4 replies to this topic

[Alutka_120]

I have a problem with performing authenticity. Our factory has IFS and BRC standard. The BRC standard requires a raw material supply risk assessment (in terms of microbiology, physical, chemical, allergy and law) and authenticity IFS requires an analysis for food fraud - which includes checks, preventing food fraud and confirming that something is authentic (eg.eg SO2 is not included in the specification and I check in the laboratory with an analysis whether it is actually not included), So according to I check both the authenticity of the raw material and whether it is fraud. I understand correctly? However, does another analysis need to be made, and if so what?

[Charles.C]

 

I have a problem with performing authenticity.

Our factory has IFS and BRC standard

The BRC standard requires a raw material supply risk assessment (in terms of microbiology, physical, chemical, allergy and law) and authenticity

IFS requires an analysis for food fraud - which includes checks, preventing food fraud and confirming that something is authentic (eg.eg SO2 is not included in the specification and I check in the laboratory with an analysis whether it is actually not included), 

So according to I check both the authenticity of the raw material and whether it is fraud. I understand correctly?

However, does another analysis need to be made, and if so what?

 

 

Hi alutka,

 

Not familiar with IFS but afaik BRC specifically addresses "authenticity" in clauses 5.4.1/2.

 

However clause 5.4.2 is also previously referenced in clause 3.5.1.1 and can be "responded to" at the earlier point if preferred (which I think most people do based on examples posted on this forum).

 

Not sure if that answers yr BRC query ?

[Alutka_120]

THIS IS WHAT IT IS ABOUT BRC.

IT IS MENTIONED IN SECTION 3.5.1.1 THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT AN ASSESSMENT FOR ALLERGENS, FOREIGN MATTER, MICROBIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL,VERIETY OR SPECIES CROSS, SUBSTITUTION OR FRAUD ( 5.4.2) AND ANY RISK ). 

AND I HAVE DONE RATING THIS ANGLE, ONLY NO FRAUD POINT.

BECAUSE READING A POINT IN BRC 5.4 I SEEM SIMILAR WITH A POINT IN IFS POINT 4.21.

HOW TO GUIDE ON PRODUCT FRAUD. WHAT'S IN THE OVERVIEW OF DATA SOURCES.

THEN HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, ECONOMIC FACTORS, EASE OF ACCESS TO RAW MATERIAL, CHARACTER RAW MATERIAL, ETC.

 

SO I HAVE AN ASSESSED RISK OF SUPPLY OF THE RAW MATERIAL FOR FRAUD, ITS CONTROL AND CONFIRMATION THAT SOMETHING IS REAL. WHAT'S AUTHENTIC WITH IT.

 

SO, AS I HAVE, THE DELIVERY RISK ASSESSMENT WAS PERFORMED ACCORDING TO. BRC 3.5.1.1. NO REPLACEMENT OR FRAUD.

 

AND THE FRAUD AND THE AUTHENTICITY WHICH IS MENTIONED IN BRC SECTION 5.4 I HAVE A SEPARATE ANALIZYS UNDER IFS SECTION 4.21. THIS COULD BE YES.

 

BECAUSE IT WAS NO SENSE TO DO 2 TIMES THE SAME WORK.

  AS THE REQUIREMENTS ARE SIMILARTHESE TWO STANDARDS BRC AND IFS

[Charles.C]

 

THIS IS WHAT IT IS ABOUT BRC.

IT IS MENTIONED IN SECTION 3.5.1.1 THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT AN ASSESSMENT FOR ALLERGENS, FOREIGN MATTER, MICROBIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL,VERIETY OR SPECIES CROSS, SUBSTITUTION OR FRAUD ( 5.4.2) AND ANY RISK ). 

AND I HAVE DONE RATING THIS ANGLE, ONLY NO FRAUD POINT.

BECAUSE READING A POINT IN BRC 5.4 I SEEM SIMILAR WITH A POINT IN IFS POINT 4.21.

HOW TO GUIDE ON PRODUCT FRAUD. WHAT'S IN THE OVERVIEW OF DATA SOURCES.

THEN HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, ECONOMIC FACTORS, EASE OF ACCESS TO RAW MATERIAL, CHARACTER RAW MATERIAL, ETC.

 

SO I HAVE AN ASSESSED RISK OF SUPPLY OF THE RAW MATERIAL FOR FRAUD, ITS CONTROL AND CONFIRMATION THAT SOMETHING IS REAL. WHAT'S AUTHENTIC WITH IT.

 

SO, AS I HAVE, THE DELIVERY RISK ASSESSMENT WAS PERFORMED ACCORDING TO. BRC 3.5.1.1. NO REPLACEMENT OR FRAUD.

 

AND THE FRAUD AND THE AUTHENTICITY WHICH IS MENTIONED IN BRC SECTION 5.4 I HAVE A SEPARATE ANALIZYS UNDER IFS SECTION 4.21. THIS COULD BE YES.

 

BECAUSE IT WAS NO SENSE TO DO 2 TIMES THE SAME WORK.

  AS THE REQUIREMENTS ARE SIMILARTHESE TWO STANDARDS BRC AND IFS

 

 

Hi Alutka,

 

For BRC I suggest you have a look at some of the many examples on this Forum, eg one (combination) approach is here -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...al/#entry100194

 

The above option avoids any further input for clause 5.4.2. Possible food fraud mitigation responses ( ie 5.4.3) are discussed in forum posts elsewhere.

You might consider posting yr own responses on the Forum for feedback comments.

 

PS - I assume you are aware that IFS have issued a (free download) Guidelines Manual for food fraud.

 

PPS - I think you will find that the precise requirements, eg HACCP/Food Fraud, currently being discussed unfortunately vary in some way between  every GFSI-recognized Standard even if they all claim to be based on Codex, etc. For example, IFS's Food Fraud manual uses the same basic Vulnerability Assessment Procedure as, I think, introduced by BRC but it implements the evaluation in a more quantitative manner.

[Alutka_120]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ANSWER

PS. YES I KNOW IFS HAS INTRODUCED A GUIDE ON FRAUD IS ALREADY ISSUE 2