GMP - Personnel Hygiene
Started by MQA, Apr 05 2011 09:14 PM
Hi to all,
Is there anything wrong with this picture?
Is there anything wrong with this picture?
Attached Files
1 Like
Updated versions of CODEX General Principles of Food Hygiene Published
Production Personnel Wearing Finger Nail Polish and Gloves
HQF Certification for Cleaning Stations: Elevating Hygiene and Quality Standards
HQF Certification for Cleaning Stations: Elevating Hygiene and Quality Standards
HQF Certification for Cleaning Stations: Elevating Hygiene and Quality Standards
[Ad]
Heavy make up!!! Picture not very clear to detail everything clearly.
Regards
Ajay
Regards
Ajay
Dear Jakmqa,
Sooo many possibilities - to name but 4
Taken in Australia (?)
Rust
Non-stop FIFO but no sign of FO
Personnel Metal hazard
Rgds / Charles.C
Sooo many possibilities - to name but 4
Taken in Australia (?)
Rust
Non-stop FIFO but no sign of FO
Personnel Metal hazard
Rgds / Charles.C
It was used on the front page of a brochure belonging to an international food safety / quality assurance Certification Body.
I won't name the company (whom is quite renowned), but when I emailed them of my concerns about her wearing makeup, this is the response I received:
Thank you for your feedback on the food safety image. I appreciate you contacting ****.
The person within the image adequately adheres to internationally accepted Good Manufacturing Practices (based on Codex Alimentarius and ratified by over 155 countries) that are recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative. Specifically, the image adheres to PAS 220:2008 section 10 which covers “Measures for prevention of cross contamination” and section 13 which covers “personnel hygiene” and “work wear and protective clothing”. The GMP and PAS 220 focus on objects that can contaminate the product from a foreign material point of view. Example – rings with stones, earrings, false nails, buttons, fraying clothing material, hair, etc. Make up is not considered unacceptable within the GMP.
I guess I was wrong when I gave someone a corrective action for wearing makeup whilst baking...
And Charles, you fiend, it was in fact USA. And yes, I noticed the rust too!
I won't name the company (whom is quite renowned), but when I emailed them of my concerns about her wearing makeup, this is the response I received:
Thank you for your feedback on the food safety image. I appreciate you contacting ****.
The person within the image adequately adheres to internationally accepted Good Manufacturing Practices (based on Codex Alimentarius and ratified by over 155 countries) that are recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative. Specifically, the image adheres to PAS 220:2008 section 10 which covers “Measures for prevention of cross contamination” and section 13 which covers “personnel hygiene” and “work wear and protective clothing”. The GMP and PAS 220 focus on objects that can contaminate the product from a foreign material point of view. Example – rings with stones, earrings, false nails, buttons, fraying clothing material, hair, etc. Make up is not considered unacceptable within the GMP.
I guess I was wrong when I gave someone a corrective action for wearing makeup whilst baking...
And Charles, you fiend, it was in fact USA. And yes, I noticed the rust too!
Hi,
Ja right, very hygienic...
this quotation:
"the image adheres to PAS 220:2008 section 10 which covers “Measures for prevention of cross contamination” and section 13 which covers “personnel hygiene” and “work wear and protective clothing”.
Look at her clothes. Is this type of grandmothers sweater allowed to wear oncovered? Shouldn't a smock cover hands in this situation, or at least to put shorter covers on arms?
Regards
Inesa
p.s. please don't think I ciritise sweater itself, I like this type, but I think it's unsutable as industrial clothing
Ja right, very hygienic...
this quotation:
"the image adheres to PAS 220:2008 section 10 which covers “Measures for prevention of cross contamination” and section 13 which covers “personnel hygiene” and “work wear and protective clothing”.
Look at her clothes. Is this type of grandmothers sweater allowed to wear oncovered? Shouldn't a smock cover hands in this situation, or at least to put shorter covers on arms?
Regards
Inesa
p.s. please don't think I ciritise sweater itself, I like this type, but I think it's unsutable as industrial clothing
It was used on the front page of a brochure belonging to an international food safety / quality assurance Certification Body.
I won't name the company (whom is quite renowned), but when I emailed them of my concerns about her wearing makeup, this is the response I received:
Thank you for your feedback on the food safety image. I appreciate you contacting ****.
The person within the image adequately adheres to internationally accepted Good Manufacturing Practices (based on Codex Alimentarius and ratified by over 155 countries) that are recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative. Specifically, the image adheres to PAS 220:2008 section 10 which covers “Measures for prevention of cross contamination” and section 13 which covers “personnel hygiene” and “work wear and protective clothing”. The GMP and PAS 220 focus on objects that can contaminate the product from a foreign material point of view. Example – rings with stones, earrings, false nails, buttons, fraying clothing material, hair, etc. Make up is not considered unacceptable within the GMP.
I guess I was wrong when I gave someone a corrective action for wearing makeup whilst baking...
Great picture for debate
I agree with them, IMO make up isn't the problem, but there are so many other hazards here....... just highlighted a few from their example.
Also isn't it accepted good practice to use coloured aprons and gloves?
This picture is a great debate starter!
To me the biggest issue I see is the trays the fruit is on. That doesn't look like rust to me but just caked on grime.
A close second place would have to be the fuzz that is going to fall off her sweater sleeves and end up on the sliced fruit.
To me the biggest issue I see is the trays the fruit is on. That doesn't look like rust to me but just caked on grime.
A close second place would have to be the fuzz that is going to fall off her sweater sleeves and end up on the sliced fruit.
