25 replies to this topic

[Simon]

THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT IS THE BRC-IOP GLOBAL STANDARD FOR PACKAGING AND PACKAGING MATERIALS—VERSION 3. DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION. IT IS PASSWORD PROTECTED. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE PART IN THE REVIEW PLEASE CONTACT ME TO OBTAIN THE PASSWORD.

 Packaging_v3_consultation_draft_september_2007.pdf   1.96MB   491 downloads

I have a few snippets of information on the forthcoming changes to the BRC Global Standard - Food Packaging and Other Packaging Materials.

1. Currently being 'typed up' and will be ready January 2008.

2. 'BRC' will be dropped from the title - not sure of the exact new title, but will be something like "The Global Standard for Packaging".

3. Category A and B will change to 1, 2 and 3. 1 being the old B, 2 being the old A and 3 being a set of requirements for non-food packaging e.g. packaging for step ladders at B & Q.

4. Best Practice Guidelines are out. They have been reviewed and either adopted as requirements proper or removed from the standard completely.

5. It will be a different colour, but will still cost at least £90.

Unless I remember something else that’s it for now. It’s a bit early in the morning…

Regards,
Simon

[Simon]

As a key stakeholder ( )I've been sent a copy of the Global Standard for Packaging and Packaging Materials - Version 3 by the BRC. They want my comments. Here is a copy of the email I received from the BRC.

DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION – THE BRC-IOP GLOBAL STANDARD FOR PACKAGING AND PACKAGING MATERIALS—VERSION 3.

The BRC/IOP Global Standard for Packaging and Packaging Materials is being updated and issue 3 is due to be published in January 2008. A draft for consultation has been developed by a stakeholder group of experts drawn from various sectors of the packaging materials industry, retailers, and certification bodies. This draft is now being circulated for input from a wider audience.

A copy of the consultation draft is attached. You have been recognized as a key stakeholder in this field and your contribution to this stage of the development of the Standard would be greatly appreciated.

The second issue that was published in September 2004 extended the focus of the previous standard from food and drink to packaging generally and the third issue will confirm this trend by allocating different risk categories to particular sectors in line with the potential hazards posed by their products. A decision tree is provided to guide the user to the appropriate category for the range of products for which the packaging is intended. These risk categories are:

(1) High risk for direct food contact packaging, certain skin contact product packaging, sanitary and nappy product packaging etc.

(2) Medium risk for packaging of non food contact products, other cosmetics and toiletries.

(3) Low risk category intended for use for packaging for certain toys, household products and DIY.

Unlike other Standards that have only focused on hygiene, the BRC/IOP Packaging Standard has broadened its scope into other areas. For example, product quality, process control and specification control are amongst the additional attributes the Global Packaging Standard covers which gives customers the legal conformance systems required.

Recently, increasing demand for the Standard has come from overseas. This reflects the globalisation of the packaging industry with large companies wishing to operate to a common formula irrespective of location. The latest issue is being put together with an international market very much in mind.

In considering the Standard I would be particularly interested in your feedback on the following issues.

1) Decision Tree - Does the decision tree, which is designed to act as a roadmap to help suppliers to identify the relevant category for their product sector achieve the intended purpose? If not please indicate how this could be improved.

2) The Requirements - Do the requirements for the 3 sectors adequately reflect the appropriate levels of GMP, Hygiene and Process Control for the different sectors identified by the Decision Tree. Are these differences sufficiently substantive. If not, how could this situation be remedied.

3) Omissions - Is the Standard sufficiently comprehensive? Are there omissions in the Standard.? If so could you identify them and suggest how gaps may be filled.

4) Certification - Do you consider the certification process to be sufficiently robust ? If not please suggest how this could be improved.

5) Auditor Qualifications - Are the Auditor Qualifications sufficiently demanding, or are they impractical to achieve especially in countries where the Standard could be newly introduced? Please suggest how either of these situations could be improved.

6) Fields of Evaluation - Are the Fields of Evaluation sufficiently detailed and appropriate? If not, please suggest specific improvements.

Could you please provide your feedback by 30th September 2007.

If anyone is interested in reviewing the draft and helping to put together a response from IFSQN please let me know here, or PM me and we'll take it from there.

Regards,
Simon

[Gaskit]

Dear Simon,

I would love to give you my input.

