Pre-requisite Procedures that could pass BRC issue 8
Hello everyone! can anyone help me in doing pre-requisite procedures that could pass brc issued 8. please! I need your help!. can you attached any photo or samples maybe. Thank you! this would mean a lot for me. :)
Hello everyone! can anyone help me in doing pre-requisite procedures that could pass brc issued 8. please! I need your help!. can you attached any photo or samples maybe. Thank you! this would mean a lot for me. :)
The site shall establish and maintain environmental and operational programmes necessary to create an
environment suitable to produce safe and legal food products (prerequisite programmes). As a guide
these may include the following, although this is not an exhaustive list:
• cleaning and sanitising
• pest management
• maintenance programmes for equipment and buildings
• personal hygiene requirements
• staff training
• purchasing
• transportation arrangements
• processes to prevent cross-contamination
• allergen controls.
The control measures and monitoring procedures for the prerequisite programmes must be clearly
documented and shall be included within the development and reviews of the HACCP or food safety
plan.
PRPs relate to your own process.
Simply write down how you currently fulfill the above and any others specific to your process.
Some Typical Procedures for various of the above are scattered about in this Forum.
BRC additionally requires validation of PRPs. :thumbdown:
Your prerequisite programs include your Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), your Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) your Preventative Maintenance Program and (some people say) your Preventive Controls.
Your prerequisite programs include your Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), your Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) your Preventative Maintenance Program and (some people say) your Preventive Controls.
Well, the BRC8 Code likes to be expansive (eg see "not exhaustive").
Users are perhaps less inclined.
how can i validate PRP's? :)
Daily operational monitoring
swab results
Training effectiveness
Record reviews (for completion, corrective actions being completed on time, process deviations following the prescribed SOP)
it's a start anyway
Daily operational monitoring
swab results
Training effectiveness
Record reviews (for completion, corrective actions being completed on time, process deviations following the prescribed SOP)
it's a start anyway
Hi Scampi,
I appreciate that SQF will probably not agree however I, and possibly BRC, regard most of the above as Verification activities if associated with a routine function.
I have no doubt that some other Posters will have an opposite viewpoint to my own. No problem. :smile:
Hello,
Charles, I am another poster, but I agree with you.
Validation is made before implementation. The question to ask is "should it work"
Verification is made after implementation and the question is "Does it work"
For example, validation about cleaning :
- What are the germs of interest in our factory
- Do the thermal process reduce or kill enough of those germes
- Is the disinfectant suitable for those germes (viruses, molds, bacteria G+ or G-,...)
- How often should we clean and disinfect the material to keep those germs at adequate level ?
Hello,
Charles, I am another poster, but I agree with you.
Validation is made before implementation. The question to ask is "should it work"
Verification is made after implementation and the question is "Does it work"
For example, validation about cleaning :
- What are the germs of interest in our factory
- Do the thermal process reduce or kill enough of those germes
- Is the disinfectant suitable for those germes (viruses, molds, bacteria G+ or G-,...)
- How often should we clean and disinfect the material to keep those germs at adequate level ?
Hi VeuilleAlim,
(Bit OT)
Indeed a lot of the dissension is related to chronology.
FSIS attempted to "rationalize" the difficulties in this semi-classic document -
FSIS compliance guideline,2015 - HACCP_Systems_Validation.pdf 973.77KB 154 downloads
(Strangely there are no references to Codex anywhere, notably their 2008 document which maybe triggered a lot of the subsequent "discussion").
I suspect that Official opinions have become somewhat "entrenched". :smile:
I think some other Industries, eg Pharmaceuticals, have resolved the situation through expanding "Validation" into several defined stages. The cost is maybe increased complexity, documentation-wise.
The FDA made the waters VERY muddy by choosing to ignore CODEX and reinvent a wheel that was already working.