was successfully added to your cart.

Basket

BRC Issue 8 conversion course – questions

By 31st August 2018 Uncategorised

Hi everyone!

Welcome to your ask a question page!

If you have questions about BRC Issue 8, you can ask them, using the reply box below.

Please don’t worry about asking silly questions – there is no such thing as a silly question!!!

We will answer your question here, so check back soon to find out the answer.

We thought it would be a good idea to have a shared page for questions, as you’ll be able to see each others questions – as you may be wondering about the same thing.  That way we can learn from each other.

We look forward to answering your questions!

12 Comments

  • narongchai says:

    The new definition of “primary packaging” , the BRC defined all packaging which are taken away by consumers called primary packaging. I would like to get your opinion, will the shrink plastic wrap of 6 bottled water (multipack) be called “primary packaging? If so, that means the wrap shall be assessed under 3.5.1.1 and 3.5.1.2 (GFSI cert/Supplier Audit/SAQ) will applied, right?

    • Kassy Marsh says:

      This is a really good question! BRC have defined primary packaging and unfortunately their definition isn’t very helpful – as it’s confusing. They define primary packaging as “The packaging that constitutes the unit of sale to the consumer or customer (e.g. bottle, closure and label of a retail pack or a raw material bulk container). So, historically we all understood what was primary packaging, what was secondary packaging and what was tertiary packaging. Now, the BRC have confused this, as their definition includes secondary packaging (the label) and could be seen to include tertiary packaging as well – if you think about the customer (not consumers) unit of sale. What is clear though, is that primary packaging now includes all the packaging that the consumer receives in a retail pack. So, to answer your question, yes, the wrap that holds 6 bottles together would be primary packaging.

  • Gail says:

    4.2.3 What level of training is required for food defence?

    • Kassy Marsh says:

      Hi,
      There is a requirement to train all on site personnel in an awareness of food defence. The BRC do not define what they mean by awareness, so you can decide what this means to you. You just need to make sure that if personnel are asked basic questions, like for example ‘what is food defence?’ that they can answer them.
      For the team that complete the threat assessment, BRC haven’t said that any additional training is required.
      Thanks
      Kassy

  • Alison says:

    1.1.2 To conduct a survey you need a minimum amount of people. What is the minimum amount? We have approx 10 factory ops, forklift driver, engineer then management (2 managers and 2 directors). They are also from different countries. If this is not enough how do we satisfy this clause?

  • Charlotte says:

    Metal detection – we currently use a combined successive and memory test check – ie P – TP – P- TP -TP – P . We are manually loading a flow wrapper at a rate of 40 – 60 packs per minute. Can we continue to use this pattern or do we need to move to a purely successive test. Having finally got all staff able to do this I don’t want to change it back again if I don’t have to. Thanks

    • Kassy Marsh says:

      Hi,
      No this is fine, you’re doing above and beyond what the standards is asking for – which is always fine.
      Thanks
      Kassy

  • Eleanor says:

    Regarding the successive metal detector testing we currently run through test pieces on product exactly as they then run through in production. The only way we could run successive test pieces through would be to run each pack through individually as the conveyor is not long enough or powerful enough to run through successive cases. Not only would this affect flow but also create additional heavy handling for staff. In addition to this it would mean that the test pieces are not running through the centre of the aperture but the bottom. As the testing is done exactly as product would run through the machine (ie making the test and the actual process identical), surely this would be considered better?

    • Kassy Marsh says:

      Hi,
      As long as the test pieces mimic the product in production (timing and speed) then that’s perfectly fine. The aim to replicate the product, so however you have to do that – that’s what you should do.
      Thanks
      Kassy

  • Heather says:

    Hi, when considering bringing portable equipment into high risk, should pens be considered?
    Thanks

    • Kassy Marsh says:

      Hi,
      In theory, yes. Anything taken into HR can bring contamination with it. Making it easy enough to decontaminate them though, so everyone will do it, every time – may be a challenge!
      Thanks
      Kassy

Leave a Reply