Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

BRC/IFS/FSSC covered food defense approach

Food Defense

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 FoodtechnologyPXL

FoodtechnologyPXL

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 6 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Belgium
    Belgium

Posted 26 February 2015 - 09:34 AM

Hello

 

As I am in my last year of my bachelor of biotechnology I am writing my thesis right now.

The subject is to develop a food defense plan for a food packaging company (cheese). 

 

One of the results would be to choose a fitting method (CARVER/VACCP/TACCP/etc.) for our company.

 

Therefore I would like to ask if there is anyone with experience who could give me some advice about how I could cover BRC/IFS/FSSC

 

For FSSC (iso 22001-1) they refer to PAS 96 which recommends the TACCP method.

BRC offers the decision tree for production zones which I would like to use as well as their biggest concern is the risk assessement of production zones.

The most important thing IFS asks is A food defense hazard analysis and assessment of associated risks shall have been performed and documented. Based on this assessment, and based on the legal requirements, areas critical to security shall be identified

 

Aereas critical to security, could I assume this is the same as the production zone risk assessement as I would use for BRC?

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, and hopefully there is someone who could help me out

 
Thank you in advance!


#2 it_rains_inside

it_rains_inside

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 341 posts
  • 95 thanks
46
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 26 February 2015 - 01:16 PM

Hi PXL,

 

I wish this could have been posted about two days ago. BRC had a wonderful webinar on Tuesday regarding the changes made to the standard (v7) concerning vulnerability assessments ( it also covered TACCP/VACCP/CARVER) but more in a sense of food fraud, not food defense (even though one might consider them to be one in the same??)

 

I screenshotted some of the slides from the webinar, because some days I really hate trying to keep up with taking notes and paying attention. I've attached the presentation. Hopefully some of the slides may be able to help you out. If anything the areas that are looked at for food fraud risk assessments can be directly templated for food defense (at least IMO) (e.g. historical incidents, current emerging concerns, economical factors, availability, etc... just swing the thought process from supply chain to the site)

 

Also, the last slide has some references that the BRC recommended for developing the vulnerability assessment, you may find these useful as well.

 

There have been a lot of changes recently to the expectations surrounding food defense, but if I can be of any further assistance, please do ask!

IRI

Attached Files


"Peace is the result of retraining your mind to process life as it is, rather than as you think it should be"

                                -Wayne W. Dyer

 


#3 mgourley

mgourley

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,248 posts
  • 924 thanks
201
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plant City, FL
  • Interests:Cooking, golf, firearms, food safety and sanitation.

Posted 26 February 2015 - 02:48 PM

You might also find this to be helpful.

 

FDA Food Defense Plan Builder

 

Marshall



#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,002 posts
  • 5041 thanks
1,064
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 26 February 2015 - 06:00 PM

Dear it-rains-inside,

 

but more in a sense of food fraud, not food defense (even though one might consider them to be one in the same??)

 

 

According to the BRC glossary, the 2 items are specifically distinguished, economic vs malicious/safety. No idea regarding IFS/FSSC's main interest.

 

I found the OP's focus a little strange in this respect since the BRC standard seems to primarily concentrate on fraud. Not too surprising in view of the it's due diligence tag. And as evidenced in  yr webinar also i guess.

 

@ FTPL, Production zones in BRC seems to me to be unrelated to Food Defense.

 

From memory, PAS 96 also focuses mainly on Economic Fraud  but I might be wrong.

 

Looks like a tough project. Any particular reason why you selected BRC/IFS/FSSC in addition to yr own factory ?

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

PS - mgourley's linked tool looks to have potential.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#5 it_rains_inside

it_rains_inside

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 341 posts
  • 95 thanks
46
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 26 February 2015 - 06:16 PM

@ Charles,

 

I understand that the two are distinctly different, and you are very correct one is economically concerned while the other is food safety related.

To clarify what I meant.... it seems as though the tools used to assess both are similar in use or are similar in structure.

 

Also - the tool that mgourley linked is a very VERY extensive plan builder and can be very cumbersome to complete. Just an FYI

 

Good Luck!!


"Peace is the result of retraining your mind to process life as it is, rather than as you think it should be"

                                -Wayne W. Dyer

 


#6 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,002 posts
  • 5041 thanks
1,064
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 26 February 2015 - 06:57 PM

@ Charles,

 

I understand that the two are distinctly different, and you are very correct one is economically concerned while the other is food safety related.

To clarify what I meant.... it seems as though the tools used to assess both are similar in use or are similar in structure.

 

Also - the tool that mgourley linked is a very VERY extensive plan builder and can be very cumbersome to complete. Just an FYI

 

Good Luck!!

Dear it-rains-inside,

 

TBH, i have no idea if any generally accepted definitions of these features exist. Was just quoting BRC's Glossary. I daresay there's a whole family of interpretations in use.  IFS may be quite different to BRC. :smile:

 

Re- cumbersome, lucky i said "looks". :smile: I did look at the examples in PAS 96 some time ago and thought they illustrated a degree of paranoia. But i guess it's necessary to think out-of-the-box where "Protection"  from malice is concerned.

