Hi.
We've recently undergone our BRC audit. We got a Grade A, with four minor n/c. We're a bit stumped, however, as to why we picked up a 2.9.1 (Does not meet the scope of the standard) in respect of laboratory operations. We have a non-accredited site laboratory for the testing of basic chemical parameters (no micro) in respect of wines and vinegars, which are sold as food ingredients (not retail). We contract out validation cross-checks with UKAS-accredited labs twice yearly (this has been with a single accredited lab, admittedly).
Our audits in respect of lab testing have all been satisfactory over the past 3 years - with the same auditor (but a different company TM). This year we're suddenly not in compliance. We comply with the requirements under 5.5.2.4 in the BRC Vers 5. standard (I'm not sure what the ref. is for Vers 4, which we seem to be missing. I should add, of course, that we were audited against 4)), but have been picked up a n/c against 5.5.2.3 (compliance with ISO17025, in relation to analyses that are critical to product safety or legality). It's the latter that I believe is the problem. We test free Sulphur Dioxide by a simple titration with a pre-mixed iodine-based solution supplied by an accredited lab. The total (combined SO2) of a wine is legally controlled by EU limits, whilst the free SO2 (which we test for) is simply the uncombined sulphur that has not been bound up with oxygen. The free SO2 is usually a third or half of the total SO2, which itself is usually around half the legal max in the wines we handle. We monitor the free SO2, but do not adjust it. We are therefore in no danger of exceeding the prescribed free SO2 limits for the products we supply, and our test results demonstrate this.
We are not a high risk operation, and the testing requirements (alcohol,acidity,pH) that describe our products are basic, and so far below the necessity for ISO17025 or UKAS accreditation that this course of action will be overkill.
I'm therefore interested to know whether anyone has faced a similar situation, and might be able to recommend a strategy for responding to this n/c? Many thanks.
Edited by ISO17025, 29 April 2008 - 09:44 PM.