Date Published

Document reference

Version Number

Document Name & Link


Version 2 8th Jan 2021



Version 2 (NEW)

Addition of statement of intent and small changes to the interpretation. Changes highlighted in yellow.

Version 1

Where allergens are identified through HARA, an allergen risk assessment and management plan to control cross-contamination is required. (Effective from 1st July 2021)

Version 1 11th Nov 2020 (Published 1st Dec 2020?)



Version 1 (NEW)

Where packaging has a functional safety claim, the statement of compliance must provide details and evidence of this claim. (Effective from 1st July 2021)

Version 1.1. 30th Oct 2020

Version 1: 9th Oct 2020 (Not published as of 18th Oct)



Version 1.1 (NEW)

Corrections to spelling and grammar, no changes to the requirements.

Version 1

Protocol details regarding how the 1 in 3 unannounced audits will be managed.

Version 1: 13th July 2020



Version 1

Details on how to complete a BRCGS blended audit, which is part remote and part on site.

Version 1.1 dated and published 16th July 2020

Version 1: dated and published 15th July 2020



P614–Guidance Document

Disposable food contact packaging/ consumer items

NEW: Version 1.1

Removed the word ‘on’ from the title of the document.

Version 1

Details which Standard (Packaging or Consumer Products) is applicable to manufacturers of disposable consumer items such as paper plates, cutlery etc.

Last reviewed 11th Feb 2021

All COVID-19 related position statements are now stored in one place: What are the options for BRCGS audit during COVID-19?

Have your say…

14 thoughts on “Position Statements BRC Packaging

  1. This is great work done by Techni-K team, congrats….., I have been working on BRC Packaging since its 1st Issue but this site is most resourcefulness than any other before and currently. We appreciate the research and information disseminated.

  2. Hello,
    where can I find Position Statement BRCGS082? It’s not on BRC website.
    I’ll appreciate the help.
    And congratulation for your work. It’s really helpful

    1. Hi Keara
      Position statement 557 is written against issue 5 and therefore becomes invalid against issue 6.
      Unfortunatley, BRCGS don’t have a document control system which removes such documents when they are no longer valid (it’s one of my bug bears that they don’t follow their own rules).

  3. Thank you for this heads up. It is much appreciated.
    I am reading P617 Allergen Management Control and just have a query.
    There are 14 food allergens which are part of food law currently but LATEX is not one of them. Why is that in the document? I will of course look at all our materials again and consider soy & wheat etc. but do we really need to get into whet the valves, belts, o rings etc. I realise you are only the messenger and did not intent to shoot you. 🙂

    1. Hi Sharon,
      You raise a very good point, for which I have no answer to! You’re right that latex is not one of the 14 EU allergens. It’s a known allergy. However, it’s not generally eaten (?!) so I suppose you wouldn’t expect it to be listed with the 14 food allergens.
      It raises a very valid point – that for packaging sites, what do they class as an allergen in their risk assessment? If the scope isn’t just the 14 food allergens, then where do you stop? And, where would we get the source information from that states what allergens should be within scope?
      I’m sure one of our packaging specialists will add to this conversation…

  4. Ok, so no need to worry about belts and valves and o-rings. The clause 5.11.1 stipulates that this relates only to raw materials (of packaging). I would simply ask your packaging material suppliers to verify this. Latex is used in inks (the scratch off type) but as I recall it is a different type of latex and does not cause allergic reactions. But employees can be allergic to latex gloves and that should be considered as part of the HACCP/HARA/HARM plan

    The Stig

    1. Thanks for this. Is there a list of known allergens that the sites should be looking at? If we’re going outside the usual 14 allergens, it leaves it open to interpetation. Surely we need some sort of agreed source of information?

Share your thoughts…

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *