Nice to hear from you.
You are clearly not an exponent of the "Show me where the Standard asks for that " approach pioneered in the ISO9000 documentation forums..
If BRC were more selective with respect to explicitly asking for Risk Assessments/Risk-Based XYZ, I would perhaps be more inclined to respond to implicit suggestions.
From what i have seen, the IGs do contain a lot of useful recommendations but they also often appear designed to extract the absolute maximum of detail over every single requirement. I believe this is motivated by the (UK) parallel objectives concerning Due Diligence.
It's been a long while...I've been swamped with work (can't really complain about that).
I used to be one of the "show me folks", until I had to carry on massive debates about why we do this, and why we do that (gets old after a while). Usually handing a risk assessment over to an auditor will give them what they need; since the risk assessment already explains why we do what we do.
I've struggled with drawing the line between the BRC Standard and the Interpretation Guidelines (IGs), since it seems our auditors are inclined to ask questions that also relate to the IGs rather than just the standard itself. I also don't see the purpose of even having the IGs if we can't be audited to them (you know we've talked about this before ).
So in this instance -- hypothetically speaking, perhaps the auditor asks why their maintenance personnel wears the same clothes between zones. Instead of having to offer up all these explanations, the OP can just state they have completed a full risk assessment for PPE and determined that the risk is low (and then hand over the whole document for the auditor's review). Of course an auditor may ask more questions, but if the RA is detailed enough, most questions should be answered.