company policy shall clearly specify the type of jewellery allowed to be worn and the controls to be in place to minimise the risk of contamination'

With this the more freedom your policy allows your employees the more controls you will need to have in place.

Personally I would go with the blue plaster as it is an inconvenience to the operator and may deter them from wearing more than one pair of sleeper (closed loop) earrings.

Regards,
Simon

[Charles Chew]

I was horrified when I have JUST received a copy of a HACCP Manual - Hazard Analysis from my partner who sent it to a food auditor in Australia for review.

Guess what - it said under the potential hazard column "nose rings" worn for religious reason by a group of Indian Women workers. Not a CCP - Justification is this is a religious element that cannot be "undone" and strict "Personal Effects Control" in place.

"Personal Effect Control" - Before Production Commences and After Production Ceases by Daily Checks. Policy on potentially affected products if nose-rings are missing have been in place and supported by management.

Well - Auditor is okay with the explanation.....and this is not the first time. CB is from UK and Auditor from Australia What do you think?

Charles Chew

[Simon]

Charles,

I neglected to mention in the BRC/IOP Standard, 7.6 Jewellery and Personal Items it mentions in Para. 7.6.1 Jewellery and wristwatches shall not be worn, unless for ethnic, medical or religious reasons in which case these shall be one piece or appropriately controlled to minimise the risk of contamination.

For interest a lot of people in the UK wear copper bracelets that are supposed to help with rheumatism and other ills.

Regards,
Simon

[Charles Chew]

Funny it doesn't mention tongues?

Simon,
This one is obvious. There is already control measure in place to minimise contamination risk for the tongue in case the event occurs and you also know where and what it is.


Charles Chew

[Simon]

This one is obvious. There is already control measure in place to minimise contamination risk for the tongue in case the event occurs and you also know where and what it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It may be obvious Charles, but I don't get it.

Regards,
Simon

[Charles Chew]

Mouth is the catch net See the technical committee is smart.

Charles Chew

[Simon]

Mouth is the catch net  See the technical committee is smart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah but to be on the safe side maybe another control.



Regards,
Simon

[tripathi_shivendra]

Our policy on jewellery is one set of earrings may be worn if they are of the closed loop type.
Who has any ideas or experience with this subject.

Remember to share good fortune with your friends, Okido

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it makes best sense if you just ban these items totally. We faced resistance but ultimately the need -"Obtaining BRC-IoP certification" prevailed than any sentiments.

[Simon]

Hello Shivendra,

I agree a total ban is easiest to manage and everybody knows where they stand. It is however over and above the requirements of most standards including brc/iop; I wonder did you get any resistance from employees about wearing jewellery for religious or medical reasons?

Regards,
Simon

[tripathi_shivendra]

Hello Shivendra,

I wonder did you get any resistance from employees about wearing jewellery for religious or medical reasons?

Regards,
Simon

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the design phase we were initially really caught up with these sentiments. But when we spoke to the workmen they seemed to be in favour of total banning to our amazement. This gave us courage to ban these items completely.

rgds

Shivendra

[Simon]

In the design phase we were initially really caught up with these sentiments. But when we spoke to the workmen they seemed to be in favour of total banning to our amazement. This gave us courage to ban these items completely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are they all work-MEN Shivendra? It may make it easier as they usually wear less jewellery than women - mind you these days...

Regards,
Simon

[sskubisnac]

Whilst at a training course for a 'Food Manufacturing Standard' being implemented by one of the major retailers in the UK recently this topic arose. They only permit 'religious / ethnic' jewellery if suitably controlled; NO earrings; and a single plain finger ring.

I took this last point up with the trainer, surely if they have come to the conclusion that there is no safety risk in the wearing of a single plain finger ring, then why not more than one? (seemed a sensible question, and I was getting bored of their arrogant attitude by this point). The answer .... 'we don't think more than one is necessary'!! What? Are standards now set on such arbitrary decisions, or based on risk assessment and sensible thought and discussion?

Ah well ..... every little helps!

Ss

[Simon]

Whilst at a training course for a 'Food Manufacturing Standard' being implemented by one of the major retailers in the UK recently this topic arose. They only permit 'religious / ethnic' jewellery if suitably controlled; NO earrings; and a single plain finger ring.

I took this last point up with the trainer, surely if they have come to the conclusion that there is no safety risk in the wearing of a single plain finger ring, then why not more than one? (seemed a sensible question, and I was getting bored of their arrogant attitude by this point). The answer .... 'we don't think more than one is necessary'!! What? Are standards now set on such arbitrary decisions, or based on risk assessment and sensible thought and discussion?

Ah well ..... every little helps!

Ss

Hi sskubisnac, It took me a while but I just got your username.

So no earrings at all. I always thought that a single pair of sleeper earrings (the ring ones) was ok. With regard to rings on fingers I can't argue with your logic - can anyone else?

Welcome to the forums.



Regards,
Simon

[cazyncymru]

Hi sskubisnac, It took me a while but I just got your username.

So no earrings at all. I always thought that a single pair of sleeper earrings (the ring ones) was ok. With regard to rings on fingers I can't argue with your logic - can anyone else?

Welcome to the forums.



Regards,
Simon

I don't mind finding a diamond in my food, as long as it's big enough for me to bloody retire!

depends on which retailers CoP you follow, some allow earrings, some don't. personally i say no!

[Charles.C]

Dear All,

And to add 1 more factor as illustrated in another thread here somewhere -

In at least one country, namely Australia, I believe the legal question of upholding "worker's rights" is also involved. Maybe BRC has low penetration there ?

Rgds / Charles.C

[Simon]

I don't mind finding a diamond in my food, as long as it's big enough for me to bloody retire!

depends on which retailers CoP you follow, some allow earrings, some don't. personally i say no!

I'd love to work for you Caz.

[Jean]

It is better to have a rule stating no jewellery to be worn during the food operations or have rules like small studs for ear rings and a plain wedding ring, but in the high risk areas, staffs are not allowed to wear any jewellery, including plain wedding ring and ear rings.

[Jean]

I would suggest to implement the jewellery policy depending on the kind of operation high risk and low risk / direct or indirect food operations, or to make it simple, a single rule for all.

[cazyncymru]

I'd love to work for you Caz.

well i have an opening in the lab if your interested!

[BBrandDesign]

As per my view it is very much essential to have packaging of jewelry kind of items as it is very much risky to handle. Also a great advantage with its packing is that its packaging can make much more attractive in looking.

[Simon]

As per my view it is very much essential to have packaging of jewelry kind of items as it is very much risky to handle. Also a great advantage with its packing is that its packaging can make much more attractive in looking.

This topic isn't about the packaging of jewellery, but controlling jewellery worn by operators in a packaging manufacturing factory to prevent product contamination.