2.6 sabotage - How to control?

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.

I thank you in advance

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

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.

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

Thanks Steve for the document.

Yes great Steve thank you for posting.

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 ).

@ 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

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.

Try this document -

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

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.

Dear wijnand,

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

Sounds like you hv done a limited risk analysis by listing hazards and possible preventive actions but (seemingly successfully ) 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. ??

Rgds / Charles.C

Charles,

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

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

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

Dear BM5,

Thks for this excellent example and welcome to the forum

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

Rgds / Charles.C