ISO 22000 without defined PRP's is 'next to useless
I am probably the very worst person to be a defender of iso 22000 but I think this is rather unfair, eg –
One of the differences between HACCP and ISO 22000 is the ISO standard’s emphasis of the use of prerequisite programs (PRPs). PRPs are generic controls used by any food business operation to maintain hygienic conditions in the processing environment. PRPs stipulate the preconditions necessary for producing safe food. Depending on the type of activity involved, the following defined requirements should be considered:
• Good Agricultural Practice (GAP)
• Good Hygienic Practice (GHP)
• Good Production Practice (GPP)
• Good Distribution Practice (GDP)
Additional components of prerequisite programs include, for example, cleaning and sanitizing; pest control; personnel hygiene; construction and layout of buildings and associated utilities; supplies of air, water, energy, and other utilities; supporting services such as waste and sewage disposal; supplier control; employee training; and more.
Having now had a look at a summary of the iso 2002-1 sub-sections, I wonder if GFSI will now criticise this document as being over – prescriptive! Out of curiosity, I attempted on the iso website to find any indications of their thinking over the current issues in the context of maximising food safety but failed. I do wonder what the ISO perspective on all this is. Whatever, they certainly appear to be playing hardball now.
I also (very) crudely gauged the degree of explicitness of the GFSI Guidance ver 5 by doing a check of Part2- Annex1 for the appearance of the words “must”,"shall", “should”, and “appropriate”. The results were rather surprising IMO, namely: 1, 0, 210, 35. (the “1” was “Staff must be properly trained against the documented hygiene standards” and occurred in the GAP column, not GMP or GDP).
I liked the section on Auditor Behavioural Characteristics, no source given unfortunately -
7.5.8 Attributes and Competencies
The Certification Body must have a system in place to ensure auditors conduct themselves in a
professional manner. The following provide examples of required behaviour.
• Ethical, i.e. fair, truthful, sincere, honest and discreet.
• Open minded, i.e. willing to consider alternative ideas or points of view.
• Diplomatic, i.e. tactful in dealing with people.
• Observant, i.e. actually aware of physical surroundings and activities.
• Perceptive, i.e. instinctive, aware of and able to understand situations.
• Versatile, i.e. adjust readily to different situations.
• Tenacious, i.e. persistent, focussed on achieving objectives.
• Decisive, i.e. timely conclusions based on logical reasoning.
• Self reliant, i.e. acts independently whilst interacting effectively with others.
• Integrity – aware of need for confidentiality and observing professional code of conduct.
Still wondering what the “observant” one means.
I suppose aspects like “ should display appropriate knowledge” are taken as a prerequisite.
Rgds / Charles.C