Passing BRC Audit

Dear All,

Just passed a BRC audit.It feels good.

Regards,
Jeremy

Congratulations!!!

BTW - Could you share the findings and observations made by the auditors.

Regards:
Zeeshan

Congratulations!!!
Good job!
I hope I can make the same post in a couple months...

Tom

Congratulations

We just had our first surveilance from BRC and went from a B to an A. A few minor issues but mostly translation issues since we have an ISO 22000 system in place. It was also for just one product line that we send to the UK.

Management actually decided to go for the "unannounced" audit next year. The look of shock on the auditors face was well worth it!

Dear All,

Just passed a BRC audit.It feels good.

Regards,
Jeremy

Excellent work Jeremy. When you've recovered from the celebrating let us know more details.

Regards,
Simon

Congratulations!!!
Good job!
I hope I can make the same post in a couple months...

Tom

I've no doubt you will Tom.

Congratulations

We just had our first surveilance from BRC and went from a B to an A. A few minor issues but mostly translation issues since we have an ISO 22000 system in place. It was also for just one product line that we send to the UK.

Management actually decided to go for the "unannounced" audit next year. The look of shock on the auditors face was well worth it!

Well done TS. The pesky British, I'm sure over time even the UK will come to recognise all GFSI approved standards. It will take time. As a matter of interest which audit did you find the hardest 22k or BRC? By the way I think electing for unannounced is a smart move, it will be mandatory in a few years, so best to be ahead of the game.

Regards,
Simon

As a matter of interest which audit did you find the hardest 22k or BRC? By the way I think electing for unannounced is a smart move, it will be mandatory in a few years, so best to be ahead of the game.

Regards,
Simon

ISO was harder only based on the fact that we did the entire facility and for BRC we only did one production line (out of 6). The BRC auditors did comment that based on their casual observations going from area to area they felt we would pass a full audit if needed.

Other than the difference in scope, I found both audits to be surprisingly similar. We were concerned that BRC would frown upon our ISO ways but we got lucky with BRC auditors that are fluent in both systems and had no issue translating between the two.

There are minor nuances between them that led to some minor findings but nothing critical and you could argue that it was there. I argued that the organizational chart meets the criteria for Section 3.3.3 in BRC (Documented coverage of key staff) but BRC wants to see it spelled out. I am probably just going to add a note to the organization chart that says "The person directly above or directly below any given position is responsible for coverage when there are absences". Not sure if it will fly, but I am willing to take the deduction if it doesn't.

TS

Well done Jeremy.

You must deserve a well earned break.

OFF TOPIC: We are only State and HACCP accredited but we use "When a position is vacant, temporarily or for a longer term, the person directly above is responsible for coverage or delegating coverage'. Hope this helps ts.

Cheers!
Chris

Well done Jeremy.

You must deserve a well earned break.

OFF TOPIC: We are only State and HACCP accredited but we use "When a position is vacant, temporarily or for a longer term, the person directly above is responsible for coverage or delegating coverage'. Hope this helps ts.

Cheers!
Chris

Dear Everyone,

Thanks, I have rested well enough,anyway,Observations of concern was the issue of allergens which was to be justified even if our process did not include any allergens.This included risk analysis and be included in the new products procedure.
Also you need to take care where the standard requires risk analysis and justifications as theses must be documented.
Site security was also an issue as product security from the farm to dispatch was mandatory with documented procedures in each step.
In product description in haccp , the shelflife for the product was supposed to be documented.The auditor also advised on reducing the ccps to about 3 we have 6 ccps. All in all QA ,traceability and food safety records must be inorder,legible,precise.Also data from the records must be analysed and given to the senior management.

Regards,
Jeremy

The auditor also advised on reducing the ccps to about 3 we have 6 ccps.
Regards,
Jeremy

I am surprised that the auditor would "advise" reducing your CCPs. If you followed the decision tree and came to the conclusion that they were needed, than why is the auditor concerned? We have CCPs that our auditor questioned and asked our justification but when told that our cusotmers wanted them as CCPs, he had no problem.

Did the auditor ask for your justification or did he just tell you he did not think what you called CCPs were really CCPs.

This sort of goes to another thread asking if auditors can make suggestions.

Either way, you had a succesful audit and that is all that matters!

Dear tsmith,

There are minor nuances between them

(BRC- Codex haccp / iso 22000,)

IMHO, this is one of the understatements of the year! I guess it depends on yr specific production but I am surprised you did not encounter auditor problems with traditional CCPs which hv been demoted to OPRPs as per requirements of ISO 22000.

We have CCPs that our auditor questioned and asked our justification but when told that our cusotmers wanted them as CCPs, he had no problem.

Again, it may depend on the specifics but my first reaction is surely this is ridiculous?. I hv also met this problem previously and used the reverse logic to the customer so as to avoid (genuinely) un-necessary CCPs. Traditionally, this was a common reason for top-heavy lists of CCPs.

@ Jeremy, I would also be interested in knowing which CCPs were considered inappropriate. (I recall seeing an auditing comment some time ago which indicated that plans with more than 4 CCPs tended to be more carefully checked for "necessity".)

In the near future, PAS and ISO will probably define almost everything as PRPs and remove such difficulties.

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Charles,

The CCPs considered to be removed included debris found in packed products,wrong seals.wrong labels.Those considerd to remain with pest and diseases,chemical deposits,wrong dispatch temperatues and wrong weights.Those were considered critical to product legality,quality and safety.

Regards,
Jeremy

Dear jeremy,

Many thks for those details, interesting. I also wondered what kind of product you are making, retail, RTE or ?

You referred to quality, legality, safety. I assume weight solely related to legality. I also presume yr CCPs are based only on safety in which case (without knowing specifics), I would hv suggested to reduce the total even further . Most of the parameters you mention would IMO normally be justifiable as PRPs unless a specific high safety risk resulted from yr hazard analysis, eg frequent mislabelling with respect to allergens or omitting to specify cooking required for a raw retail product (hv seen that one !).

Regardless, I am very happy you got through OK. It’s a pressurising experience.

Rgds / Charles.C

Hearty Congratulations Jeremy

I too passed Food Safety & HSEQ supplier Audit held last week. i got 1 NCR and few observations.

In my system and according to hazard analysis there are minimum 3 ccp's and 2 oprp's in dry food mixes,