Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Some Update/Review/Example for CCP-OPRP Selection


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,661 posts
  • 3327 thanks
352
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 22 January 2010 - 05:17 AM

Dear All,

I like to keep a casual watch on developments in the “ccp/oprp selection market” since it has succeeded in producing so much confusion.
.
Theory

It seems that an equivalence between oprp and “control point” is acknowledged although the word "similar" is perhaps well-chosen, see below –
 

 

What Is an Operational Prerequisite Program?
oPRP is a term unique to ISO 22000. In many ways, the oPRPs are similar to the Control Points (CPs) that are present in the U.S. definition of HACCP. Codex, and thus, the rest of the world, does not define CPs in their HACCP literature.

oPRPs are identified by the hazard analysis. If a loss of control occurs, actions need to take place to bring the process back into control. However, controlling an oPRP does not prevent or eliminate a food safety hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level. Controlling an oPRP does reduce the likelihood of introducing a food safety hazard or the proliferation of an existing food safety hazard in the products or the processing environment. oPRPs must be validated, verified and monitored to ensure effectiveness of the food safety system. For example, a poultry further-processing plant purchases boneless chicken breasts and processes them into a ready-to-eat product. As part of the food safety control plan, there is a receiving specification that requires that all raw chicken breast be received at temperatures less than 40 °F. In addition, the processing specification requires that chicken be cooked in an oven to a minimum of 185 °F before freezing and packaging. The receiving temperature could be classified as an oPRP, and the final cook temperature would be a CCP

(Surak et al, August 2009)
(Note that the sentence "However, controlling an oprp....acceptable level" does not fully agree with the text in Procert below, in later biz.tree example or the text in penultimate attachment)(*Sighhhhh* smile.gif )

Practical Tools

Very quick look back shows the analytical choice has been between elegant but lengthy assessments like Modarres and shorter types like Charlorne (I’m sure you all know the links already) (if otherwise can try the files collected in this post  -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...ge-2#entry25662

 

The fundamental difference I suppose is that the first does the ccp/oprp cut based on the control measures, the second focuses on the hazard plan risk assessment . I have never heard anyone complaining that a method across this range was rejected by the auditor so presumably both ends are acceptable as such although the latter is seemingly not quite compliant with the literal standard.

Regarding “trees”, the only published one I know is the Procert one already referenced here and of relatively long standing [added - in fact hv now seen several more but only in the French literature].
The Procert tree is –
Attached File  ProCert_ISO_22000_decision_tree.pdf   126.1KB   1573 downloads

It can be seen that this also selects via the control measures step but now down to only 3 - a,b and f. Hv seen this simplification utilised (unpublished) by simply adding a (compliancy) column to the standard HACCP table. Presumably Procert considered that prioritising only on abf was justifiable. Good for them ! (But also see text after next attachment)
[added - it seemed worthwhile to add this related chunk of text taken from the Procert website -
 

 

in this issue, the essence lies in the selection of control measures which must be effective and validated. The storm generated by the question of knowing whether a control measure belongs to a CCP or an oPRP is without doubt a residue of the application of Codex and its tree… where, if there was no CCP, there was nothing!

With ISO 22000, it is necessary to move the priority on the selection of control measures, by ensuring that they address all the real hazards to control. Once one has the control measures and they are credible (effective and validated), in the final analysis it does not matter if one allots them to a CCP or to an oPRP: indeed, in both cases it will be necessary to build a monitoring system to prove the effectiveness of it.

For the method of categorization to a CCP or an oPRP, the ProCert ISO 22000 tree may be helpful to carry out this categorization, based on two key criteria (mentioned in ISO 22000) which characterize a CCP:
# « controlling » : aptitude of the (combination of) control measure to eliminate the hazard (examples: pasteurization of milk for a salmonella hazard; filtration for a foreign body hazard
# « monitoring »: the possibility of having an on-line follow-up of the control measure.

