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

#26 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 16 February 2010 - 02:18 PM

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

Regards,

Tony



Dear Tony,

What would you consider a hazard in the labelling stage?

I haven´t thought of something in there.

FSSM
  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#27 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 19 February 2010 - 04:38 PM

Well,

Here it goes, some people in the forum (in other topics) said that spoiling would happen before pathogens start growing, I´m not sure about that. Also, I couldn´t find information about the correct process of time and temperature to cool fruits and vegetables, just statements that mantaining a certain temperature was important.

Attached File  RTU_vegetables_selection_and_classification_of_CM.xls   28KB   327 downloads

Regards,

FSSM


  • 0

Thanked by 4 Members:

#28 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,955 posts
  • 790 thanks
167
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 20 February 2010 - 12:46 AM

Dear Tony,

What would you consider a hazard in the labelling stage?

I haven´t thought of something in there.

FSSM


Hi FSSM

Allergen warning information missing/Incorrect content information
Incorrect date coding

Regards,

Tony

Edited by Tony-C, 20 February 2010 - 12:47 AM.

  • 0

#29 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,447 posts
  • 3244 thanks
346
Excellent

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

Posted 20 February 2010 - 04:44 AM

Dear FSSM,

Yr efforts are to be applauded. :thumbup:

I have to say that IMO you selected an extremely complex (and controversial) product area for a risk analysis request. However, it is undoubtedly important based on the various vegetable / fruit (microbial) disasters of recent years as particularly documented in US..

To encourage contributions I thought it might help to add a little background material for preliminary assistance.

Here are 2 short reviews for fresh produce, the first for the general microbiological situation (ca 2003) and a second more focused on (traditional) HACCP (ca 2002).

Attached File  preharvest__postharvest__fresh_produce_pathogens__control.xls   2.61MB   318 downloads

Attached File  food_safety_for_fresh_produce.pdf   618.67KB   397 downloads

Currently the most accessible up-to-date (microbial) reference is probably the link below which is the third in a continuing series (1998, 2001, 2008).

http://www.fda.gov/f...s/ucm064458.htm

The middle one also contains a wealth of basic information, much of which is still highly relevant.

The temperature and MAP aspects seem to remain undecided with respect to food safety except for specific products like melon, for example see Section 8-3 in above link.

As a general comment, I extracted this chunk from the 2001 set -


3.1.3. GMPs and HACCP
GMPs are FDA regulations directed at food processors and are located in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 21(CFR) Part 110.1 -- 110.99. GMPs cover all aspects of a processing environment from the design of a sanitary facility to rules forbidding jewelry on workers. Unlike GAPs, GMPs are rules that are clearly defined and easy to apply because a processing environment has easily defined boundaries and the processing activities can be contained and controlled.
Even though HACCP is not mandatory, it has been embraced by the fresh-cut processing industry as a useful tool for implementing food safety practices in the production environment. HACCP is well suited to identify hazards, monitor production for adherence to operational standards, and develop an effective record keeping system in a fresh-cut produce facility. With close attention to prerequisite programs, a processor can implement HACCP to round out their food safety program.
The terms HACCP and food safety are used interchangeably in the food industry, implying that HACCP may be the only approach to food safety. But HACCP is merely a component or tool in an overall food safety program and cannot be implemented without prerequisite programs such as GAPs, GMPs, and a Sanitation Plan firmly in place. This "cafeteria" style approach to food safety has served the fruit and vegetable industry well because the variety matches the multiple needs of the various produce business models from the fields to the fresh-cut processing facilities.
Estimates of the cost of HACCP and GMP implementation require a thorough analysis by expert economists. As an example, Table I-1 indicates the average costs of HACCP and GMP implementation in a typical medium sized fresh-cut processing facility as compared to recent fresh juice figures generated by the FDA in the final rule for fresh juice regulations (FDA 2001). The fresh-cut facility costs were derived from a medium-sized operation located in the middle of the United States and based on real costs averaged over the last 2 years. Costs were estimated based on the current practices in that facility.

Even though these operations use similar raw products, and have similar production activities, juice plant costs differed from the fresh-cut operation costs in several areas. One example is in the line item for pathogen controls. The cost differential occurs because pathogens must be controlled in the juice throughout the production process whereas pathogen control is only applicable in the wash water step for a fresh-cut processor. Also, the start-up costs for installation of a pasteurization system will be much higher than the cost of a chlorination system, but the recurring annual costs are similar. Another area of difference occurs in item 3, Monitoring the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). The fresh-cut processor's food safety program relies almost exclusively on the prerequisite programs such as sanitation and GMPs to prevent contamination whereas the juice processors rely on pathogen controls such as pasteurization as illustrated in item 6 in Table I-1. In item 9 in Table I-1, outside testing costs are different because the fresh-cut processor has elected not to have an in-house laboratory; therefore, they send all the microbiological tests to an outside lab. Other differences are generally due to different philosophies of management.

