6 replies to this topic

[emily.johnson]

I am working on my supplier approval program for BRC.

 

We are a fruit and vegetable processor and purchace our raw fruit from brokers, packing sheds, and directly from indiviual growers.   

 

We are really struggling on how to the risk analysis and documentation should look for brokers and packing sheds.  Do we need to approve each individual grower or only the broker or packing shed? 

 

Thanks in advance 

[David Pham]

I am working on my supplier approval program for BRC.

 

We are a fruit and vegetable processor and purchace our raw fruit from brokers, packing sheds, and directly from indiviual growers.   

 

We are really struggling on how to the risk analysis and documentation should look for brokers and packing sheds.  Do we need to approve each individual grower or only the broker or packing shed? 

 

Thanks in advance 

It depends, we use brokers for most of our meats but we also track the EST# the meat comes from. We contact the broker when there is an issue and in the past requested documentation from specific suppliers/packhouses that we have identified as potentially dangerous. We have then gone to the facility in question and performed our own audit. Depending on what the outcome of the audit was, the supplier was either blacklisted or allowed to continue business. In those cases we didn't drop the broker, but instead stated that we wouldn't accept any good coming from that specific supplier.

Edited by David Pham, 09 July 2013 - 07:20 PM.

[Charles.C]

I am working on my supplier approval program for BRC.

 

We are a fruit and vegetable processor and purchace our raw fruit from brokers, packing sheds, and directly from indiviual growers.   

 

We are really struggling on how to the risk analysis and documentation should look for brokers and packing sheds.  Do we need to approve each individual grower or only the broker or packing shed? 

 

Thanks in advance 

 

Dear emily.johnson,

 

Did you notice the related thread just below your own ?

 

See this thread / post (and xlinks) for an idea of the potential scope of the requirement although as other people remarked, a lot of the requirement is also fundamental to HACCP, preequisites,  and a hazard analysis ??

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...ion/#entry62905

 

It is also possible depending on the extent of yr postgate processing ??) that you are looking at the wrong type of standard, eg as compared to GAP type systems, or a more specialist audit scheme like perhaps Primus (from memory, no particular criticisms / recommendations implied).

 

@David Pham - 

Depending on what the outcome of the audit was, the supplier was either blacklisted or allowed to continue business.

 

 

This seems an unusually Draconian approach to me. Having previously been in a related Yes / No "seat" for a wide range of suppliers (not beef meat), i always preferred an "improvement" approach, eg after concluding (to me) an unsatisfactory audit, I informed the auditee (or their broker) that to be acceptable would initially require  implementation / improvement regarding a,b,c etc. Perhaps it depends on the norm for the particular product / location.

[David Pham]

 

This seems an unusually Draconian approach to me. Having previously been in a related Yes / No "seat" for a wide range of suppliers (not beef meat), i always preferred an "improvement" approach, eg after concluding (to me) an unsatisfactory audit, I informed the auditee (or their broker) that to be acceptable would initially require  implementation / improvement regarding a,b,c etc. Perhaps it depends on the norm for the particular product / location.

 

Well the soultion would be to implement corrective actions but some suppliers choose not to. Some outfits just do not have the resources to comply with the set standards and at times are able to get by until an audit is actually performed on site. In some cases you have facilities that were able to pass their previous audit depending on the auditor, and when it came time for us to audit thier systems there were numerous major failures found.

[john.kukoly]

Emily, the risk assessment should be established based on the product, not the type of company you are buying from.

 

Take for example I am purchasing fresh raspberries. The food safety risks identified are pesticide residue, unapproved pesticides and from certain countries cyclospora. Additionally I have a specification that identifies quality and regulatory attributes.

 

The option that I have identified for the control of pesticide residue - certification of the on-farm food safety program via a recognized certification program (one that covers the appropriate use of pesticides on farm), with additional targeted testing at the time of receipt.

 

If I am purchasing direct from a grower, I would require proof of certification.

If I am purchasing from a packing shed, I would have approved the packing shed if their supplier approval program supports mine ( i.e. they need to verify each of their suppliers certification programs).

If I am purchasing from a broker, I would have approved the broker if their supplier approval program supports mine (i.e. they need to verify each of their suppliers' certification programs).

 

Remember, when you deal with a broker, you are setting the standards and specifications for what you will buy (go back to the meat example, you would specify the grade as: Select, Choice, Grade A etc. and that is what the broker will source, if you specify "tenderloin" they won't ship you ribs...). You have the same ability, and responsibility to tell a  broker of raspberries you have a specification that includes the verification of on-farm food safety programs (i.e. GFSI certified or other audits you recognize).

 

If you decide that you need to purchase outside of approvals - for example the only raspberries available are from farms without verification of their pesticide control programs, then the risk needs to be mitigated at the next stage - that's between your receiving and use of the ingredient. The other option you may have included to control the risk is "test prior to use"; in which case you buy the product, test it, and if your data shows pesticide residue is not an issue, then you have mitigated the risk.

[Charles.C]

Dear john.kukoly,

 

Thks for above.

 

i presume yr last paragraph is a possible response for BRC 3.5.1.3.

 

I seem to recall that for some authorities, at one time, above situation for say pesticides  was simply haccp categorized in a "footnote" as something like " risk control for X is responsibility of supplier", period. Times seem to have changed.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[Tony-C]

I am working on my supplier approval program for BRC.

 

We are a fruit and vegetable processor and purchace our raw fruit from brokers, packing sheds, and directly from indiviual growers.   

 

We are really struggling on how to the risk analysis and documentation should look for brokers and packing sheds.  Do we need to approve each individual grower or only the broker or packing shed? 

 

Thanks in advance 

 

Hi Emily,

 

John has posted some sound advice.

 

You should ensure brokers and packing sheds have appropriate QA procedures in place to vet their suppliers and manage your own individual growers yourself by specifying and agreeing product standards and certification requirements.

 

I would be also interested in other pathogens depending on if your process removes the pathogen.

 

Regards,

 

Tony