If the two conditions are met, it is a CCP (pasteurization in our example). If on-line monitoring is not ensured, it is an oPRP (filtration in our example).



And one more suggested tool from bizmanualz –

Attached File  biz_tree.png   50.65KB   556 downloads

This is a sort of condensed / simplified Modarres. Interesting to note that the decision requirements regarding (a,b) do not agree with Procert. Personally I hv closer agreement with Procert. But I suppose practically it may not matter (?). Subjectivity rules !

Thirdly, and possibly the best new offer, is a CCP / OPRP tree procedure (2009) modelled on ISO 22000. It certainly has an appealing simplicity / flexibility but I haven’t tried it out or seen it evaluated anywhere yet. I suspect some of the decision criteria will again not coincide with the previous two systems. [added - after a closer look, seems very similar to Procert but is trying to further simplify. Procert is more easily understood IMO.]

Attached File  CCP_and_OPRP_program.pdf   491.01KB   1634 downloads


Example

Lastly, here is a very readable case study (ISO 22000 based) for ham production detailing PRPs, OPRPS and CCPs. It does not show the specific working for the CCP / OPRP selection and I personally found myself querying some of the results presented but it is still a fascinating document IMO and particularly if you are interested in relationship to EC regulations.

Attached File  ham_study_.doc   382.5KB   886 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 1

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#2 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,423 posts
  • 1043 thanks
227
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 03 February 2010 - 06:32 PM

I missed this post Charles, sorry for that. Surely such research warrants some comments from users of ISO 22000 from both sides of the audit table. :dunno:

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


Thanked by 1 Member:

#3 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 03 February 2010 - 07:46 PM

Dear All,

(Note that the sentence "However, controlling an oprp....acceptable level" does not fully agree with the text in Procert below, in later biz.tree example or the text in penultimate attachment)(*Sighhhhh* :smile: )


I also do not agree with the statement that controlling an oPRP does not prevent or eliminate a food safety hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level.

From the the definition 3.15 of Validation, you can read clearly oPRP is a control measure also, so it should be able to prevent, reduce, or eliminate a safety hazard. Also, 7.4.4 mentions that the control measures should be classified as oPRP or CCP.

As in the second quote Charles.C kindly provided, the only difference in CCP and oPRP is that for a CCP a critical limit can be stablished and that, it is the last action that can be taken to control the hazard. I think some oPRP can have a critical limit, or even should have one, but then the only difference with a CCP is the place in the process {7.4.4 c)}.

Regarding “trees”, the only published one I know is the Procert one already referenced here and of relatively long standing [added - in fact hv now seen several more but only in the French literature].
The Procert tree is –
Attached File  ProCert_ISO_22000_decision_tree.pdf   126.1KB   1573 downloads

It can be seen that this also selects via the control measures step but now down to only 3 - a,b and f. Hv seen this simplification utilised (unpublished) by simply adding a (compliancy) column to the standard HACCP table. Presumably Procert considered that prioritising only on abf was justifiable. Good for them !


I have taken the Procert three and done this one, taking into acount 7.4.4 from a to g:
Attached File  Selection_and_classification_of_control_measures.doc   53KB   872 downloads

And combine it with this table:

Attached File  Selection_and_classification_of_control_measures.xls   24.5KB   939 downloads

Regards,

FSSM
  • 0

#4 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,010 posts
  • 809 thanks
171
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 05 February 2010 - 02:12 AM

I have taken the Procert three and done this one, taking into acount 7.4.4 from a to g:
Attached File  Selection_and_classification_of_control_measures.doc   53KB   872 downloads

And combine it with this table:

Attached File  Selection_and_classification_of_control_measures.xls   24.5KB   939 downloads

Regards,

FSSM


Deja vu !

Agreed an OPRP: "is identified by the hazard analysis as essential in order to control the likelihood of introducing food safety hazards"

Regards,

Tony
  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#5 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 05 February 2010 - 11:16 PM

Deja vu !

