BRC 2.7.2 vulnerability of those exposed

Hi All,

Could you share your thought on how you went about BRC clause 2.7.2 – where we are asked to consider vulnerability of those exposed? What is BRC actually asking here in terms of vulnerability of those exposed and how to consider it for particular hazard i.e. Hazard - microbiological - survival of pathogens post cooking process. 

Thanks for any replies. 

IIRC this element of 2.7.2 should be considered in conjunction with intended users (2.4.1) - e.g. if you're making a product for particularly vulnerable groups, then the potential significance of some hazards is increased (e.g. the immunocompromised could be more susceptible to pathogen presence at lower levels than the general population).

 

Hi All,

Could you share your thought on how you went about BRC clause 2.7.2 – where we are asked to consider vulnerability of those exposed? What is BRC actually asking here in terms of vulnerability of those exposed and how to consider it for particular hazard i.e. Hazard - microbiological - survival of pathogens post cooking process. 

Thanks for any replies. 

 

 

Hi All,

Could you share your thought on how you went about BRC clause 2.7.2 – where we are asked to consider vulnerability of those exposed? What is BRC actually asking here in terms of vulnerability of those exposed and how to consider it for particular hazard i.e. Hazard - microbiological - survival of pathogens post cooking process. 

Thanks for any replies. 

 

Hi KingaZ,

In a traditional (Codex-type) haccp plan, this is often summarised/blurred within a Table answering BRC section 2.1 via terms such as "General Public" or otherwise as noted in Post 2. The actual scope of "General Public" can be contentious so ideally details should be given but frequently are not..

Example attached below, eg Row 11 (in Practice, many published haccp examples may omit such "Notes").

haccp plan cookies.pdf   296.98KB   48 downloads

Hi KingaZ,

To add to pHruit and Charles’ posts, vulnerability of those exposed means taking into consideration consumers, examples where this leads to greater significance of the hazard and increased control is required include:

Foreign body controls for children - where smaller foreign bodies may be considered a choke hazard in children but not so much so for adults

Consumers with allergies

People With a Higher Risk of Food Poisoning

Kind regards,

Tony