What this is
What is a foreign body trend review?
What is a foreign body trend review?
It is a periodic analysis pulling together internal findings, complaints, and control performance data over a period, asking whether they concentrate on one line, material or cause rather than scattering across unrelated events.
How is it different from a single foreign body report?
A single report documents one find and its immediate response. This review sits above a period's worth of those reports, plus detection failures and breakages, and looks for the pattern a single report cannot show.
Who should run it?
Quality with engineering, since the conclusion usually points at a physical cause, a worn seal, a degrading gasket, that only engineering can act on. Quality alone tends to stop at a trend statement rather than a repair.
Scope
When is a foreign body trend review required?
This review sits above the individual detection and control records in the Foreign Body Control programme, analysing what they produced over a period rather than performing detection or reconciliation itself.
Use this template when
- The stated review interval, typically quarterly, has been reached
- A trigger event, a complaint spike or a withdrawal, calls for an out-of-cycle review
- Enough individual findings and complaints have accumulated to look for a pattern
- A HACCP or management review needs a rolled-up picture rather than individual reports
- The workspace is being set up and this review is one step in the programme
Do not use it for
- X-Ray Inspection Verification, which verifies detection at the worst case position and produces one of the inputs this review aggregates
- Sieve and Filter Integrity Check, which inspects physical controls for damage and fitting rather than analysing findings over time
- Blade and Sharps Accountability Record, which reconciles issued and returned items and feeds a single figure in rather than replacing it
- Foreign Body Awareness Training, which builds the workforce behaviour this review depends on for comparable reporting
- A single incident investigation, which belongs against the individual finding, not a period's aggregate
Compliance mapping
Which BRCGS cl.4.10 requirements does this satisfy?
BRCGS treats trend analysis as a general quality expectation rather than a foreign-body-specific procedure, so tracing a count back to a cause is not prescribed; it has to be built into how the review is run.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Trend analysis of quality and safety data to identify significant issues and instigate improvement | Conclusion |
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Data from multiple sources, internal findings, complaints and control records, brought together for analysis | Volume |
| BRCGS cl.4.9 | Foreign body control programme reviewed for effectiveness, including the performance of its detection controls | Control performance |
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Analysis by category or type to identify where issues concentrate | By type |
| BRCGS cl.2.5 | Corrective and preventive action raised where a review identifies a significant or recurring issue | Result |
| BRCGS cl.2.4 | HACCP or food safety plan reviewed where new or changed information indicates it may no longer be adequate | Related records |
What it does not cover
- Detection verification itself, which belongs to Metal Detection Check and X-Ray Inspection Verification and confirms the control today, not over a period.
- Physical control inspection, which belongs to Sieve and Filter Integrity Check and examines equipment rather than the pattern of findings it produced.
- Blade and sharps reconciliation, a per-shift accountability record this review draws a failure count from rather than repeats.
- The workforce behaviour behind reporting, which belongs to Foreign Body Awareness Training and determines whether the data here is complete at all.
- A single incident's root cause investigation, which belongs against that finding directly and feeds this review as one data point among many.
Global
Foreign Body Trend Review requirements by country
BRCGS is a private scheme, so the trending obligation runs through the standard rather than statute, though the food safety duty it supports is legal in every market a certified site sells into.
BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety cl.4.10; Food Safety Act 1990 general duties
BRCGS requires trend analysis as a certification condition; statutory law requires safe food without prescribing how trending is done.
An auditor expects the concentration questions answered, not just a count and a direction, because the clause targets early identification, not logging.
FDA FSMA Preventive Controls for Human Food, 21 CFR 117.150 (corrective action and correction)
Federal rule requires reanalysis and corrective action where a preventive control is not properly implemented or verification indicates a problem.
A worsening trend or repeated verification failure surfaced here can itself be the FSMA trigger for corrective action, independent of the BRCGS clause.
BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety; Codex Alimentarius General Principles of Food Hygiene, HACCP verification
BRCGS is the GFSI-recognised scheme used across export supply chains; Codex expects verification activity to feed back into the HACCP plan.
A multi-market site typically runs one review against BRCGS and treats HACCP Review Triggered as the bridge back to the Codex-based plan.
How to complete it
How to complete a foreign body trend review, step by step
The template totals the counts and calculates a trend direction on its own. What it cannot do without judgement is decide whether that direction actually means anything.
A rising count of internal findings alongside a flat count of what reached the consumer can mean detection is improving, catching more of what was always there, rather than contamination getting worse. Read Detected By Our Controls against Reached The Consumer together, not each figure in isolation.