Agreed an OPRP: "is identified by the hazard analysis as essential in order to control the likelihood of introducing food safety hazards"

Regards,

Tony


Yeap, you are right, I had posted it in the next topic, but at the time I replied in this one, I didn´t have the time to look for this link:

http://www.ifsqn.com...t...=13479&st=0

Regards,

FSSM
  • 0

#6 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 06 February 2010 - 02:11 PM

Dear FSSM,

I think some oPRP can have a critical limit, or even should have one, but then the only difference with a CCP is the place in the process {7.4.4 c)}.


You should seriously consider your "operating limit" as part of the integral structure of your OPRP Plan in supporting your risk management i.e. hazard elimination, prevention and reduction to acceptable level under the OPRP Plan.

Violations if significant enough under the OPRP Plan can have a profound adverse impact to consumers similar to that of a violation of the HACCP Plan. We must not forget that the OPRP Plan is designed to support the HACCP Plan under the definition of control measures combination. The synergistic support from the control measures combination must ultimately achieve the FSO to ensure consumers are adequately protected with the acceptable ALOP of the end product(s) manufactured.

Cheers
Charles Chew
  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#7 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,661 posts
  • 3327 thanks
352
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 06 February 2010 - 10:11 PM

Dear FSSM and CharlesChew,

I appreciate the feedback(s) and another view of FSSM’s very ingenious flowchart. Not sure what the circled capital As, Bs, Cs refer to.?

I am currently attempting to put together a minimalist presentation for selection of ccps / oprps as a kind of extrapolatation from my earlier post (the 3-parameter Procert is OK by me for brevity but perhaps not fully applicable in the general case?). Probably will not appear in the immediate future though.

I couldn’t see where the first quote (see next line) in CharlesChews’s post came from ??

the only difference with a CCP is the place in the process {7.4.4 c)}.


And sorry but I don’t understand this comment, what place and process are we talking about ?

A few more comments, not intended to be argumentative. :biggrin:

The standard does not seem to offer any opportunity to set “critical limits” for an OPRP as far I could see although something equivalent is obviously necessary to allow a corrective action (which is specified) to be generated.

With respect to CharlesChews last paragraph, ISO 22004 appears to support the user manouevring his (subjective) method of classification so as to achieve either a minimum or a maximum of ccps as per his own wishes. This part of the 22004 text seems nonsensical to me.

Rgds /Charles.C
  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#8 excellens

excellens

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 24 posts
  • 9 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Dominican Republic
    Dominican Republic
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dominican Republic

Posted 07 February 2010 - 01:58 PM

Charles,

I was trying to get more information about the Coca Cola Michigan State Conference. Is the material online anywhere?

Regards

Horacio


  • 0

#9 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,010 posts
  • 809 thanks
171
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 08 February 2010 - 02:58 AM

I appreciate the feedback(s) and another view of FSSM’s very ingenious flowchart. Not sure what the circled capital As, Bs, Cs refer to.?


Ingenious maybe :smarty: but only FSSM and Einstein understand it. Some things, especially food safety, are best kept as simple as possible.

Regards,

Tony
  • 0

#10 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,661 posts
  • 3327 thanks
352
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 08 February 2010 - 07:24 PM

Dear excellens,

The item was one presentation at a 4-day package of lectures on food safety topics. All are available here –

http://fskntraining....afety09/program

Each slide-set includes the original lecture (flash video) of approx.30mins. I tried the one I uploaded here and seemed quite nicely presented IMO.

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#11 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 08 February 2010 - 09:59 PM

Dear FSSM and CharlesChew,

I appreciate the feedback(s) and another view of FSSM’s very ingenious flowchart. Not sure what the circled capital As, Bs, Cs refer to.?


A, B, C are the different conections in the same page, the numbered ones are conections from page to page.

I couldn’t see where the first quote (see next line) in CharlesChews’s post came from ??


It is part of my first post in this topic (Posted Feb 3 2010, 01:46 PM).

