9 replies to this topic

[Daisy Kaur]

Hi All, 

I am working on BRC requirements. We already had the Food Safety Plan as per CFIA requirements. We recently had Gap Assessment for BRC Issue 8, the auditor suggested to add some few more column for severity, probability and risk assessment in order to become BRC compliant. Please see the attached Hazard analysis.  Could you please review it and let me know if I am going in right direction. Please forward if you guys have better templates. 

 

Thanks, 

Daisy 

Attached Files

•  Book1.xlsx   18.46KB   206 downloads

[Hank Major]

A lot of the places where you have N/A, you should unequivocally state No.

[Marshenko]

A lot of the places where you have N/A, you should unequivocally state No.

 

I agree.  Q1 Q2 and Q3 are all yes/no questions for sure.

[Charles.C]

Hi Daisy,

 

IMEX receiving stage is usually set as a PRP.

 

I suppose you are aware that raw materials are also required to comply with clause 3.5.1.1.et seq.

[Daisy Kaur]

Thank you everyone for suggestions, I will surely work on it. 

Charles.C, I have done Risk Assessment for Raw materials/ packaging materials. 

 

Thanks Again :) 

[Hoosiersmoker]

I assume there are more hazards but we left off just for example purposes. There would certainly be Physical hazards, the truck, pallets, material handling equipment etc. If the answer to Q1 is "No" then the answers to Q2 & Q3 would be "N/A". I would insert a column after Q3 that asks Is a CCP Needed? Y or N, then the CCP number and identification column. Just my .02 :)

[Charles.C]

I assume there are more hazards but we left off just for example purposes. There would certainly be Physical hazards, the truck, pallets, material handling equipment etc. If the answer to Q1 is "No" then the answers to Q2 & Q3 would be "N/A". I would insert a column after Q3 that asks Is a CCP Needed? Y or N, then the CCP number and identification column. Just my .02 :)

 

The above format "irritations" reflect IMO the conceptual limitations of the "Q" methodology as used here. The Q's which are based on the original Codex Tree were not intended to be used in this way. Regardless, the approach is nonetheless popular but with acknowledged caveats.

 

(1) I see no mention of Prerequisite Programs (eg BRC clause 2.2.1).

 

(2) IMHO, columns J,K,L of the table could simply be deleted.

 

(3) As I recall, in a typical 3x3 matrix, a cell value of 4 is not considered to be a Low risk ?

 

(4) The weekly/monthly matrix "Likelihood" tags are IMO highly questionable. If used at all, they will logically be dependent on the specific hazard. For example, IMO would be  inapplicable if referring to a zero-tolerant microbiological hazard.

Edited by Charles.C, 07 August 2019 - 07:44 PM.
expanded

[SafetyLine]

Hi,

 

You need to consider the others hazard that BRC requires: Fraud (sustitution or deliberate adulteration) and intentional contamination.

If in the risk assessment your result is "High" it's no means necessarily that is a CCP, you have to evaluate that process step through decision tree. It's the only tool to conduct to a CCP.

 

What did you mean with : Type of risk FS, FL?  

 

You have a good structure, very clear and tidy 

 

Kind Regards

[Daisy Kaur]

I really appreciate everyone for their suggestions and critique. I made some changes and added more information. Could you guys please see the attached and let me know what you guys think. As far as Ingredient and Food Fraud risk assessment is concerned, I am currently working on them. 

 

 

Thank you, 

Daisy 

Attached Files

•  Hazard Analysis.xlsx   35.97KB   91 downloads

Edited by DaisyLuck, 10 September 2019 - 12:46 PM.

[SafetyLine]

I really appreciate everyone for their suggestions and critique. I made some changes and added more information. Could you guys please see the attached and let me know what you guys think. As far as Ingredient and Food Fraud risk assessment is concerned, I am currently working on them. 

 

 

Thank you, 

Daisy 

 

Hi Daisy,

 

Good that you taken into account the opinion of others, I think your document is fine, but you should be more specific when mention microbiological contamination. if you mean a microorganism or pathogen bacteria, put the bacteria's name. It was a suggest for me by a food safety consultant.

 

Good luck with your file.

 

Kind Regards