Concentration In One Area and Concentration In One Material should be worked out from the By Type breakdown, not filled in from impression. A Stable overall trend sitting above a table where one line accounts for most of the count is the exact pattern the review exists to surface.
A rise in Sieve Or Magnet Failures or Equipment Wear Findings alongside a rise in internal findings is often the mechanism, not a coincidence. Read control performance against volume and by-type before Root Cause Addressed is answered, not after.
Not determined is legitimate when the investigation genuinely could not establish a cause, but it should never be the default because the review ran out of time. Against a named Dominant Line Or Area, Not determined without stated reasoning is unfinished analysis, not a neutral answer.
What auditors find
Most common foreign body trend review findings
This review works from data recorded elsewhere, so its findings are less about missing numbers and more about numbers totalled without being interpreted.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Trend recorded as Stable while the By Type breakdown shows one line or material dominates. | BRCGS cl.4.10 | Answer both Concentration fields from the by-type data before finalising Overall Trend. |
| Source Identified left as Not determined across successive quarters for the same dominant line. | BRCGS cl.4.9 | Escalate to engineering for physical inspection once a line appears dominant for a second consecutive period. |
| Control performance figures reviewed separately from finding volume, with no stated link between them. | BRCGS cl.4.10 | Read sieve, magnet, detection and blade failure counts against the same period's volume before concluding. |
| Engineering Action Required answered No despite a named dominant line and an unaddressed root cause. | BRCGS cl.2.5 | Tie Engineering Action Required to Root Cause Addressed; a Partly or No there should not sit under a No here. |
| Review conducted late, or the Period Covered field shows a gap between consecutive reviews. | BRCGS cl.4.10 | Fix the interval to the calendar; treat trigger events as additional to it, not a substitute. |
| A worsening trend recorded without HACCP Review Triggered being reconsidered. | BRCGS cl.2.4 | Treat a worsening or concentrated trend as new information requiring the HACCP plan to be reassessed. |
Case in point
Case in point: four quiet quarters and one loud one
A bakery site's quarterly trend reviews showed a small, steady number of soft plastic fragments each quarter, recorded across three packing lines but, unremarked, consistently the same line in the by-type detail. Each review recorded Overall Trend as Stable and Concentration In One Area as No. The figures were correct; the No was never examined against them.
In the fifth quarter a consumer complaint arrived with a fragment matching a worn conveyor skirt seal on that same line, overdue for replacement for two months and unflagged by any prior review. The seal had been degrading for over a year, visible in the by-type data throughout, and the concentration question had simply never been asked hard enough to catch the wrong answer, four quarters running.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
7 sections
- Reference
- QUA-105
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- FBT-2026-000
- Scoring
- Trend direction
- Direction
- Low is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- BRCGS cl.4.10
- Links
- Links Foreign body reports, Maintenance
- Tags
- Foreign body, Trending
- Sections
- 7
- Fields
- 48
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 3
Header
10 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format FBT-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Repeated Small Findings Have One Source
Three plastic fragments a month from the same line is not three incidents. It is one worn component nobody has looked for.
Period Covered*
Reviewed By*
Sources Reviewed*
Volume
6 fieldsInternal Findings*
Customer Complaints*
Detected By Our Controls*
The ratio between what you caught and what the customer caught is the honest measure of the system.
Reached The Consumer*
Injuries Reported*
Withdrawals Or Recalls*
By type
Repeats6 fieldsMaterial Type*
Count*
Trend Direction*
- Improving3 pts
- Stable2 pts
- Worsening0 pts
Dominant Line Or Area
Source Identified*
- Workplace1 pt
- Community3 pts
- Not determined0 pts
Root Cause Addressed*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Control performance
6 fieldsMetal Detection Verification Failures*
X-Ray Verification Failures
Sieve Or Magnet Failures*
Blade Reconciliation Failures*
Glass Or Brittle Plastic Breakages*
Equipment Wear Findings*
Conclusion
6 fieldsConcentration In One Area*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Concentration In One Material*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Overall Trend*
- Improving3 pts
- Stable2 pts
- Worsening0 pts
HACCP Review Triggered*
- Not needed3 pts
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
Engineering Action Required*
- No3 pts
- Yes1 pt
Feeds Management Review*
Related records
1 fieldHACCP Plan ID
The plan whose detection controls are being judged.
Links to QUA-046 HACCP ID
Result
13 fieldsItems Assessed*
Excludes anything marked N/A.
Items Failed*
Score Percent*
Calculated on submission. High is good. N/A items leave the denominator.
