[FSSM]

Does anybody have idea?

ISO 22000 requires OPRP and CCP to have corrections and corrective actions, in case you find the results of your control measure are not within the acceptable level (taking into account that OPRP does not have CL).

What about PRP?

Allergens (as an example) are considered as PRP in PAS:220:2008, but there is no need to document any correction and corrective actions in case a PRP is not executed as planned.

Obviously, you can apply any corrections and corrective actions for any non-conformity (maybe as result of 7.8), but why it is not required for PRP, documented corrections and corrective actions?



Regards,

FSSM

[Simon]

BUMP fo FSSM.

[Charles.C]

Dear FSSM,

Quote

Allergens (as an example) are considered as PRP in PAS:220:2008, but there is no need to document any correction and corrective actions in case a PRP is not executed as planned.

Have not seen the standard but this seems rather improbable.

I think from memory that ISO 22000 includes this aspect within the requirement for verification of prp.

Hopefully Erasmo, the expert on ISO 22k text, will see this thread

Rgds / Charles.C

[Erasmo]

FSSM, on Jul 16 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

Does anybody have idea?

ISO 22000 requires OPRP and CCP to have corrections and corrective actions, in case you find the results of your control measure are not within the acceptable level (taking into account that OPRP does not have CL).

What about PRP?

Allergens (as an example) are considered as PRP in PAS:220:2008, but there is no need to document any correction and corrective actions in case a PRP is not executed as planned.

Obviously, you can apply any corrections and corrective actions for any non-conformity (maybe as result of 7.8), but why it is not required for PRP, documented corrections and corrective actions?



Regards,

FSSM

Hi FSSM
It will depend on the situation, pls read 8.4.2 - It only stated that the organization has to take ACTIONS if the results of Verification Planning are not acceptable. (7.8 includes the PRP verification).
Saludos.

[FSSM]

Thank you Charles.C/Erasmo:

I mean, the requirements for OPRP´s and CCP are basically the same, the only difference is CL for the later. Part of those requirements are corrections and corrective actions. PAS 220:2008 treats allergens as PRP only. Why this PRP or any other wouldn't´ require previously established corrections and corrective actions as OPRP´s or CCP?

Hope you can help me clarify my mind.

Regards,

FSSM

[Tony-C]

FSSM, on Jul 19 2009, 04:41 AM, said:

Why this PRP or any other wouldn't´ require previously established corrections and corrective actions as OPRP´s or CCP?

I don't see a problem with having documented corrective actions. It is not a requirement of the standard, in my interpretation, as PRP's are expected to be reliable and verified.

Regards,

Tony

[Charles.C]

Dear FSSM,

Actually, yr query has come up before here in less exact form and was equally debated (and unresolved ) regarding the logic. IMO, it is surely highly unlikely (and irresponsible ?) that for many PRPs such as factory water chlorination for example, any deviation from set operational limits would not be required to be documented. And the corrective actions which should follow.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Tony-C]

Charles.C, on Jul 23 2009, 09:52 PM, said:

IMO, it is surely highly unlikely (and irresponsible ?) that for many PRPs such as factory water chlorination for example, any deviation from set operational limits would not be required to be documented. And the corrective actions which should follow.
Rgds / Charles.C

I agree with you Charles PRPs and OPRPs seem to be muddled and this is leading to a lot of confusion.

Your example would probably be considered an OPRP under management of supplies.

Regards,

Tony