Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Inclusion of Packaging VA in VA for Food Raw Materials, 5.4.2 ?

Share this

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

Poll: Inclusion of Packaging VA in VA for Food Raw materials, 5.4.2 (41 member(s) have cast votes)

Did you include VA for Packaging (VAP) in your Vulnerability Assessment of BRC7 / 5.4.2 ?

  1. YES (15 votes [71.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 71.43%

  2. NO (6 votes [28.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.57%

Vote Guests cannot vote
- - - - -

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 30 November 2015 - 05:57 AM

Hi All,

 

In view of some recent queries regarding any expected  inclusion  of a Packaging VA for BRC7 / 5.4.2,  I thought it might be useful to seek auditee’s experiences on this topic.

 

Only 1 Question - appreciate your input.

 

Any additional, related, auditorial observations feel free to post.

 

PS - I reset the numbers to zero (ca. early June 2016) due the confirmation of BRC (Nov.2015) that Packaging VA not required ("score" was 11-9).


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


JohnWheat

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 165 posts
  • 60 thanks
13
Good

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norfolk UK
  • Interests:My Children, Motorsports, Film, Rita Ora and Mila Kunis :)

Posted 30 November 2015 - 07:50 AM

We covered packaging and its approval through the packaging section within BRC v7 scope and risk assessment. It was agreed the packaging WE have was limited and from major approved/well known suppliers and very unlikely to cause any issues.



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 30 November 2015 - 08:41 AM

We covered packaging and its approval through the packaging section within BRC v7 scope and risk assessment. It was agreed the packaging WE have was limited and from major approved/well known suppliers and very unlikely to cause any issues.

 

Hi JohnWheat,

 

Thks for input.

 

i deduce you mean that you did not submit a formal VAP to respond to 5.4.2 ?


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


mgourley

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,403 posts
  • 997 thanks
274
Excellent

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

Posted 30 November 2015 - 09:46 AM

Packaging is already covered in 3.5.1.1, 3.5.1.2, 3.5.2.1, 3.6.1 and 5.5.1.

 

I can't see any reason for including it in the VA in 5.4.2. especially when that clause states:

"A documented vulnerability assessment shall be carried out on all food raw materials or groups or raw materials to assess the potential risk of adulteration or substitution..."

 

Marshall



Anika

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 86 posts
  • 34 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 30 November 2015 - 07:27 PM

I have a question for people who did submit packaging VA:

 

Did you include secondary packaging as well or just primary or consumer packaging?

 

Thanks



pandu

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 2 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Spain
    Spain

Posted 03 December 2015 - 05:25 PM

We haven't been audited yet so no experience so far. Anyway we have decided to include packaging in our VA. Why? Although packaging is not expressly included in clause 5.4.2 (see above Marshall's post) IMO the auditor might request it based on clause 3.5.1.1: "The company shall undertake a documented risk assessment of each raw material or group of raw materials including packaging to... This should take into account the potential for: ...substitution or fraud..."

 

Hope it helps.



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 03 December 2015 - 06:27 PM

We haven't been audited yet so no experience so far. Anyway we have decided to include packaging in our VA. Why? Although packaging is not expressly included in clause 5.4.2 (see above Marshall's post) IMO the auditor might request it based on clause 3.5.1.1: "The company shall undertake a documented risk assessment of each raw material or group of raw materials including packaging to... This should take into account the potential for: ...substitution or fraud..."

 

Hope it helps.

 

Hi Pandu,

 

You possibly omitted a little more of the context ?

 

I guess it's ultimately up to BRC.

 

For example, here's another (consultant) opinion - 

 

The raw material risk assessment must now include substitution or fraud of ingredients (this section covers packaging but substitution or fraud need only cover ingredients), but the vulnerability assessment conducted in section 5.4 can be used to cover this requirement. I’m not really sure why they didn’t include the requirements of 5.4 in this section, it makes it confusing splitting them up. (Clause 3.5.1.1)

 

Attached File  vulnerability.pdf   543.99KB   603 downloads


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

mgourley

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,403 posts
  • 997 thanks
274
Excellent

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

Posted 03 December 2015 - 06:41 PM

And then there is the difference between "risk" assessment and "vulnerability" assessment.