Result Band*
- Pass3 pts
- Caution1 pt
- Fail0 pts
Completeness Percent*
How much of the template was actually answered. A high score on a half completed form is not a high score.
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Quality Manager*
Signature*
Technical Manager*
Second Signature*
QUA-105 · record IDs look like FBT-2026-000 · Links Foreign body reports, Maintenance
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The review pulls numbers together well. What it depends on is whether the individual reports it draws from are complete, and whether a concentrated pattern reaches someone who can act on it.
Holds the individual foreign body reports and detection records this review aggregates, and keeps by-type and control performance data consistent between periods.
Takes a named dominant line or worn-component finding into a scheduled inspection or repair, rather than leaving it as a quarterly note.
Tracks the BRCGS cl.4.10 trending evidence and HACCP review linkage across sites so an auditor's request can be answered from the record.
Flags when the same line or material stays dominant across consecutive reviews with Source Identified as Not determined, before a fifth loud quarter.
This template lives in KnowQuality — quality and food safety. HACCP, nonconformance, traceability, laboratory and customer complaints.
Meet KnowQuality→Glossary
Foreign Body Trend Review definitions and key terms
- Concentration
- The degree to which findings cluster on one line, area or material rather than spreading evenly, the pattern this review is built to detect.
- Trend direction
- The scored assessment of whether findings are improving, stable or worsening, read as low is good in this template's scoring.
- Dominant line or area
- The production line or location responsible for the largest share of a material's findings, named explicitly rather than implied by the totals.
- Root cause addressed
- Confirmation that the physical or procedural cause behind a concentration, not just the individual finds, has been corrected.
- Source identified
- Whether a finding is established as workplace-origin, community-origin, or undetermined, which shapes what corrective action is possible.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about foreign body trend review
How often should a foreign body trend review run?+
Quarterly as a baseline, with an out-of-cycle review triggered by a complaint spike, a withdrawal, or a run of control failures. The quarterly cadence catches slow drift; trigger events catch anything moving faster.
What does low is good mean for this template's scoring?+
The scoring rewards Improving and Stable trends and low counts of failures and reached-the-consumer events, the opposite polarity to most templates in the programme, where higher scores mean better outcomes.
Should a Stable trend ever be treated as a finding on its own?+
Yes, if it sits above a concentrated by-type pattern. Stable in total but concentrated in one line is not a stable situation for that line, and the headline figure alone misses what the review exists to catch.
What should happen when Source Identified is Not determined?+
It should be a stated, reasoned outcome of investigation, not a default. If it recurs against the same dominant line across periods, that recurrence is itself a finding and should escalate to a physical inspection.
How does this review connect to the HACCP plan?+
Through HACCP Review Triggered. A worsening trend, or a concentration at a specific process step, is new information about the plan's adequacy, and Codex-based verification expects that to feed back into it.
Who should sign off the review, quality or engineering?+
Both. Quality owns the data and the trend; engineering owns the physical cause it usually points at. Quality alone with an unaddressed dominant line is missing the function that fixes it.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Foreign Body Control
Metal Detection Check
Confirms the metal detector rejects test pieces at the required sensitivity
X-Ray Inspection Verification
Verifies x-ray detection using the specified test pieces, in product, at the worst case position
Sieve and Filter Integrity Check
Checks sieves, filters and magnets for damage, correct aperture and secure fitting, and records what was retained
Blade and Sharps Accountability Record
Accounts for every blade, needle, cutter and sharp issued into a production area and returned at shift end
Wood and Pallet Control Check
Checks that wood, wooden pallets and similar materials are excluded or controlled in production areas
Foreign Body Awareness Training
Covers the sources of foreign body on this site, what to do when one is found and why the search matters more than the finding
More in Foreign Body Control
X-Ray Inspection Verification
Verifies x-ray detection using the specified test pieces, in product, at the worst case position
Sieve and Filter Integrity Check
Checks sieves, filters and magnets for damage, correct aperture and secure fitting, and records what was retained
Blade and Sharps Accountability Record
Accounts for every blade, needle, cutter and sharp issued into a production area and returned at shift end
Wood and Pallet Control Check
Checks that wood, wooden pallets and similar materials are excluded or controlled in production areas
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety, clause 4.10 (trend analysis)
- BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety, clause 4.9 (foreign body control programme)
- BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety, clauses 2.4 and 2.5 (HACCP review, corrective action)
- FDA FSMA Preventive Controls for Human Food, 21 CFR 117.150
- Codex Alimentarius General Principles of Food Hygiene, HACCP verification
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.