And sorry but I don’t understand this comment, what place and process are we talking about ?


I mean the unitary operation (processing step), and if it goes before or after another one.

For more details please refer to the next multi-cited source of information:

http://en.wikipedia..../Unit_operationUnit operation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn chemical engineering and related fields, a unit operation is a basic step in
a process. For example in milk processing, homogenization, pasteurization, ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_operation - 23k - Páginas similares

A few more comments, not intended to be argumentative. :biggrin:

The standard does not seem to offer any opportunity to set “critical limits” for an OPRP as far I could see although something equivalent is obviously necessary to allow a corrective action (which is specified) to be generated.


I know the standar do not request critical limits for OPRP´s, and that is something that doesn´t make sence if you got to take action when the OPRP is out of control. Maybe they didn´t wanted to introduce another confusing term. :whistle:

Regards,

FSSM

Edited by FSSM, 08 February 2010 - 10:07 PM.

  • 0

#12 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 08 February 2010 - 10:19 PM

Ingenious maybe :smarty: but only FSSM and Einstein understand it. Some things, especially food safety, are best kept as simple as possible.

Regards,

Tony


Thanks for that, I appreciate you too.

I think ISO TC/34 committee wasn´t thinking simple when they designed ISO 22000 7.4.4 clause. I would like to have a simpler version, but I just haven´t been able to achive it.

Regards,

FSSM
  • 0

#13 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,661 posts
  • 3327 thanks
352
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 09 February 2010 - 07:52 AM

Dear FSSM,

Thks yr clarification regarding A,B etc. I shud hv recognised yr symbol style from my engineering days. :smile:

I recognise the effort you hv put into this and I do agree with you that iso 22000 is in no way user friendly regarding clear expectations. Maybe the topic of OPRP will follow the mass attack on their use of PRP.

After a re-look / study of the flowchart, wud like to make a few comments / queries. I hv tried to be as constructive as possible.

1. Box 744f possibly has a slight error, perhaps the key iso 22000 standard word “specific” is missing.?

2. Seems to me that you hv re-interpreted 744b in that you hv chosen to replace the iso standards specific use of the words “monitoring”, “immediate” and "corrective actions" with a requirement that the response is verifiably effective (I assume yr standard is same as mine text-wise). This seems a dubious change to me although hv no disagreement that validation/verification is required for both CCP or OPRP (independently of 744 a-g). An example might be a specifically included filtration step where the condition of the screen is daily checked as a monitor. Procert (their use of word verify also seems questionable to me) wud give OPRP, yr structure potentially CCP. Hmmm. :smile: (Have also seen the Procert wording retained but "NO > re-think the control measure". This seemed unreasonable to me if applied to the filtration example plus validatability could be established.)
Using the Procert type route, the sequence of 3 YES answers to (fab) seems to be one popular route to stopping and concluding a CCP but I agree with your chart that this neglects (at a minimum) the function of 744c, for example in the case of metal removing devices followed by a metal detector.

3.Overall I deduce yr structure gives 2 main paths to an OPRP, via box 744c which is a usual consensus choice and secondly according to box 744e. I found the latter stage difficult to understand. The box text “ is it a significant hazard” is rather confusing to me. Surely a positive hazard significance has already been decided at the beginning of the tree ? I think the discussion is now centred on control measures. I guess from the flowchart and the excel sheet (cols L,M) that you are splitting “significance (risk??)” into 2 layers to distinguish between an OPRP (eg major risk) and a CCP (eg critical risk) ? If so, perhaps you could clarify as to the boundary used. I hv no particular objection to such a demarcation (hv seen one similar interpretation elsewhere) but not sure about the usage/location position here. Not clear how you did this on the excel chart either (no CCPs shown). In practice I presume this stage is a primary separator for OPRP / CCP. I wondered if you had inserted it at the current location so as to avoid having insufficient data to show the auditor with respect to analysis of control measures ?? :biggrin:

4. I don’t understand the intention of box 761c. I appreciate that this question was supposedly one of the reasons for the original introduction of the OPRP concept but I hv never seen an example of a significant hazard (as determined from a risk analysis) for which critical limits could not be designed (assuming that non-numerical boundaries are accepted). Can you explain ?

