6. Contamination control
Controlling glass, brittle plastic and ceramic materials
What items are in scope, risk assessment and the breakage procedure
This article is written to meet the following sections of the Standards:
BRCGS Food Safety Issue 8 | 4.9.4 Products packed into glass or other brittle containers |
BRCGS Packaging Issue 6 | No specific clauses, even for sites making glass containers |
BRCGS Agents & Brokers Issue 3 | Not applicable |
BRCGS Storage & Distribution Issue 4 | Not applicable |
FSSC22000 Version 5.1 | No specific clauses |
IFS Food Version 7 | 4.12.7 Glass containers |
SQF Edition 9 | No specific clauses |

Scope
The scope for the control of glass, brittle plastics and ceramics is:
- All items in facilities and equipment where product is held or handled.
- Items in areas where breakages could get transferred into product areas (for example on shoes or wheels).
Procedure
A procedure must be in place for the management of glass, brittle plastics and ceramics which includes:
- A glass policy, of what is and what’s not allowed on site.
- A risk assessment and register of the items.
- Condition-based checks of the items.
- Maintenance of items.
Design
Glass, ceramics and other brittle materials must be removed from product areas, wherever this is possible. Where these materials can’t be avoided, they must be protected to prevent them from breaking.
Risk assessment
A risk assessment must be carried out of all items within scope, to determine how often the condition-based checks must be carried out.
The risk assessment must determine the:
- Likelihood of the breakage.
- Likelihood of a breakage contaminating materials.
The higher the risk, the more frequent the check must be. There isn’t a set frequency for these checks, it’s up to you to determine what’s required. However, it’s expected that high-risk would result in a daily frequency and then you can work back from there.
Register of items
All glass, ceramic and brittle plastics covered by the scope, must be listed on a register, which includes:
- Details of the item location.
- The number of items.
- The type of material; glass, ceramic or brittle plastic.
Condition-based checks
Each item on the register must be checked at the frequency identified through the risk assessment.
The condition-based checks must assess the item for damage, recording the outcome of the check – even where the item is found to be in good condition (this is called positive confirmation).
Maintenance
Maintenance and cleaning of glass items (such as light bulbs or EFK bulbs) must be carried out in a way that minimises the risk of breakage. Items at risk during maintenance and cleaning, must be moved or protected.
Breakages
A breakage procedure must be in place, which details:
- Reporting of breakages to a responsible person.
- How to isolate the affected area which must be a 10m isolation zone – at least, around the breakage.
- The processing of product must stop within the affected zone – as a minimum.
- Risk assessment to determine if any other materials may have been affected.
- Quarantine of affected materials .
- Restricting access of personnel to the affected zone.
The procedure must also detail how the area should be cleaned, including:
- Who is authorised to carry out the clean.
- Using a top-down cleaning method.
- What equipment must be used and what must happen to it after use.
- How broken materials must be disposed of.
- Changing of personal protective clothing by staff who have been in the affected area.
- Inspection of the area by an authorised member of staff, prior to the removal of the isolation zone and re-start of any product handling.
The breakage must be documented along with all actions taken.
I’ve always found the frequency of glass and brittle plastics audits to be an area of debate.
Many manufacturers default to a monthly audit, even though the shelf life of their product dictates that their product will have been shipped to the end consumer well before the next audit is due. This would not protect the consumer if a breakage were identified, but still seems to be accepted by auditors as complying with the standard.
Surely this should not be acceptable?