|
Food Safety Network: FAQ BRC issue 6 now available on BRC site - Food Safety Network
Jump to content
FAQ BRC issue 6 now available on BRC site
Rate Topic:
   

- Senior – SIFSQN
-
-
Group:
Senior (SIFSQN)
-
Posts:
345
-
Joined:
18-September 07
-
Gender:Female
-
Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000
-
Netherlands
-
Thanked:
78 times
Posted 23 January 2012 - 02:26 PM
Dear all,
The BRC has published the FAQ for issue 6 on their website on 11 January 2012.
Please find enclosed.
Happy reading.
F039 FAQs Issue 6 v2 11 1 12.pdf (1.25MB)
Number of downloads: 238
Kind Regards,
Madam A. D-tor
0

- Fellow - FIFSQN
-
-
Group:
Moderator
-
Posts:
4,295
-
Joined:
13-April 04
-
Gender:Male
-
Interests:SF
TV
Movies
-
Earth
-
Thanked:
469 times
Posted 24 January 2012 - 01:24 AM
Madam A. D-tor, on 23 January 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:
Dear Madam A.D-tor,
Is this the same "Guidelines" document (previously un-free AFAIK) that you and Ken were discussing end of 2011 ?
It is obvious that BRC have now realised they can expect a stream of "exceptions" to their attempt to issue a Universal Zoning Tree. The mention of "time" based pseudo-physical barriers should be an interesting exercise for validation in forthcoming audits IMO.
I am also casually interested in where all the sous-vide / REPFEDS will fit in this grand scheme.
Their fixation with "Listeria" (= L.mono. presumably) 6D should be interesting in USA where they focus (for "fully" cooked foods) on Salmonella AFAIK. Or is this another interpretation of "equivalent" ?
I hope this document resolved your/Ken's criticisms though i rather doubt it. It did seem to me that some of Ken's customer's confusions might be related to mixing up the risk/care definitions as applied to areas /foods respectively. Not surprisingly either IMO !.
Rgds / Charles.C
0

- Senior – SIFSQN
-
-
Group:
Senior (SIFSQN)
-
Posts:
345
-
Joined:
18-September 07
-
Gender:Female
-
Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000
-
Netherlands
-
Thanked:
78 times
Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:35 AM
Charles.C, on 24 January 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:
Is this the same "Guidelines" document (previously un-free AFAIK) that you and Ken were discussing end of 2011 ?
No, it is not.
This guideline still has to come.
This is 'just' a FAQ. I think that BRC uses the questions that come to their helpline to establish this document.
Kind Regards,
Madam A. D-tor
0

- Fellow - FIFSQN
-
-
Group:
Moderator
-
Posts:
4,295
-
Joined:
13-April 04
-
Gender:Male
-
Interests:SF
TV
Movies
-
Earth
-
Thanked:
469 times
Posted 24 January 2012 - 11:03 AM
Dear Madam A.D-tor,
Quote
Yes, i thought it looked a bit too lightweight.
Quote I think that BRC uses the questions that come to their helpline to establish this document.
Mostly from auditors i imagine !
Rgds / Charles.C
0

- Fellow - FIFSQN
-
-
Group:
Fellow (FIFSQN)
-
Posts:
1,551
-
Joined:
20-March 08
-
United Kingdom
-
Thanked:
213 times
Posted 03 February 2012 - 05:02 AM
Charles.C, on 24 January 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:
Dear Madam A.D-tor,
Is this the same "Guidelines" document (previously un-free AFAIK) that you and Ken were discussing end of 2011 ?
It is obvious that BRC have now realised they can expect a stream of "exceptions" to their attempt to issue a Universal Zoning Tree. The mention of "time" based pseudo-physical barriers should be an interesting exercise for validation in forthcoming audits IMO.
I am also casually interested in where all the sous-vide / REPFEDS will fit in this grand scheme.
Their fixation with "Listeria" (= L.mono. presumably) 6D should be interesting in USA where they focus (for "fully" cooked foods) on Salmonella AFAIK. Or is this another interpretation of "equivalent" ?
I hope this document resolved your/Ken's criticisms though i rather doubt it. It did seem to me that some of Ken's customer's confusions might be related to mixing up the risk/care definitions as applied to areas /foods respectively. Not surprisingly either IMO !.
Rgds / Charles.C
The fixation with L. mono. presumably arises from the CFA. Their reasoning for using L mono. as their target organism was that if it killed L mono., it would also kill other vegetative pathogens of interest; I think the same was not necessarily true of the critical limits for Salmonellae.
0
Share this topic:
Similar Topics
1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
|
|