Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

2.6 sabotage - How to control?

Share this

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic
* * * - - 1 votes

darsen

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands

Posted 09 December 2008 - 07:35 AM

Hi all,

In the new BRC standard they are mentioning that the facility should make an risk analysis of sabotage. For instance in chapter 2.6.2 you have to include sabotage in the risk analysis of the proces.

How on earth can I control this.

If someone from inside wants to sabotage my proces, as revenge for being fired, how can I control that.

Has anyone have any experience or emaples on how to controle potential sabotage. :helpplease:

I thank you in advance



moo73steve

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 18 posts
  • 6 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia

Posted 10 December 2008 - 12:02 AM

Hi,
We have used a government risk questionaire to help perform an assessment.

Here in Queensland Australia we had a few bad cases of intentional contamination so new laws were actually introduced.

I have attached a document with the questionaire for you.

Thanks

Steve

Attached Files



cazyncymru

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • Banned
  • 1,604 posts
  • 341 thanks
130
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 December 2008 - 08:37 AM

Hi all,

In the new BRC standard they are mentioning that the facility should make an risk analysis of sabotage. For instance in chapter 2.6.2 you have to include sabotage in the risk analysis of the proces.

How on earth can I control this.

If someone from inside wants to sabotage my proces, as revenge for being fired, how can I control that.

Has anyone have any experience or emaples on how to controle potential sabotage. :helpplease:

I thank you in advance


Hello

I have a feeling we've already discussed something similar to this recently.

However, It's all down to Risk Assessment. you need to demonstrate that you've thought about it.
What i have said in my Risk Assessment is that "it may be maliciously contaminated, but historic data shows otherwise"

You can't predict human nature, and you can argue that with the auditor.

I'll let you know exactly what she says, i'm on day 2 now of my BRC!

C x


rita

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 30 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Female

Posted 10 December 2008 - 09:35 AM

Thanks Steve for the document.



Simon

    IFSQN...it's My Life

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 12,826 posts
  • 1363 thanks
880
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Married to Michelle, Father of three boys (Oliver, Jacob and Louis). I enjoy cycling, walking and travelling, watching sport, especially football and Manchester United. Oh and I love food and beer and wine.

Posted 10 December 2008 - 09:58 PM

Yes great Steve thank you for posting.


Get FREE bitesize education with IFSQN webinar recordings.
 
Download this handy excel for desktop access to over 180 Food Safety Friday's webinar recordings.
https://www.ifsqn.com/fsf/Free%20Food%20Safety%20Videos.xlsx

 
Check out IFSQN’s extensive library of FREE food safety videos
https://www.ifsqn.com/food_safety_videos.html


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 11 December 2008 - 12:14 AM

Dear Steve,

Indeeed a great document. The concept of "reasonable suspicion" is I suspect a peculiarly British invention, sounds like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan (seems rather ironic to find such a detailed document originating from Australia :whistle: ).

@ Darsen. Yr query is understandable. However I think there is a considerable literature on this topic within the general subject of subversive activities. Some quite detailed risk matrices developed for prioritising possible routes of infiltration exist on the net, not surprisingly allied to security services websites from memory. There is a thread here (started by Highlind chick from memory) attempting to collect general thoughts for answering BRC "risk asessment" requirements but obviously the specific contents will vary on a case-by-case basis. I suppose this also comes within the "crisis management" aspects of iso 22000.
I hv yet to see any members comment that any deep analyses were required for most of the numerous "R.A." requests in BRC, more a question of demonstrating that an analysis of the possible risk routes had been considered (like Steve's post) and then evaluated based on a qualitative basis. Personally, although I'm sure it's overkill, I think it should not be that impossible to devise a general risk matrix so that one could simply x-reference from a numbered side-list for specific cases. I did start to do this but got rapidly bored due to the large number of occurrences now visible in BRC ver5. One could also set it up like the grading tables of Crit/Maj/Mi defects used for plant evaluations. Similarly, this is also probably crediting BRC with an excess of work.

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Cathy

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 280 posts
  • 44 thanks
19
Good

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 11 December 2008 - 12:15 AM

If you do an internet search for Food Defense you will find many suggestions. You can't really stop an attack but you can identify essential targets and harden them. You can increase basic security. You can decide if you are able to decrease batch sizes or improve observation systems. use a combination of a questionaire to determine where you are today compared to recommended actions that could be taken, and then prioritize those items you have not done based on their potential impact in reducing risk.
You could also look into the CARVER + Shock method to determine a numerical risk factor for each step in your process and then work to reduce the high risk areas.


Cathy Crawford, HACCP Consulting Group
http://haccpcg.com/

Cathy

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 280 posts
  • 44 thanks
19
Good

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 11 December 2008 - 12:22 AM

Try this document -

Attached Files


Cathy Crawford, HACCP Consulting Group
http://haccpcg.com/

cazyncymru

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • Banned
  • 1,604 posts
  • 341 thanks
130
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2008 - 04:47 PM

Try this document -



You can also obtain a copy of PAS96 " Defending Food and Drink" that will help you.

Do a search on Google and you can find it there.
I can't post a copy here as it does have a copyright.

C x


wijnand1970

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:only connecting on skype

Posted 28 December 2008 - 10:58 AM

Darsen,

What i did until now is make a instruction. Put in it:
- the way you make sure that unauthorised people can't enter (lock on doors, personal who will notice unauthorised persons)
- screening on personal (in the Netherlands use the site www.wieowie.nl)
- no entrance visitors without escort.
- etc.

This worked fine in all the BRC-audits so far.


Senior Food Consultant

The Netherlands


www.qassurance.com

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 28 December 2008 - 09:48 PM

Dear wijnand,

Thank you very much for yr contribution and welcome to the forum :welcome:

Sounds like you hv done a limited risk analysis by listing hazards and possible preventive actions but (seemingly successfully :smile: ) avoided doing any specific risk prioritisation as is required in a full analysis. Do I understand correct ??

I tried yr link but seems to be some kind of people search engine. :dunno: ??

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


wijnand1970

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:only connecting on skype

Posted 29 December 2008 - 10:05 AM

Charles,

I tried yr link but seems to be some kind of people search engine. :dunno: ??
Yes it is a people search engine. In that way you can get sometimes information about new employees. It is just a way to manage some risks.

Sounds like you hv done a limited risk analysis by listing hazards and possible preventive actions but (seemingly successfully :smile: ) avoided doing any specific risk prioritisation as is required in a full analysis. Do I understand correct ??

Yes correct. The risk analysis is very basic and simple..... What can go wrong and how can it be controlled. Until now it worked for all BRC5-audtis i have been in.
Don't know if it makes a difference that i am from the Netherlands. Maybe that in other countries the interpretation of sabotage and the possible risks is much more an issue.

That would be a nice discussion too.


Senior Food Consultant

The Netherlands


www.qassurance.com

BM5

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 26 January 2009 - 01:07 PM

Here is an excellent example of how unpredictable human nature can be.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ire/7843310.stm



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 26 January 2009 - 03:08 PM

Dear BM5,

Thks for this excellent example and welcome to the forum :welcome:

A simple policy instruction for preventing any further incidents is also self - evident ;)

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C




Share this

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users