BRC Packaging Standard Ver. 3: Packaging Category Decision Tree
Started by Simon, Feb 22 2008 08:40 AM
Version 3 of the Packaging Standard has three categories of supplier with differing requirements (1-3) 1 being high and 3 being low. Take a look at the PDF document below on BRC website.
Packaging Category Decision Tree Determination: Discussion and examples
Regards,
Simon
Packaging Category Decision Tree Determination: Discussion and examples
Regards,
Simon
CCP missed for metal detection in packaging
Copacker Packaging Error – is a Product Recall required?
Metal Detector Requirement for Strawberry and Blueberry Packaging
Are Hats Acceptable as Hair Restraints Under BRCGS Packaging?
Example HACCP Plan for Cardboard Packaging Production
[Ad]
I must say that packaging on food products or any products which is difficult to handle must have packaging so that there is safety of product.
I must say that packaging on food products or any products which is difficult to handle must have packaging so that there is safety of product.
Dear BBD,
I certainly concur that toothpaste is difficult to handle. Relevance is perhaps less certain.
Rgds / Charles.C
Dear Simon,
It’s only my personal opinion but I find that the concept where packaging not intended for direct food contact is all grouped into one category (ie2) rather simplistic and potentially encouraging the use of inappropriate packaging material.
I noted the example in the attachment where the above classification logic is applied to the common situation of use of an inner plastic bag in a cardboard box. Obviously the risk of contamination from the cardboard layer is highly (ideally totally) reduced. However IMEX there are significant caveats to this assumption, eg in deep-frozen products, inappropriate choice of plastic material can lead to cracking of the bag and “direct” contact, this risk is in contrast to non-frozen situations where the physical stress should be markedly different (reduced).
My comment is that the classification width is possibly too “generous” although I can understand the convenience factor.
Rgds / Charles.C
It’s only my personal opinion but I find that the concept where packaging not intended for direct food contact is all grouped into one category (ie2) rather simplistic and potentially encouraging the use of inappropriate packaging material.
I noted the example in the attachment where the above classification logic is applied to the common situation of use of an inner plastic bag in a cardboard box. Obviously the risk of contamination from the cardboard layer is highly (ideally totally) reduced. However IMEX there are significant caveats to this assumption, eg in deep-frozen products, inappropriate choice of plastic material can lead to cracking of the bag and “direct” contact, this risk is in contrast to non-frozen situations where the physical stress should be markedly different (reduced).
My comment is that the classification width is possibly too “generous” although I can understand the convenience factor.
Rgds / Charles.C
CCP missed for metal detection in packaging
Copacker Packaging Error – is a Product Recall required?
Metal Detector Requirement for Strawberry and Blueberry Packaging
Are Hats Acceptable as Hair Restraints Under BRCGS Packaging?
Example HACCP Plan for Cardboard Packaging Production
Determining the Correct SQF Food Sector Category for Dietary Ingredient Blends
New ISO 22002 Changes for Food Packaging Manufacturers
Packaging Requirements for Cookie Dough Products
Packaging Low-pH Products in Heat-Sensitive Containers
Question 4 in Decision Tree of FSSC 22000