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#7 FoodtechnologyPXL

FoodtechnologyPXL

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 6 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Belgium
    Belgium

Posted 27 February 2015 - 04:04 PM

Thanks for all the information already!

I chose these standards because the company is certified for these so they want to be up to those standards.

As for the FDA plan builder, i tried to use that one too and it helps to concentrate the most important information about the subject and there is a assessement of the vulnerabilities too.

 

For the moment i'm making a analyse about the situation in the company as it is right now by the Foqus Quality system for an upcoming audit. Maybe i'll use that one as an basic "questions" template but my biggest concern is I probably have to make both a VACCP and TACCP assessement to cover everything. Would the assessement of the vulnerabilities in the FDA plan builder be sufficient enough to serve as a VACCP?

 

Thanks in advance!



#8 mgourley

mgourley

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,248 posts
  • 924 thanks
201
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plant City, FL
  • Interests:Cooking, golf, firearms, food safety and sanitation.

Posted 27 February 2015 - 04:40 PM

The FDA's plan builder is indeed "extensive". I don't know that it's any more "cumbersome" than the CARVER/Shock application, but then again, I'm a Food Defense guy as well.

I found it to be pretty user friendly and intuitive.

 

 

 Would the assessement of the vulnerabilities in the FDA plan builder be sufficient enough to serve as a VACCP?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

I'm pretty certain it would. You would still have to have your mitigation strategies though.

 

Marshall



Thanked by 1 Member:

#9 FoodtechnologyPXL

FoodtechnologyPXL

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 6 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Belgium
    Belgium

Posted 02 March 2015 - 12:41 PM

Hallo again,

 

After a few days of thinking I think I have found something which could work.

I'll start with the FDA's plan builder to have a solid starting point and an vulnerability assessement as well. This would probably cover most of the IFS/BRC ground concerning food defense and when I add to that the questions that the company's own standard asks. Then I'll add an Threat assessement which will cover FSSC (pas 96).

 

I'm hoping that would provide a pretty complete document. If there is anyone with suggestions or remarks pleas share them with me.

For the TACCP I was hoping someone could help me out with a template as an example as I am not sure how far i need to go in this.

 

Thank you in advance.



#10 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,002 posts
  • 5041 thanks
1,064
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 02 March 2015 - 08:57 PM

Dear FTPXL,

 

It seems to me that yr basic problem is one of defining the scope for yr thesis. I presume this is not intended to be a research-type thesis which is often open-ended, ie the end result may have little relationship to the original idea. :smile:

 

Scope is the first step in doing a haccp plan and crucial to what comes next.  i would suggest the same logic applies for the "risk assessments" which are basically what you are now doing.

 

Yr OP states Food Defense. Is this interpreted identically between USA, UK, Belgium ? For example do all exclude Economic Fraud ?

 

BRC / PAS 96 seem to be not primarily concerned with Food Defense.

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#11 FoodtechnologyPXL

FoodtechnologyPXL

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 6 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Belgium
    Belgium

Posted 03 March 2015 - 02:49 PM

Thank you for your replay Charles,

 

You may be right about the scope, as it is very difficult to say what is possible to achieve within 10 weeks.

My teacher and the company wants it to be more practical based instead of the research type thesis.. as you say. 

For myself, it would be nice if i could leave something behind which the company can use in the future, a basic plan to go build on.

 

The results i described in my plan of approach are:

 

-       Study as a theroretical background

-       The demands of IFS/BRC/FSSC/AEO regaring food defense and apply a method which covers most ground

-       Gap analyse of the actual situation for the Foqus audit

-       Minimum measures which can be taken to close the gaps as far as possible, like additions to existing procedures

-       Basisc brochure with information which can be sent to employees about the subject (making the employees aware). The brochure could be integrated in the welcome brochure for new employees

-       PowerPoint presentation which can be used in the restaurant screens

-       A food defense plan, which will be build up on information from the FDA's plan builder, a Threat assessment (to cover FSSC PAS96) and the demands from the Foqus quality manual (Company's own standard)

 

Economic fraud will not be my main interest. 

 

Regards



#12 FoodtechnologyPXL

FoodtechnologyPXL

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 6 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Belgium
    Belgium

Posted 09 March 2015 - 12:27 PM

Hello again,

 

Is there maybe someone who has a template of a food defense reporting procedure or document?

As I am trying to make one for my company it would be very useful if I could take a look at an example.

 

Thank you in advance!



#13 Mathieu Colmant

Mathieu Colmant

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 67 posts
  • 18 thanks
7
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2015 - 05:50 PM

Hi PXL,

 

If you made your own study, you just need to write what you have done.

When you have the rules, you will need to determine which rule concerns which zone/people, and make a document with the rules, the documents to fill in, the people to warn if there is a problem,...

 

Make sure that economic fraud is also part of the study, even if you are not in that part : the food fraud consideration in BRC comes mainly from horsegate, which is economic only.


Mathieu Colmant

Consultant in Food Safety - Brussels & London

Director

FollowFoodLaw.eu ltd






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users