Glass and Brittle Plastic NZ: Build a Food-Site Register

A glass and brittle plastic register is a practical way to connect breakable items at a food site with the checks and actions needed to manage them. Its value comes from knowing what is present, where food could be exposed and what staff should do when an item changes condition. A long list with no follow-up offers little protection.

This guide is for New Zealand food manufacturers, cafés, bakeries, food brands and storage businesses building a proportionate preventive system. A small kitchen may need a short location list; a larger site may need a mapped inventory. The record should serve the actual operation.

Start with the requirements applying to your site

For businesses using MPI’s Simply Safe & Suitable template, the August 2026 plan addresses deterioration of premises and equipment, regular servicing and maintenance records. Its premises guidance also addresses foreign-matter hazards. Read the relevant cards in the Simply Safe & Suitable plan, S39-00006, hosted by Waitaki District Council alongside the plan actually applying to your business.

The Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene recommends prevention of physical contamination, equipment inspection and procedures for breakages. Codex is international guidance; it does not, by itself, make every suggested record a specific New Zealand legal requirement. Customer standards or certification schemes may add their own expectations.

Check those applicable requirements before designing the form. The approach below is AFVA’s practical recommendation for organising information, not a replacement for your registered plan or a scheme-specific glass procedure. Where a required method already exists, build the working register around it.

Build a useful inventory

Start with a systematic walk through receiving, storage, preparation, processing, packing and dispatch. Include items above and beside exposed food, not just objects that touch food. Consider light fittings, windows, viewing panels, gauges, rigid covers, containers and removable equipment parts. Check maintenance stores and items brought into production as well.

For this exercise, focus on glass and hard plastic that could chip, crack or shed pieces under the conditions of use. Do not assume that a transparent item is glass, or that all plastic has the same breakage behaviour. Ask the supplier about an uncertain component and record the uncertainty until clarified.

On a small screen, swipe sideways to view all columns.

Use a simple location sketch or a controlled photo reference where it makes identification easier. A photograph supplements the description; it should not be the only way to recognise an item. Do not attach stickers to equipment or covers in ways that create cleaning, access or safety problems.

Connect each item to food exposure

Ask what could happen if the item failed during the actual work. Is open food directly underneath? Is packaging exposed before filling? Could a trolley strike it? Is it moved, washed or dismantled frequently? Is the protective cover secure and suitable? The purpose is to identify sensible controls, not to assign an impressive-looking score.

Consider eliminating an unnecessary item or using a suitable alternative before relying entirely on checks. Any equipment modification needs appropriate technical assessment. A cover that makes cleaning difficult or interferes with safe machinery use is not automatically an improvement. Keep necessary engineering and food-safety decisions connected.

If glass jars are your intended food packaging, do not describe the business as glass-free. Distinguish container receiving and handling controls from fixed-site items. Your register should connect with the real packaging process, including the applicable arrangements for damaged containers, rather than claiming that listing jars controls the hazard.

Set checks that find meaningful changes

Define what staff are checking: for example, whether a panel is intact, a cover is securely fitted or an approved container has deteriorated. Record an actual defect and its location rather than a vague comment such as “plastic issue”. Staff should know who receives an urgent report and how to keep the item out of use where necessary.

Choose timing from the applicable programme, manufacturer information, exposure and history. A frequently handled part beside open food may justify different attention from a protected window away from handling areas. There is no single daily, weekly or monthly interval established by this article for every item.

Add event-driven checks after relevant maintenance, relocation, impact or a reported defect. A scheduled inspection should not delay action on damage noticed between checks. Inspect only through safe access arrangements: staff should not remove guards, reach into operating equipment or climb on unsuitable supports to complete the form.

Worked example: an updated packing area

Hypothetical example: A small snack business moves its packing bench beside a clear equipment viewing panel. The existing site list says only “plastic covers — satisfactory”. The team cannot tell which panel was inspected or whether the changed food exposure was considered.

On a small screen, swipe sideways to view all columns.

The improvement is the connection between the item, changed activity and decision. The example does not prove that this layout is acceptable or prescribe a universal distance between equipment and food. The responsible team still needs to assess the real circumstances.

Escalate damage without guessing product safety

When damage is found, use the business’s incident and breakage arrangements immediately. Protect people, stop the affected activity as needed, control potentially affected food and packaging, and inform the responsible person. Establish the location, timing and uncertainty before deciding the scope of further checks or product disposition.

Do not use a completed register, an apparently clean floor or an assumed fragment count as automatic permission to release product. Cleaning the area and deciding the safety of potentially affected food are separate tasks. If there is a real incident, follow the applicable reporting and recall requirements and obtain appropriate advice.

Keep a linked incident reference in the register and record the repair or replacement outcome. For a reported object already found in food, use the separate foreign-matter complaint evidence-preservation guide to help organise the investigation. That article addresses reactive evidence handling; this register is intended to support prevention.

Register review checklist

• Can another staff member locate every listed item without guessing?
• Does the list reflect the current layout, equipment and handling activities?
• Are relevant materials, protective arrangements and uncertainties identified?
• Do the checks have clear criteria, safe methods, timing and responsible roles?
• Do defects trigger action between scheduled inspections?
• Are incomplete repairs and repeat defects visible to the person managing the system?
• Does the register connect to applicable maintenance and incident procedures without pretending to authorise product release?

Ask for a focused system review

AFVA food safety and quality consulting can help review practical maintenance records, procedures and corrective actions. Send the current list, a layout description and the outcome you need. The useful result may be a simpler register, clearer checks or a better connection to an existing procedure.

General information only. Apply the requirements and procedures relevant to your activities and site. Equipment suitability, safe access, incident response and product disposition require appropriate assessment; this guide does not authorise equipment modifications or product release.