 

Marshall



pandu

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 2 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Spain
    Spain

Posted 03 December 2015 - 07:29 PM

Agree, Charles. It's ultimately up to BRC, and I guess it will be some "volatibility" in audit interpretation for some time. That's why we decided to include packaging in our VA (not to say that packaging is also susceptible to fraud that may eventually pose a health risk).

 

Also agree with the second opinión ("it  makes confusing splitting them up"). In my humble opinión that split (3.5.1.1 and 5.4.2) brings not only confusion but also contradiction since the former refers to raw materials including packaging and the latter to (only) food raw materials.

 

I ommited some parts of the context to make it shorter. The full text is as follows: "The company shall undertake a documented risk assessment of each raw material or group of raw materials including packaging to identify potential risks to product safety, legality and quality. This should take into account the potential for:

  • allergen contamination
  • foreign-body risks
  • microbiological contamination
  • chemical contamination
  • substitution or fraud (see clause 5.4.2)

Consideration shall also..."

 

Hope it's more clear now that nothing is clear in this regard...



pandu

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 2 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Spain
    Spain

Posted 03 December 2015 - 07:42 PM

Hi Marshall,

 

I would say that the fact that our raw materials (packaging included) are vulnerable to fraud is definitely one of the risks mentioned in clause 3.5.1.1 (besides allergens, foreign-body, etc.)



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 03 December 2015 - 07:52 PM

Hi Pandu,

 

Well, afaik, the BRC Guidance is intended to exemplify the scope/details of the BRC's expected response to such issues.

 

Time will Tell.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 08 December 2015 - 09:48 AM

Hi All,

 

A conclusion to the discussion in preceding posts and Title query has appeared in another thread -

http://www.ifsqn.com...g-manufacturer/

(Post 12)(thks AndyDiff)

 

The source of posted extract is  BRC Global Standards Newsletter, November 2015.

 

Attached File  Clarification Clause 3.5.1.1.png   17.97KB   13 downloads


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

pandu

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 2 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Spain
    Spain

Posted 10 December 2015 - 05:59 PM

Thank you, Charles. Just read it. BRC definitely settles the apparent contradiction between 3.5.1.1 and 5.4.2 in its newsletter of November. I guess it's time to remove the packaging from our vulnerability assessment...



Kehlan

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 41 posts
  • 8 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 March 2016 - 01:38 PM

If you've included it, why remove it?  You've done the work after all.  The question is, did you do the assessment for the purpose of passing BRC or because you want to protect your product?  If the latter, then why would you not cover everything, all the risks?  Even if all you've done is write a comment in the report to say your judgement is that packaging is not a risk. 

 

I covered it in mine and I just got feedback from the BRC auditor that it was the best TACCP/VACCP assessment they had ever seen  (a big thanks by the way to all the people who have posted here on the subject over the last year or so, your knowledge got us through it!)



Thanked by 1 Member:

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 15 May 2016 - 05:08 PM

If you've included it, why remove it?  You've done the work after all.  The question is, did you do the assessment for the purpose of passing BRC or because you want to protect your product?  If the latter, then why would you not cover everything, all the risks?  Even if all you've done is write a comment in the report to say your judgement is that packaging is not a risk. 

 

I covered it in mine and I just got feedback from the BRC auditor that it was the best TACCP/VACCP assessment they had ever seen  (a big thanks by the way to all the people who have posted here on the subject over the last year or so, your knowledge got us through it!)

 

Hi Kehlan,

 

TBH, yr 2nd paragraph implies to me that some BRC auditors in March 2016 (!) were still out-of-touch with  the specific requirements of their own Standard. I do wonder which "box" was ticked.

