Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Protective Clothing


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

Edwina Chicken Currie

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 40 posts
  • 2 thanks
1
Neutral

Posted 09 July 2004 - 11:50 AM

Lets talk about hair coverage!!!!

The BRC/IoP Standard (Cat B. ) states:

Where appropriate, snoods for beards and moustaches shall be worn. Protective clothing worn in production areas shall provide adequate covering of scalp hair and upper torso.


Adequate... a word frequently discussed in the Safepak forum….
Is an open mesh hair net/beard net or a baseball cap adequate?
Further, if mop caps are used, should elastic strength be challenged??

My opinion would be that a closed weave hair covering should be worn, the quality of which must be sufficient to fully envelope the hair. (Long hair should be suitably tied back prior to donning of hair coverage)

Any thoughts?
Should the standard be more prescriptive??


Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 52 thanks
8
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 09 July 2004 - 06:20 PM

Fiona,

I guess I am okay with each one of those hair cover devices you had mentioned.To challenge the prescriptive aspect of it would indeed be necessary to assess what is an appropriate device to match the level of risks for that specific industry.

Surely, you would NOT be comparing "apple with apple" when one compares the type of hair cover device for a beverage facility versus a prawn canning facility.

Would you agree that the normal non-woven elastic hair net is sufficient for a beverage facility unless it is challenged with good reasons such as historical incidents of whatever!

Always like the word "challenge" and people should used it more often in any food safety programs to test their system's effectiveness. And, yes, we so often see even in huge organizations, how hair nets are worn wrongly. Thank you Fiona. Enveloping the entire hair surface is not only essential, it is fundamental to GHP.

Charles CHew


Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

Simon

    IFSQN...it's My Life

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 12,529 posts
  • 1318 thanks
721
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Married to Michelle, Father of three boys (Oliver, Jacob and Louis). I enjoy cycling, walking and travelling, watching sport, especially football and Manchester United. Oh and I love food and beer and wine.

Posted 10 July 2004 - 01:55 PM

Should the standard be more prescriptive??

In a packaging factory different parts of the process present differing levels of risk e.g. the goods in, despatch and printing processes may well be considered 'low risk' and here a baseball cap may well be adequate. The standard could perhaps be more prescriptive in what must be worn in a 'low risk' area.

However, in a ‘high risk' area where there is handling of food contact packaging materials then I agree that a closed weave hair covering should be worn, enclosing all of the hair. Again the standard could perhaps be more prescriptive in what must be worn in a 'high risk' area.

The organisation should determine the ‘risk areas' using risk assessment / hazard analysis.

Another couple of thoughts:

What about eyebrows / eyelashes?
What about Food Point of Sale?

Regards,
Simon

hand-pointing-down.gif
 
Get FREE bitesize education with IFSQN webinar recordings.
 
Download this handy excel for desktop access to over 140 Food Safety Friday's webinar recordings.
https://www.ifsqn.com/fsf/Free%20Food%20Safety%20Videos.xlsx

 
Check out IFSQN’s extensive library of FREE food safety videos
https://www.ifsqn.com/food_safety_videos.html

 

recommend-us-on-facebook.png


Puzzle

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 254 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Interests:Petrolhead, sleeping, too much food and many other items that are forgotten!!

Posted 10 July 2004 - 05:05 PM

We have recently constructed a 'tent' to fully enclose a machine and the operator/packing area, due to our customer discovering a hair in a box.

The parts MAY be used in food dispensing equipment. The real problem is their customer (the food dispenser one) just happened to see their complaint to us and defined the requirements that we needed to meet.

We told them to get stuffed.

And offered our compromise. The 'tent' ops, qc, setters and anyone working in the area have to wear fully enclosed hairnets. However one of our operators has extremely hairy arms (almost gorilla style!!) and our customer is happy for us to process.

Mind you the option is a very expensive, high grade clean room moulder, or their own facility in Germany which is crqp.

Just my 2p



Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 52 thanks
8
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 11 July 2004 - 06:00 AM

Puzzle,

I would have done the same thing..........telling them to get stuffed. From experience, it has been so often that the party urging the other for improved practices have worse off facility is simply unreal.

This complaint should instead warrant an observation status that needed closer attention to the roots of the problem (like re-training program on GHP- preventative measures etc)......like re-structuring the workforce and transfering out the long-haired personnel. Again, what about hair from the arms.........how silly can it get!!!! :doh:

What can I say? Your facility after the makeover is practically almost as good as a CLEAN ROOM..........and you might as well go into the microchips business! You are lucky they do not ask you for an air-particle count test.

CharlesChew


Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users