Kind regards,

Steve

[MartLgn]

A key Stakeholder ? Simon we are truly not worthy !

I'd certainly like to help with this.

M

[cazyncymru]

A key Stakeholder ? Simon we are truly not worthy !

I'd certainly like to help with this.

M

As a person who has audited their suppliers against the standard, i'd love to have a look and help you.

c x

[Simon]

I've added the document to the top of the thread. For those who have registered interest I have sent you the password. Thanks for showing your interest and lets' add our comments and discuss in this thread.

Regards,
Simon

[Dunaskin]

Simon

Would appreciate the password and help with the review.

[Gaskit]

Dear Simon,

Having read the Consultative draft notes, evaluation protocol and pages relating to requirements for category 1 I would say everything is in order and not too far from the 2nd issue with the exception of asking wether the field of evaluation are sufficiently detailed, I would answer NO and request the the following materials are added to the listing:

PAPER: Corugated and Solid BACKING BOARD
PLASTICS: Plastic film, including SHRINK FILM

Regards,

Steve

[infoiqc]

We would appreciate receiving the password.

Gail
info@iqc.co.il

[Simon]

Dear Simon,

Having read the Consultative draft notes, evaluation protocol and pages relating to requirements for category 1 I would say everything is in order and not too far from the 2nd issue with the exception of asking wether the field of evaluation are sufficiently detailed, I would answer NO and request the the following materials are added to the listing:

PAPER: Corugated and Solid BACKING BOARD
PLASTICS: Plastic film, including SHRINK FILM

Regards,

Steve

I can't comment yet as I've not had the chance to read it. I will revert with my comments soon...promise.

We would appreciate receiving the password.

Gail
info@iqc.co.il

Gail password sent as requested.

[blis]

Dear Simon

I would also like to help.

Lis

lb@toppac.dk

[MartLgn]

Well I've had a good look at the Draft of Issue 3 and cannot help but wonder what was the intention of the BRC when deciding to update?

The number of pages has doubled yet the real content remains little changed, the new format of individual categories means 60% of the pages are now irrelevant to most users ( except those unfortunate enough to have a multi-category facility) The space freed by the removal of the best practice quidelines could have been used to accomodate a 3 category matrix along the lines of that in issue.

The order of some sections has been re-jigged (HACCP is now rightly in #1 spot) but the content is largely unchanged.

The best practice guidelines have been removed yet I couldn't find any of them having been 'upgraded' to a requirement, eg section 4.4 has requirements for the upkeep and inspection of wooden items in production areas but the previous sensible guideline to minimise the use of wood has dissapeared completely.

The inclusion of the product categories is a welcome step towards greater clarity.

The move to 3 risk categories is obviously intended to widen the net of companies seeking certification but the requirements of category 3 seem awfully tough for a manufacturer of boxes for nuts and bolts .


So there's my two pen'orth, a clear effort to bring more companies onto the radar but IMO a rather lazy and unnecessary update and a missed oportunity to move forward from the admitedly rather good issue 2.

[cazyncymru]

Well I've had a good look at the Draft of Issue 3 and cannot help but wonder what was the intention of the BRC when deciding to update?

mmmmmm the ability to sell for approx £90 a copy Mart???

[MartLgn]

mmmmmm the ability to sell for approx £90 a copy Mart???

Of course ! I must have been in an unusually trusting frame of mind yesterday

Have you had chance to plough through it yet Caz ? I'd love to hear what you think from a packaging purchasers Perspective of the non-changes.

[Simon]

In summary for category A and B suppliers already, Certified to the Standard issue 3 won’t mean an overhaul of your system by any means. Within the standard, a few items have been moved, reworded and the best practice items have either become full requirements or removed.

1. Not environmentally friendly (increased pages from 57-96)

2. Name change dropped BRC/IOP form the title

3. Certified suppliers can now use BRC and IOP logo on stationery

4. Category B – Changed to Category 1 (high risk e.g. food contact packaging)

5. Category A – Now Category 2 (medium risk e.g. secondary food packaging)

6. New level of supplier - Category 3 (low risk e.g. DIY, Clothing and household packaging)

7. Hazard and risk management system developed reviewed and managed by Multidisciplinary Team

8. Plasters (band-aids) don’t have to be blue just distinctive colour – Yippee I can use my rainbow plasters, I can use my rainbow plasters.