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#14 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 09 February 2010 - 11:27 PM

After a re-look / study of the flowchart, wud like to make a few comments / queries. I hv tried to be as constructive as possible.


Thanks for your time!

1. Box 744f possibly has a slight error, perhaps the key iso 22000 standard word “specific” is missing.?


I obviated that it was a specific control measure, next question makes enfasis on this, maybe this is unnecesary and can make them one.

2. Seems to me that you hv re-interpreted 744b in that you hv chosen to replace the iso standards specific use of the words “monitoring”, “immediate” and "corrective actions" with a requirement that the response is verifiably effective (I assume yr standard is same as mine text-wise).


Actually no, they are not exactly the same, I do not have the ISO 22000 text in English, I use an equivalent (NMX-F-CC-22000-NORMEX-IMNC-2007 from NORMEX), NORMEX is a private institution, registered and acredited by Mexico goverment, involved in the design of normativity, and have verification and certification capability. So this 22000 version is basically a translation and they use the term "Seguimiento" that I translated to follow up. the "immediate" and "corrective actions" is in parenthesis as an example.

I agree that getting aligned to the words "immediate" "corrective actions" would be best suited.

3.Overall I deduce yr structure gives 2 main paths to an OPRP, via box 744c which is a usual consensus choice and secondly according to box 744e. I found the latter stage difficult to understand. The box text “ is it a significant hazard” is rather confusing to me. Surely a positive hazard significance has already been decided at the beginning of the tree ?


Well, at the begining you might have the idea that it is a hazard, but then you got to review severity and frecuency with the risk matrix to check if it is a significant hazard. That is were I work with the excel sheet colums J, K. I think this is in accordance with 7.4.4.e text. Let me know if this translation is ok, "The severity of the consequences in the event of failure of its operation."

I guess from the flowchart and the excel sheet (cols L,M) that you are splitting “significance (risk??)” into 2 layers to distinguish between an OPRP (eg major risk) and a CCP (eg critical risk) ? If so, perhaps you could clarify as to the boundary used. I hv no particular objection to such a demarcation (hv seen one similar interpretation elsewhere) but not sure about the usage/location position here. Not clear how you did this on the excel chart either (no CCPs shown). In practice I presume this stage is a primary separator for OPRP / CCP. I wondered if you had inserted it at the current location so as to avoid having insufficient data to show the auditor with respect to analysis of control measures ?? :biggrin:


The boundary is "significant hazard", the value on colums J and K depends on the number of classifications of severity and frecuency of your risk matrix. I have a 3 x 4 matrix so the lowest would be 1 and highest 12, OPRP would be dependent on what combination you consider a significant hazard. For me when less than 8 it makes it OPRP. And yeap, auditors always want more from you!

4. I don’t understand the intention of box 761c. I appreciate that this question was supposedly one of the reasons for the original introduction of the OPRP concept but I hv never seen an example of a significant hazard (as determined from a risk analysis) for which critical limits could not be designed (assuming that non-numerical boundaries are accepted). Can you explain ?


It is also senseless for me, because you can stablish a quantitative or qualitative value for any control measure, but that is the way the standar is working, the only thing that makes a difference between OPRP and CCP in the text of the standar is, the stablishment of critical limits for CCPs, but in practice if there is a subsecuent step that eliminates or reduces the hazard then it could be just an OPRP.

Thanks for your feedback,

FSSM
  • 0

#15 excellens

excellens

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 24 posts
  • 9 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Dominican Republic
    Dominican Republic
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dominican Republic

Posted 10 February 2010 - 02:06 AM

Charles,

Thanks for the link. Presentations are very good.

