26 replies to this topic

[Harminnie]

Does anyone have a list of all the risk assessments that are required under BRC Issue 7 and referenced against the clause number?

[Charles.C]

Does anyone have a list of all the risk assessments that are required under BRC Issue 7 and referenced against the clause number?

 

There ia a thread for BRC6, but afai recall nothing yet for "7" yet.

 

I guess one approximate route is to search the standard for text appearances of "RA".

 

for BRC6, from memory, the (mandatory) total was ca.10-15

[C.Arsenault]

Hi Harminnie

I have attached a list of risk assessments for BRC Issue 7.

Attached Files

•  Copy of risk assessments required ISSUE 7.xlsx   13.1KB   1155 downloads

[Charles.C]

Hi C.Arsenault

 

Many thks for yr helpful document. Must have been a laborious task.

 

Is yr copy of BRC7 in UK English ? I ask because there seem to be some numbering/textual mismatches with my own copy. (see below). I wondered if the language versions are all mutually compatible.

After doing some searching via key phrases I agree with the vast majority of your listed items (and there sure are a lot !, 30+ and counting !).

The only reservations / “mismatches” I noticed are listed below although I am certain some possibilities have still to be found thanks to BRC’s  magnetic fascination with risk assessments.

 

3.5.1.2 - absent

3.5.2.1 - maybe pre-empted by 3.5.1.2

4.10.1.1 - maybe subjective

4.11.1 - text not match standard

4.11.2 - absent

4.13.1 - text not match standard

4.13.8 - clause not exist

4.14.2 - absent

4.3.5 - text not match standard

4.3.6 - text not match standard

 

Regardless of above, it’s a fantastic job.

[C.Arsenault]

Hi Charles C,

 

The version of BRC Issue 7 I use is the North American version. That would probably explain the textual mismatches you observed.

Regards

C.Arsenault

[Charles.C]

Interesting.  If true, one might suspect that BRC have also somewhat dropped the ball in their global quest.

[C.Arsenault]

After further review it appears I have miss numbered some of the elements on my list....Any idea how I can delete my post as I would not want to provide misleading and incorrect information. Caution to members who may have already reviewed this listing.

[Charles.C]

No problem. Just re-upload a revised version when available. That's what revisions are for.

[C.Arsenault]

Please note I have made revisions to the Risk Assessment List I had previously posted. Please note this is a  working copy and I may at times abbreviate the requirements and I also use the Interpretation Guidelines for BRC Issue 7 for further clarifications.

 

Attached Files

•  Risk assessments required ISSUE 7 Revision 2.xlsx   15.48KB   776 downloads

[Charles.C]

Thks for the up-date.

 

AFAIK, there is no stipulation in the BRC Standard that the user of the Standard must also respond to the info. contained in the Guidelines. Similarly, I anticipate that BRC are equally not obliged to automatically accept a response which is nominally in compliance with the Guidelines. (SQF carefully state such a caveat in their Code, and indeed well follow their own advice).

 

For example consider clause 4.7.1. The Code (at least in my UK version) makes no mention of a RA. So it is surely nonsensical that the BRC Guideline contains the word "must" preceding their newly added  requirement of an RA.

 

Of course i might be a little more understanding if the Guidelines were free.

[Satya Vavilapalli]

thanks for revision C.Arsenault 

[Bhawani Gorti]

Thanks. useful to keep track of changes in version 7.0 compare to 6.0

[zee]

Please note I have made revisions to the Risk Assessment List I had previously posted. Please note this is a  working copy and I may at times abbreviate the requirements and I also use the Interpretation Guidelines for BRC Issue 7 for further clarifications.

Thank you!  Very handy to have this as a checklist 

[TomLovesStarch]

Thanks, very useful :)

[mark0102]

I think you've missed clause 3.5.1.2 which says that approval procedure for suppliers shall be based on risk. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Great job anyway. Very useful. Thanks a lot :)

[Charles.C]

I think you've missed clause 3.5.1.2 which says that approval procedure for suppliers shall be based on risk. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Great job anyway. Very useful. Thanks a lot :)

See post #4

 

BTW - Welcome to the Forum !

[mark0102]

See post #4

 

BTW - Welcome to the Forum !

 

Oh yeah missed that sorry.

 

And thanks!

[Sheilag]

This is very much appreciated - 1st day of hearing about this forum/site and great find!

[ennyk]

Hi all;

 

thanks for this people, just had a BRC audit last week, and was got flagged for several things on the list for not doing risk assessment, some of which i remember, are approved suppliers, raw materials and packaging materials (which i thought we did this in HACCP), and frequency of external microbial analysis, and facility layout of high, low, high care risk areas.

 

this list will help me on track for others.

 

Thanks everyone, really helpful.

[npratt]

I participated in a BRC Issue 7 training a few weeks ago and the course leader was adamant there were only 28 required risk assessments.

