Analysing clause 4.4.8 wording ~ SOFHT Conference

Analysing clause 4.4.8 wording.

The Tekta presentation at the Society of Food Hygiene and Technology (SOFHT) BRCGS conference moved on to analysing clause 4.4.8 wording in more detail.

The Clause in question runs as follows:

It’s a simple clause. The points are very clear and concise. So why is it that this is the clause that finds itself in 4th place of BRCGS’ most common non-conformances since the launch of Version 9 of the standard?

As discussed in a previous article, one possible explanation could be the misallocation of responsibility, or lack of clarity around who is responsible for the management of doorway hygiene in our food factories. Another suggestion that was raised in the SOFHT presentation was the simplicity of the clause itself. In reading the clause, it’s easy to overlook the detail of it.

This section of the SOFHT presentation began by focussing on 3 key words that may hold the key to the clause’s commonality as a non-conformance. The 3 key words are, “At a minimum.”

With the vast number of different doorway types, manufacturers and installation methods, BRCGS does not (and cannot realistically be expected to) stipulate every single factor that may raise a doorway non-conformance in our food factories. Instead of this, BRCGS has set out a minimum standard to give the most effective guidance possible, as to what is acceptable (and what isn’t acceptable) when it comes to doorway compliance.

The SOFHT presentation then moved on to cover off…

7 common doorway hygiene issues & solutions.

(Follow the link to continue reading…)

As you continue reading, bear in mind that some of the following points will not directly relate to the specific points that are raised in the BRCGS standard. The SOFHT presentation (and subsequent following article) goes beyond the minimum standard to explain some of the most common doorway hygiene issues.

(Did you miss the SOFHT Introduction article? Follow this link to read more).