8 replies to this topic

[rotiboy1002]

As we know, BRC Standard 6.2 (issue 5) required that the quantity of the product conform to customer spec.

Lets say the target weight of a product is 500g. In actual production, all the weight recorded were over 500g. There's no corrective action for that. No customer complaint for that issue. What will an auditor comment about it?

[Charles.C]

As we know, BRC Standard 6.2 (issue 5) required that the quantity of the product conform to customer spec.

Lets say the target weight of a product is 500g. In actual production, all the weight recorded were over 500g. There's no corrective action for that. No customer complaint for that issue. What will an auditor comment about it?

Dear rotiboy,

I presume the target weight is not less than the declared net weight.

Well, the auditor probably will complain if the primary or secondary packaging is significantly bulging/stressed. Common problem IMEX for small-sized, heavily glazed, frozen IQF products.

From a purely legal aspect, I think auditors are aware that most net weight standards include the word "minimum" somewhere. Admittedly, the justification for glazed produce can be a matter of interpretation sometimes.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Janvm]

Isn't is described in you local metronomical regulation how your batches need to be tested to declare conformity with the legal standard? IMEX for europe, the sampling size and frequency is described in regulation 2007/45/E (and the regulations it amends).

[ScottN_AMQA]

As we know, BRC Standard 6.2 (issue 5) required that the quantity of the product conform to customer spec.

Lets say the target weight of a product is 500g. In actual production, all the weight recorded were over 500g. There's no corrective action for that. No customer complaint for that issue. What will an auditor comment about it?

With a previous auditor I did have some discussion over product / declared weight. He did provide some insight to nutritional values of the product in the package, calorie count or the amount of sodium can be areas of concern.

[Philips]

As we know, BRC Standard 6.2 (issue 5) required that the quantity of the product conform to customer spec.

Lets say the target weight of a product is 500g. In actual production, all the weight recorded were over 500g. There's no corrective action for that. No customer complaint for that issue. What will an auditor comment about it?

[Philips]

Thanks, I would like you to look at it in two diffferent angles; 1. You are adhering to your specifications, this translate to losses from your end and this will eventually affect your traceability test tallying of materials (reconciliation). The No. 2 of looking at it is if you were to ship this product to a destination out of the country, it therefoe means one will pay more shipment charges by weight and the packages remain the same number odered.

As an audiotr, I will offer you a cool NC for the above two reasons; NOT AS PER CUSTOMERS SPECIFICATIONS, and NOT COST EFFECTIVE for both your compnay and client

[Charles.C]

Dear Philips,

Interesting comments but I fear that you are ignoring standard practices in manufacturing and also expressing purely personal opinions (albeit the latter in a kind way to assist the exporter.?)

Can you supply any accessible BRC validation to justify yr 2 criteria for a NC.?

Rgds / Charles.C

[Charles.C]

Dear rotiboy,

Good Question

I hope the responses were useful ?

Rgds / Charles.C

[rotiboy1002]

Thanks, I would like you to look at it in two diffferent angles; 1. You are adhering to your specifications, this translate to losses from your end and this will eventually affect your traceability test tallying of materials (reconciliation). The No. 2 of looking at it is if you were to ship this product to a destination out of the country, it therefoe means one will pay more shipment charges by weight and the packages remain the same number odered.

As an audiotr, I will offer you a cool NC for the above two reasons; NOT AS PER CUSTOMERS SPECIFICATIONS, and NOT COST EFFECTIVE for both your compnay and client

Philips, I would worry about the first reason that you gave for NC. But is Cost Effectiveness a concern under BRC?