 

I too appreciate the list, but I'm wondering where this specific 28 comes from....I found 30 plus, similar to the list posted.

 

Good luck to all going thru this process.

[Charles.C]

I participated in a BRC Issue 7 training a few weeks ago and the course leader was adamant there were only 28 required risk assessments.

 

I too appreciate the list, but I'm wondering where this specific 28 comes from....I found 30 plus, similar to the list posted.

 

Good luck to all going thru this process.

Hi npratt,

 

There is inevitably some subjectivity, eg Risk-Averseness.

 

Based on my interpretation of the excel sheet attached in post 9  I calculate the Best Case scenario = 31 "RA"s as listed in excel attached below which further borrows the excellent compilation due to C.Arsenault.

Any errors in the expanded columns E,G and the variously  added blue text are totally due to me.

 

 Risk Assessment List -BRC7.xls   40KB   480 downloads

[DavidAR]

Hi npratt,

 

There is inevitably some subjectivity, eg Risk-Averseness.

 

Based on my interpretation of the excel sheet attached in post 9  I calculate the Best Case scenario = 31 "RA"s as listed in excel attached below which further borrows the excellent compilation due to C.Arsenault.

Any errors in the expanded columns E,G and the variously  added blue text are totally due to me.

 

Risk Assessment List -BRC7.xls

im fairly new to this forum, had a lot of help from people like charles.c and felt i should volunteer my 2 cents or 2p in my case.

 

the standard (uk version) talks a lot about assessing the risk of something, now auditors will and can only audit against the standards clauses not the interpretation guideline. With this in mind im very cautious of the wording in most cases because if the clause says something like " there shall be a documented risk assessment" vs " approval will be based on risk" i read this as saying a) there shall be a documented risk assessment in which case il document a risk assessment and b) based on risk well as a foody i risk everything i see mentally and take appropriate action, it does not to me mean i need to create a risk assessment and document it.

 

If that even makes the slightest bit of sense? of course evidence is what an auditor requires and its this that would be hard to provide if it wasn't by default documented LOL

[Charles.C]

im fairly new to this forum, had a lot of help from people like charles.c and felt i should volunteer my 2 cents or 2p in my case.

 

the standard (uk version) talks a lot about assessing the risk of something, now auditors will and can only audit against the standards clauses not the interpretation guideline. With this in mind im very cautious of the wording in most cases because if the clause says something like " there shall be a documented risk assessment" vs " approval will be based on risk" i read this as saying a) there shall be a documented risk assessment in which case il document a risk assessment and b) based on risk well as a foody i risk everything i see mentally and take appropriate action, it does not to me mean i need to create a risk assessment and document it.

 

If that even makes the slightest bit of sense? of course evidence is what an auditor requires and its this that would be hard to provide if it wasn't by default documented LOL

 

Hi David,

 

Indeed a literal focus on the word "documented" has been an axiom of arguments which have resounded in ISO 9000 forums since time immemorial.

 

An auditee's rejoinder  of "Show me where the the standard says it has to be documented" to an ISO 9001 auditor's request for written evidence has afaik survived  the test of time.

 

Unfortunately FS auditors do not appear to adhere to ISO-based conventions and adjust their rules as they move around. More carnivorous stock perhaps.

 

Caveat emptor.

[DavidAR]

I took a good look at the file and it makes me wonder what if?

 

What if the clause says nothing about risk asessment but the interpretation says that if something is not avaialble then it shall be risk asessed.

 

If i have not done a RA and i ask auditor to show me where it says i must even though its in the interpretation, will he raise non-conformity for lack of understanding of the standards intentof that section?

 

Raises the reality that potentially you could end up with a fundamental if this is hit in one of those sections.

 

makes me think that perhaps SOD the standard and audit my self on the interperetation LOL...

[Charles.C]

Hi David,

 

Don't forget that, afaik, the auditor has to provide an itemized  list of nonconformance justifications within the paragraph context of the Standard. IMO the logical time to challenge significant bones of contention is at the time of the audit, strangely a lot of people don't seem to do this. Unless you've clearly already achieved yr target result of course.

 

I think you will find there are some definite, albeit not widely distributed, regulations regarding (certified) audits/auditorial procedure. This, afaik, is ultimately the responsibility of the Accreditation Body who theoretically assess the performance of CBs via scrutiny of all the NC lists/responses.  Perhaps the mass of detail in the Standard regarding  audit procedural structure mentions such things, don't think i ever got past the opening/ending pages.

 

If you wish for a comparative example (precedent?), SQF do provide a free detailed Guidance for their Standard.  But they carefully include some small print in the Standard that in the event of any conflict between Guidance and Standard, the text in the latter supercedes.

(Unfortunately examples posted on this forum demonstrate that occasionally auditors diverge from both the previous routes. SOD's Law?.)