Regards,

Horacio


  • 0

#16 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,661 posts
  • 3327 thanks
352
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 10 February 2010 - 09:57 AM

Dear FSSM,

Many thks yr detailed comments. I did suspect that the different languages might hv some relevance when I noticed some of the words on the Excel sheet. :smile: I wonder if this is a common, additional variable which tends to get overlooked.

I understand / agree most of yr comments and they make sense to me as far as ISO 22000 will allow.

As a result of this dialog, I hv attempted to put together a test tree utilising a substantial amount of yr logic mixed with the Procert tree and flavoured with a few other additives. :smile:
One possible advantage of mine is that the chart fits on one page for readers with limited patience although i still like the rigor of yr presentation given time for study. You will see i hv deviated from yr opinions in a few places, often for pragmatism even though i may hv agreed with your logic. The subjectivity of these (a-g) factors is i suppose an advantage of the scoring type methods but, ultimately, these look like overkill to me. I am not yet willing to credit ISO with that level of wisdom although they are surely excellent auditor ammunition.

I hv delayed creating any pseudo - examples on an excel sheet in case anyone points out gross errors which is quite possible. :rolleyes:

Any comments are welcome as usual.

Attached File  Prototype_decision_tree_for_OPRP___CCP__ISO_22000_ver6a.pdf   52.89KB   389 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 3 Members:

#17 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 10 February 2010 - 04:49 PM

Dear Charles:

This is what I was expecting, some input to make this simpler. I see you have taken out 7.2.1 and 7.6.1, which is ok, since they can be implicitly answered and can get focus on 7.4.4.

It seems that moving the order of some questions doesn´t make a different result but others do have an impact. Basically the difference with your prototype is the order of f, d and b, you have them in the order b, f, d. But most important is that the way you get to a CCP through questions d, e, c+g, you come from a Yes there is a likelihood of failure in the functioning of the CM and Yes the severity of the consequences is high in case of the failure of the functioning of the CM (already specifically established to eliminate or significantly reduce the level of hazard) and NO other CM will eliminate the identified hazard or reduce the likely occurence, so you know there is a CCP, but in the way I have it, you consider that the chosen CM is unlikely to fail and that it is CCP.

Regards,

FSSM


  • 0

#18 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,661 posts
  • 3327 thanks
352
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 11 February 2010 - 10:39 AM

Dear FSSM,

I agree with you that there are difficulties in the conceptual balancing of certain factors in the (a-g) set such as yr (d,e) comments. It is indeed rather unarguable that if a proposed CM never controls, a re-design is called for as per yr tree structure. In the general case, I think (d,e) are intended to be considered as a pair. Maybe I’m wrong. :smile:

The reality in the answers to these questions is that a degree of “non-perfection” in any chosen CM is surely inevitable. Consequently, the black/white approximation procedure involved here may meet (unspecified) flexibility difficulties.
Obviously if a practical implementation gives impractical conclusions, some further thought will be required. :biggrin:

Just for info., I hv mainly utilised the Procert / Praxiom suggestions ( http://www.praxiom.c...definitions.htm ) as the logic basis for prototype tree together with some of the “scoring-type” posts in this link http://www.ifsqn.com...?showtopic=9053 (eg shakti).

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#19 Abdul Qudoos

Abdul Qudoos

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 308 posts
  • 36 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United Arab Emirates
    United Arab Emirates
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sharjah

Posted 11 February 2010 - 12:24 PM

Greetings viewers,

As far i understand CCP-OPRP and made it simple:

For CCP - Significant hazards related to physical, chemical & biological hazards with critical limits for each preventive measure required.

For OPRP - Specific control measures with significant hazards and control measure needed.

example:

CCP -Metal detector, sterilization/pasteurization.

OPRP -

  • Specific control is Storage of raw material and finished products.
  • Significant hazards are biological -pest contamination or chemical - oxidation related to high temperature and humidity.
  • Control measures are keep close to prevent contamination, cleaning and pest control carried as per schedule or monitoring of temperature and humidity, use FIFO practice.