It appears there are BUTONS on her smock under the apron, not snaps.
I agree with the trays being the biggest hazard. The make up should definitely not be accepted and that sweater.. well... :doh:I guess sometimes certification is not about safety...
It appears there are BUTTONS on her smock under the apron, not snaps.
It appears there are BUTONS on her smock under the apron, not snaps.
Gold star but post removed for duplication?
If we start with the fact that there is no perfect operation, you could find something wrong in almost any picture, and it is common that even in pictures used for brochures, training and presentation you could find at least a little improvement opportunity.
Now, with that said; what is wrong in here is obvious to me; when the picture was taken, they were more concerned about the esthetic of the picture than food safety itself. I’ll dare to say they just hired a photographer and asked him to take pictures for a brochure; marketing worked on this and was not reviewed from a food safety stand point.
The excessive makeup and the nice sweeter is proof of that, but also the fact that the fruit bowls are placed on baking trays to display. (By the way, I don’t think is rust or dirt, those are used baking trays with baking residues).
Now, after many copies had being printed and distributed, it was probably easier to find reason (or excuse) to get along with the makeup. Although makeup may not be explicit in Codex, and it may not ba a major concern for pathogenic contamination, it may represent chemical contamination..., if not, how many of you would like to buy one of those biscuits with lipstick on it?
Now, with that said; what is wrong in here is obvious to me; when the picture was taken, they were more concerned about the esthetic of the picture than food safety itself. I’ll dare to say they just hired a photographer and asked him to take pictures for a brochure; marketing worked on this and was not reviewed from a food safety stand point.
The excessive makeup and the nice sweeter is proof of that, but also the fact that the fruit bowls are placed on baking trays to display. (By the way, I don’t think is rust or dirt, those are used baking trays with baking residues).
Now, after many copies had being printed and distributed, it was probably easier to find reason (or excuse) to get along with the makeup. Although makeup may not be explicit in Codex, and it may not ba a major concern for pathogenic contamination, it may represent chemical contamination..., if not, how many of you would like to buy one of those biscuits with lipstick on it?
Dear Antores,
Nice summary, not too sure about the sweeter biscuits though ?
and a (lonely) assistant ?
I'm still curious about the objects sticking up from the floor in the dark background like horse-shoe repairing blocks, not to mention the Roswell-type 2-fingered thingy.
@ Jakmqa,
USA ? And no burgers ??
Rgds / Charles.C
Nice summary, not too sure about the sweeter biscuits though ?
just hired a photographer
and a (lonely) assistant ?
I'm still curious about the objects sticking up from the floor in the dark background like horse-shoe repairing blocks, not to mention the Roswell-type 2-fingered thingy.
@ Jakmqa,
USA ? And no burgers ??
By inference ?. Not a very strong defenceMake up is not considered unacceptable within the GMP.
Rgds / Charles.C
Hi, I would like to question the cotton sweeter (?) and the use of mouth mask.
I meant sweater of course, and by biscuits I meant the bakery stuff that is in the picture, whatever it is. But now that you mention it, yes, they tried too hard to make the model look like a sweetie.
if not, how many of you would like to buy one of those biscuits with lipstick on it?
What..........with a chunk missing?
Hi to all,
Is there anything wrong with this picture?
Yes the employee is wearing too much make-up/cosmetic.
The heavy make up could imply heavy perfume too - but it's not smell-a-vision so let's give the nice lady the benfit of the doubt on that one...?!
Is it just me as well but isn't her protective clothing short sleeved?! I don't like heavy make up but there are more important things in this picture IMO (there's another thread on make up on here) but there are so many other things. I would not use this company...
I don't find that the makeup is a food safety hazard. I do believe a smock would be acceptable attire whereas the sweater could pose a foreign material risk to the ready-to-eat food.
Not sure what the policy should be on this(I'm in packaging not food), but should what looks like sliced fruit(behind her) be on these trays. Weather it be dirt, grime, or baking residue; don't think I would want to eat that if I saw where it came from. But I have been called over zealous before...
Hi to all,
Is there anything wrong with this picture?
Heavy make up, she may be wearing false eyelashes and her employee badge could be a problem.
Trace
My main concern is the lack of sleeve protection. I have worked in a bakery / food setting where the trays like those have been cleaned but still display the browing, especially if they are used for baking. As long as there is no rust or flaking off of the trays, they should be ok.
The name tag should be ok as long as it is behind the disposable apron.
The name tag should be ok as long as it is behind the disposable apron.
Dear rickquality,
Welcome to the forum!
I fear the general public may be less assured.
Rgds / Charles.C
Welcome to the forum!
As long as there is no rust or flaking off of the trays, they should be ok.
I fear the general public may be less assured.
Rgds / Charles.C
I have to say that even though I noticed the grime on the trays in front of her, and the carts behind her, that the fuzzy sweater arms and collar make me forget about the grime...
Updated versions of CODEX General Principles of Food Hygiene Published
Production Personnel Wearing Finger Nail Polish and Gloves
HQF Certification for Cleaning Stations: Elevating Hygiene and Quality Standards
HQF Certification for Cleaning Stations: Elevating Hygiene and Quality Standards
HQF Certification for Cleaning Stations: Elevating Hygiene and Quality Standards
Personal Hygiene Audit Template
Internal Audit with in-house personnel
Hygiene and fabrication inspection template for BRCGS
GHPs-HACCP : General Principles of Food Hygiene Rev.2022
Personal Hygiene BRCV9 - 7.2.1