Do we need a separate raw material risk assessment as well as TACCP and VACCP?

Hi,

I am new to the risk assessment realm. I am confused whether we should have a separate RM risk assessment and TACCP VACCP document for BRC. If so should the RM Risk assessment include deliberate hazards like fraudulent activities as well.

It will be helpful if anyone could share a template for this especially from  Bakery point of view. we are a small factory but with varied products like cakes and desserts.

Thanks

PR

Hi,

 

I am new to the risk assessment realm. I am confused whether we should have a separate RM risk assessment and TACCP VACCP document for BRC. If so should the RM Risk assessment include deliberate hazards like fraudulent activities as well.

 

It will be helpful if anyone could share a template for this especially from  Bakery point of view. we are a small factory but with varied products like cakes and desserts.

 

Thanks

PR

Hi PR,

You should probably invest in the BRC Interp. Guidelines since it can clarify answers to yr above queries.

There are 3-4 et al clauses in Standard involved with yr query. BRC succeeded in causing some confusion by placing food fraud in 2 different sections.

Particularly (but not limited to) have Food Fraud - Clauses  (partial)3.5.1.1     5.4.2 et seq

Food Defence - 4.2.1 et seq

Some possible responses -

(1) include 3.5.1.1 with 3.5.1.2,  not need to repeat overlaps in 5.4.2 et seq

(2) handle 4.2.1 et seq separately from (1)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) handle food fraud in 5.4.2, not need to repeat overlaps in3.5.1.1 /  3.5.1.2

(4) same as (2)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) combine 3.5.1.1 with 4.2.1, not need to repeat overlaps in 3.5.1.1 /  3.5.1.2, 5.4.2, 4.2.1 et seq

There are examples of several of the above permutations in this forum but it is probably worth commenting that food fraud was added to Standard due "Horsegate" et al ca 2014 and seems to be being currently regarded as less "crucial"  than it was a few years back since afaik similar events have been few  since that time.

Just as one (BRC) example/approach for (1) can see this analysis which I suspect might currently be regarded as "overkill" -

https://www.ifsqn.co...al/#entry100194

Can compare the VA in above with the (BRC) VACCP/TACCP presentations here -

https://www.ifsqn.co...ed/#entry121799

https://www.ifsqn.co...ed/#entry121857