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
Standard Microbial Count for Equipment /Utensils in Food Industry (MEAT PRODUCTION AND VEGETABLES)
Hairnets for a packaging component manufacturing facility
HACCP Training for Flexible Packaging Industry
Microbiological Test Standard
OPP Packaging leavening milky residue when in contact with water
[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
Standard Microbial Count for Equipment /Utensils in Food Industry (MEAT PRODUCTION AND VEGETABLES)
Hairnets for a packaging component manufacturing facility
HACCP Training for Flexible Packaging Industry
Microbiological Test Standard
OPP Packaging leavening milky residue when in contact with water
Shelf Life of Primary Packaging
HACCP plan for chocolate and risk area decision tree
FSSC New BoS Decision List
Net Weight Requirements for Combination Gift Packaging
Steamed dumpling packaging