Tolerance on Mass Balance for Recall/withdrawal for BRC
Dear all,
could anyone offer up suggestions/experiences regarding a tolerance level when conducting a Mass Balance for a BRC Food Safety Recall/withdrawal.
When dealing with 100's of tonnes of wheat with stocks visually estimated by experienced operatives it still leaves an element of 'guess work' and it's difficult to trace the full 100% of the grain.
Is there an accepted industry standard for a tolerance level?
If not......is there an accepted 'formula' we can follow to calculate what is an acceptable % that cannot be traced?
Thank you
Dear
it is very unlikely that the mass balance check will be 100% accurate however the fundamental part is to able to demonstrate that the mass Balance is achievable.
I recently conducted a mass balance exercise and there was a large amount of loss that could not be reconciled. to improve the process. production records had to be redesigned to included waste.
it also depending on all records available.I might attached a template that we use during our production records with end waste if that will help.
Regards
Dear Dawny,
BRC has no guidelines or some quantified given standard. This attachment was the used during our BRC7 audit.
Recovery is 99.5 to 105%.
Page 10/clasue 3.3b
NSF_supplier_assurance_processor_manual.pdf 502.7KB 313 downloads
regards,
redfox
Hi,
A mass balance is really trying to assess is if there are any discrepancies in your traceability systems, and is a very good way of showing this.
For example, if you have used 100 Kg of raw materials and 1000 donut cartons, you should through your traceability system (paper based or not) show that all of these have been accounted for, and none have gone 'missing' (i.e. not been recorded correctly).
The mass balance should also show waste (both measurable, and also the usual 'spillages' based on historical data).
Mass balances should really show at least a 95% accountability.
Hi,
A mass balance is really trying to assess is if there are any discrepancies in your traceability systems, and is a very good way of showing this.
For example, if you have used 100 Kg of raw materials and 1000 donut cartons, you should through your traceability system (paper based or not) show that all of these have been accounted for, and none have gone 'missing' (i.e. not been recorded correctly).
The mass balance should also show waste (both measurable, and also the usual 'spillages' based on historical data).
Mass balances should really show at least a 95% accountability.
I just got a NC for 97% and 104% in BRC for Dry Bean Silos
From BRC6 audit guide -
It is unlikely that the mass balance check will account for all materials with 100% accuracy. However, packed final
product should never exceed the quantities of the raw material batches. The company shall justify any discrepancies
and understand the nature of the variance. This may be inherent in the product characteristics, for example, the
dehydration of fresh ingredients or portion variances.
Hello,
When we were audited in 2016, we just showed the article attached on my previous post. The quantification is 99.5 to 105% recovery on mass balance. The auditor okayed when she read the article.
regards,
redfox
Hello,
When we were audited in 2016, we just showed the article attached on my previous post. The quantification is 99.5 to 105% recovery on mass balance. The auditor okayed when she read the article.
regards,
redfox
Hi redfox,
Fortunate that yr auditor is apparently blissfully unaware of BRC's opinions ! :smile:
Hello Charles,
Since BRC has no detailed guidelines for quantification from minimum to maximum limit for % recovery, we used that article. Our auditor is also from NSF and the article is also published by NSF. It could be a factor that it was okay for her.
regards,
redfox
We had a similar issue when I worked with dried rice because we could have huge discrepancies between what we purchased and what we packed depending on where it was stored and for how long. I pulled together a brief overview of how we purchased, shipped, transported and stored the product which showed the complexity involved in measuring exacts and then did the mass balance from Intake to our mill to packed product making it clear it used an average milling yield therefore wouldn't be 100% accurate.
The key is to not get too caught up with the numbers, they are seeing if you have control of your processes and where things go not if you can round up every grain of a particular lot number.
Hello Charles,
Since BRC has no detailed guidelines for quantification from minimum to maximum limit for % recovery, we used that article. Our auditor is also from NSF and the article is also published by NSF. It could be a factor that it was okay for her.
regards,
redfox
Hi redfox,
Please note that, as stated, my quote was ex-BRC.