Continued...
  • 0
Join me on
Abdul Qudoos on LinkedIn
Follow me on twitter Healthy_Food_
Visit my website Healthy Food Management



#20 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 11 February 2010 - 08:42 PM

Abdul/Charles:

Thanks!

Charles I will review the links ASAP.

Is anybody willing to do an excersice?

Please find attached the flow diagram of a RTE vegetables process. It is not my area, so any comments will be appreciated.

Attached File  Flow_diagram_RTE_vegetables.pdf   76.39KB   429 downloads

I will post later my version for review to this honorable forum.

Regards,

FSSM


  • 0

Thanked by 3 Members:

#21 Abdul Qudoos

Abdul Qudoos

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 308 posts
  • 36 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United Arab Emirates
    United Arab Emirates
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sharjah

Posted 15 February 2010 - 01:16 PM

Abdul/Charles:

Thanks!

Charles I will review the links ASAP.

Is anybody willing to do an excersice?

Please find attached the flow diagram of a RTE vegetables process. It is not my area, so any comments will be appreciated.

Attached File  Flow_diagram_RTE_vegetables.pdf   76.39KB   429 downloads

I will post later my version for review to this honorable forum.

Regards,

FSSM

Very interesting, I did the exercise although is not my area, many thanks for the post,
please keep on posting...
cheers,
  • 0
Join me on
Abdul Qudoos on LinkedIn
Follow me on twitter Healthy_Food_
Visit my website Healthy Food Management



#22 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 15 February 2010 - 02:29 PM

Dear Abdul,

What is your opinion, what OPRPs and CCP could you identify?

FSSM


Edited by FSSM, 15 February 2010 - 02:30 PM.

  • 0

#23 Abdul Qudoos

Abdul Qudoos

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 308 posts
  • 36 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United Arab Emirates
    United Arab Emirates
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sharjah

Posted 16 February 2010 - 05:54 AM

Thanks FSSM, My opinion as follows:

OPRP: Storage - controlled conditions (temperature, relative humidity, air) and Storage before Distribution.

CCP: Macroscopic control (temperature control of a raw materials for cutting), Washing and disinfection (Water residual chlorine and disinfection concentration) and Metal detection

CP: Receiving (macroscopic control, temperature control of raw materials), Drying (centrifugation), Packaging (flow pack, under vacuum).

Please let me know your opinion on the same.


  • 0
Join me on
Abdul Qudoos on LinkedIn
Follow me on twitter Healthy_Food_
Visit my website Healthy Food Management



#24 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 16 February 2010 - 01:49 PM

Thanks FSSM, My opinion as follows:

OPRP: Storage - controlled conditions (temperature, relative humidity, air) and Storage before Distribution.

CCP: Macroscopic control (temperature control of a raw materials for cutting), Washing and disinfection (Water residual chlorine and disinfection concentration) and Metal detection

CP: Receiving (macroscopic control, temperature control of raw materials), Drying (centrifugation), Packaging (flow pack, under vacuum).

Please let me know your opinion on the same.


Dear Abdul,

Thanks for shearing, I´m still looking for some information to decide, maybe it will take me one more day.

Regards,

FSSM
  • 0

#25 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,010 posts
  • 809 thanks
171
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 16 February 2010 - 02:07 PM

Thanks FSSM, My opinion as follows:

OPRP: Storage - controlled conditions (temperature, relative humidity, air) and Storage before Distribution.

CCP: Macroscopic control (temperature control of a raw materials for cutting), Washing and disinfection (Water residual chlorine and disinfection concentration) and Metal detection

CP: Receiving (macroscopic control, temperature control of raw materials), Drying (centrifugation), Packaging (flow pack, under vacuum).

Please let me know your opinion on the same.


What about labelling?
Surely this should be a CCP or OPRP?

Regards,

Tony
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users