7 replies to this topic

[WowQC]

Does glass and brittle plastics in non-production areas (e.g. office, lunchroom, maintenance room, etc.) need to be on a checklist for inspection, or can it just have a general inspection and procedures in place for in case of breakage?

 

We are a food production facility. There is no direct access from offices to production, but there is from change area. Maintenance room goes into storage.

 

Thanks.

[Tony-C]

The idea is to create a realistic list of items which present a risk of breakage and contamination of products, so the answer is no*.

 

SQF state that a risk assessment of foreign material contamination and preventative controls should be included within the food safety/HACCP plan development and all glass objects or similar material in food handling/contact zones should be listed in a glass register including details of their location.

BRC give an example of a risk assessment where protected lighting in offices is rated as low, the risk being glass contaminating clothing controls being breakage procedure and change of clothing going into food contact areas. * So the question is do any staff (e.g. maintenance) go into production areas without changing?

 

Regards,

 

Tony
 

[Charles.C]

Dear Wowqc,

 

This topic is a very popular request area.

 

A few vaguely related examples which may be of interest -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...5494#entry65494

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...n-a-laboratory/

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...ugh/#entry48605

 

As per previous post, it usually involves RA.

 

I would include footwear within Tony's last comment. I presume this is a feasible route - storage > production ?

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[WowQC]

Would a procedure covering action to be taken in the event of glass breakage in non-production areas (which includes changing of work clothing and inspecting/cleaning footwear) be sufficient then? We have daily general inspections, and any glass breakage would be noticed right away.

[Tony-C]

Dear Wowqc,

 

As per previous post, it usually involves RA.

 

I would include footwear within Tony's last comment. I presume this is a feasible route - storage > production ?

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

Playing the devil's advocate what is the risk?

 

Would a procedure covering action to be taken in the event of glass breakage in non-production areas (which includes changing of work clothing and inspecting/cleaning footwear) be sufficient then? We have daily general inspections, and any glass breakage would be noticed right away.

 

Yes, are you going to allocate dedicated equipment for cleaning glass breakages in those areas?

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[WowQC]

It would be low risk, as lighting is shatter proof, and there is minimal other glass/brittle plastic. We have dedicated vacuums, brooms, etc. for these areas, so they would not go back out to a production area. To my knowledge we have never had a breakeage (not saying that it would never happen). I just don't want to double my list with lunchroom dishes, etc. Thanks.

[mapry2]

I agree with Tony and Wowqc. Its a low risk area.

[Charles.C]

Playing the devil's advocate what is the risk?

 

Regards,

 

Tony

 

Hi Tony, et al,

 

Although no specific mention as yet, i presume we are talking about Prerequisite functions.

 

So what are the Canadian regulations for design prevention of cross-contamination /  Food manufacturing? Over to Wow perhaps.

 

Can cross-contamination defy gravity ? Hmmm.

 

On the other hand, noting the geographical location, perhaps  glass < 2 mm is not considered a significant health risk anyway so maybe a quantitative RA is in order ?. (Wanna bet on a handful for $1 ? )  (I'm not sure if Canada also copies the US adulteration rules ?)

 

Frankly, IMO a direct linkage from "maintenance" to a (food contact-related) storage area should be avoided in the first place, regardless of whether a direct onward linkage to production exists. Regulation justifiable ?

 

So as per my present knowledge (or in some respects, lack of), i guess my answer to the OP is yes with exception of "offices" (assuming conformance to above-mentioned caveat[s]). the lunchroom scenario is so far unknown.

 

Rgds / Charles