I think the review panel have bottled it on 7.7 Protective Clothing – Best Practice Guidelines:

“Changing from protected clothing prior to the use of toilets, canteen and smoking areas may be considered.”

It looks like they considered it and consigned it to the “too difficult” file.

I think this item especially for ‘category 1 prior to using the toilet’ should have become a requirement – can anyone argue against it? What do foodies think about this omission?

Thanks to those who have commented already. I think we'll leave it until the end of this week and then I will collate any comments that need to be fed back to the BRC.

Regards,
Simon

[Simon]

Anyone who would like to comment please do so before 28 September. After that time I will collate our comments into a word document, which I will attach for review before I send it on to the BRC.

Regards,
Simon

[Simon]

Attached are the comments made by members. It would be nice if we could gather thoughts and comments from some more members. At least 20 members requested the password on the thread or by messaging me.

If you do want to comment please do so in this thread before Sunday 30 September.

Thanks,
Simon

 Comments.pdf   34.66KB   97 downloads

[Charles.C]

Dear Simon,

Was going to read the comments but fell asleep watching the ant. Perhaps more than one number path might be advisable, or an occasional toilet break

Rgds / Charles.C

[Simon]

Dear Simon,

Was going to read the comments but fell asleep watching the ant. Perhaps more than one number path might be advisable, or an occasional toilet break

Rgds / Charles.C

I got rid of the ant, it was making me itch too. I saw it on another forum. Problem is unlike me on here the user hadn't made every other post in every thread. It's a popular forum.

BTW thanks for the comments on the BRC packaging draft.

Regards,
Simon

[okido]

Hi Simon,

I have been walkabout for 6 weeks, is it still possible to comment on the BRC standard, pse send me the password.

Regards, Okido

[Gaskit]

Dear Simon,

The CPI (confederation of paper industries) has just issued their response to the consultation document, I should be able to give you break down (bullet points) when I have read the document.

Kind regards,

Steve

[Gaskit]

Dear All,

Not much of a document from the CPI (2 pages), they are in the main "paper makers" and mainly have Cat A only.

Anyway the meat of the text is:

companies wich fall into the new catergory 1 and 2 opinion; is that the changes in version 3 would not impose significant additional obligations, moving from the focus on "best practice" to a focus on "requirements" is considered to make their responsibilities clearer.

There was one specific exception where an additional obligation is imposed:

Sorage of food in locker (6.2.3) Version 3 does not allow it. The current practice does permit storage in sealed containers.

The main comment being that the change will require a significant investment in new facilities.

It was also noted that version 3 moves the empasis from risk of contamination onto the overall pack integrity. No objection raised but pointed out that this sort of Quality issue is covered by ISO9000.

It was agreed that version 3 is considered to bring graeter clarity to the process of compliance including the decission tree.

Dear Safepackers, I agree more with the comments passed on this forum than the comments above.

Regards,

Steve

[Simon]

Dear All,

Not much of a document from the CPI (2 pages), they are in the main "paper makers" and mainly have Cat A only.

Anyway the meat of the text is:

companies wich fall into the new catergory 1 and 2 opinion; is that the changes in version 3 would not impose significant additional obligations, moving from the focus on "best practice" to a focus on "requirements" is considered to make their responsibilities clearer.

There was one specific exception where an additional obligation is imposed:

Sorage of food in locker (6.2.3) Version 3 does not allow it. The current practice does permit storage in sealed containers.

The main comment being that the change will require a significant investment in new facilities.

It was also noted that version 3 moves the empasis from risk of contamination onto the overall pack integrity. No objection raised but pointed out that this sort of Quality issue is covered by ISO9000.

It was agreed that version 3 is considered to bring graeter clarity to the process of compliance including the decission tree.

Dear Safepackers, I agree more with the comments passed on this forum than the comments above.

Regards,

Steve

I think we all agree it's a bit of a make over at best. Thanks for posting the update from the CPI Steve.

Regards,
Simon

[Peter Bramwell]

I wouldn't mind having a quick looksee! When will the new Global Standard be available for purchase?

Pete

[Aur0re]

I wouldn't mind having a quick looksee! When will the new Global Standard be available for purchase?

Pete

Hi!

the new Global Standard is available for purchase:
http://www.tsoshop.c...s...5&DI=593062


Aur0re