 

I also find the feedback comment rather strange since TACCP/GFSI is a different topic as compared to GFSI/Vulnerability Assessment. Or perhaps the TACCP reference was with respect to BRC's request for  "Food Defence".

 

It is unfortunate that BRC do not offer a definition for VA in the Glossary to minimise the confusion.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Kehlan

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 41 posts
  • 8 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Female

Posted 17 June 2016 - 09:56 AM

Youre probably right about auditors not knowing the requirements in this area. 

 

As to the feedback comment, I treated the areas of threats and vulnerabilities as one large project.  In my mind, the two are interconnected and I don't see how you can look at threats without looking at vulnerabilities as well... they are different but sill closely related.  Food Defence, is actually probably, in my opinion, the best name for it.  However you look at it though, and there are many different ways, the important thing is to protect both the product and the business.



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 17 June 2016 - 01:36 PM

Youre probably right about auditors not knowing the requirements in this area. 

 

As to the feedback comment, I treated the areas of threats and vulnerabilities as one large project.  In my mind, the two are interconnected and I don't see how you can look at threats without looking at vulnerabilities as well... they are different but sill closely related.  Food Defence, is actually probably, in my opinion, the best name for it.  However you look at it though, and there are many different ways, the important thing is to protect both the product and the business.

 

Hi Kehlan,

 

I totally agree that there is an amazing variety of terminological interpretations in this area.

 

Anyone is of course entitled to define their own terms and methods.

 

As previously noted, IMO it is unfortunate that VA was omitted from the BRC7 Glossary. Unlike Food Defence. .

 

BRC's Interpretation Guidance (IG) does define VA and its interpretation therein appears conceptually aligned to that proposed by GFSI. The latter's viewpoint  is, i think, somewhat different to presentations  such as in PAS96 / Campden. One feature of the IG's approach (and perhaps GFSI also) may be that the term "threat" appears in the introduction to VA but nowhere in its detailed evaluation.

 

Nonetheless, afaik the IG is not an auditable document so that other approaches are presumably also viable, and acceptable to BRC auditors (some are in fact mentioned in the IG). I can sympathise that this may generate some difficulties for auditors.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Bhupendra Sharma

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 49 posts
  • 3 thanks
1
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 06 February 2018 - 07:47 AM

I have a question for people who did submit packaging VA:

 

Did you include secondary packaging as well or just primary or consumer packaging?

 

Thanks

only primary packaging.



Lelouch_rayne

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 160 posts
  • 26 thanks
6
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 14 September 2018 - 12:19 PM

Hi All,

 

A conclusion to the discussion in preceding posts and Title query has appeared in another thread -

http://www.ifsqn.com...g-manufacturer/

(Post 12)(thks AndyDiff)

 

The source of posted extract is  BRC Global Standards Newsletter, November 2015.

 

attachicon.gif Clarification Clause 3.5.1.1.png

Hi Charles,

 

 

I tried to search the newsletter containing the above statement of excluding packaging materials for VA but I can't find it.

 

Can you please share the whole file/announcement?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Lelou



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 15 September 2018 - 06:12 AM

Hi Charles,

 

 

I tried to search the newsletter containing the above statement of excluding packaging materials for VA but I can't find it.

 

Can you please share the whole file/announcement?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Lelou

 

Attached File  BRC7-Vulnerability Assessment.pdf   284.52KB   206 downloads

(4th item down)


Edited by Charles.C, 02 October 2018 - 02:12 AM.
edited

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 2 Members:

Lelouch_rayne

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 160 posts
  • 26 thanks
6
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 September 2018 - 06:16 AM

Thank you sooooooo much Charles.  :thumbup:



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 29 December 2018 - 11:07 AM

The somewhat remarkable statistic as per 29/12/18 is that of the 12 replies recvd since BRC stated VA not required/thread counter reset to zero, 11 stated that VA for Packaging was carried out.

 

11 people are anti-polls ? :smile:


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C




Share this

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users