( http://www.fda.gov/F...s/ucm091050.htm )

I hv also noticed that some authors hv "extended" the definition of a traditional CCP such that the word "prevented" has been ingeniously replaced by "minimised" (to an acceptable zero tolerance presumably :rolleyes:) thereby more comfortably allowing control aspects like chlorination :smile: . However have not seen any official approval of this manouevre as yet. I guess this may hv been further encouraged by the advent of OPRP.

Rgds / Charles.C

added - I subsequently noticed the FAO recent publication (2008) attached below from which I extracted this slightly depressing overview comment -

For the more sophisticated operations particular attention was given to the washing and sanitization steps where the efficacy of sanitizers and other interventions aimed at reducing pathogen levels were considered. The meeting concluded that while some reduction can be achieved there is a lack of significantly effective options other than heat or irradiation. While the latter can result in several log reductions of even colonising or internalised pathogens, there remains a need for further research focusing on both fundamental attachment mechanisms and inactivation of the pathogens in situ. Thus while processing would appear to be the one step with the potential for the reduction of microbial risks (e.g. disinfection), provide control of amplification of risks (e.g. chilling) and protect the product from further exposure (e.g. packaging), given the current state of knowledge and technology the meeting concluded that if a product is contaminated there is little that can be done to completely remove the contaminant although a reduction can be achieved and actions taken to prevent exacerbation of a problem.

Attached File  Microbiological_hazards_in_fresh_leafy_vegetables_and_herbs_2008.pdf   985.83KB   283 downloads
  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 4 Members:

#30 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 22 February 2010 - 04:37 PM

I have to say that IMO you selected an extremely complex (and controversial) product area for a risk analysis request. However, it is undoubtedly important based on the various vegetable / fruit (microbial) disasters of recent years as particularly documented in US..


Yeap, you are right, I wanted to review an example of a process where there might be or seem to be several CCP, and less standarized as, maybe, milk pasteurization.

To encourage contributions I thought it might help to add a little background material for preliminary assistance.


Thanks for that, I actually read before your posted it, this one: http://www.fda.gov/f...s/ucm064458.htm
and found it a good source of information, but all of the documents you kindly provided are very useful.

added - I subsequently noticed the FAO recent publication (2008) attached below from which I extracted this slightly depressing overview comment -


Yes, this makes me remember, that to be able to control the microbiology, you should have good starting materials, with reduce microbial loads, and keep them like that through out the food chain. Very little to do when you let them grow. This would be very delicate when the produce have to be imported from distant places, where the cold chain can be broken, or contamination can occure during transportation.

As it can be seen in the other FDA link, implementing GAP, GMP´s or HACCP could be a heavy economic burden for medium to small size producers.

Regards,

FSSM
  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#31 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 22 February 2010 - 04:41 PM

Hi FSSM

Allergen warning information missing/Incorrect content information
Incorrect date coding

Regards,

Tony


Thanks Tony!

FSSM
  • 0

#32 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,447 posts
  • 3244 thanks
346
Excellent

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

Posted 10 June 2010 - 08:35 AM

Dear FSSM,

Apologies for (very) delayed response to yr vegetable flowchart but I found that an unexpectedly substantial amount of work was necessary to attempt an answer to yr question. And probably similarly with respect to those reading this response. :smile:

I mainly agreed with the posted comments on the physical hazards aspect of the vegetable chain - HACCP-ISO 22000 so I have focused on microbiological issues.

To save forum space, it seemed useful to put the content into 4 attachments (DOC0a, DOC1a, DOC2a, E0a). These contain –

(DOC0) – Main text.

(DOC1) - Background material - includes discussion on (i) the general risk status of vegetables and overall viewpoint of Risk Assessment/HACCP applicability, (ii) variable definitions of HACCP / CCP interpretation as particularly (but not exclusively) related to vegetables, + selected HACCP / risk-based analyses in the vegetable farm-to-fork chain, (iii) ISO 22000 related studies for vegetables (seemingly very few), (excluding books), (iv) official example of a simplified quantitative approach to estimating a required process bacterial reduction performance (bean sprouts).

(DOC2) – Background material - (i) a summary of some “descriptions” of the OPRP function which I found interesting and informative, (ii) details of method of assessment of OPRP / CCP in excel sheet E0. (Sadly the concept’s exact relevance still remains rather questionable as far as I am concerned, probably due to my incomplete understanding.)

(E0) – Excel sheet for an ISO 22000 based determination of the “Significant” Control Measures (CMs) in a sample flow chart for the Production of Minimally Processed Vegetables (an essentially Postharvest System)

I hope the material is interesting and useful, any comments very welcome as usual.

Attached File  DOC0a.doc   279KB   541 downloads
Attached File  DOC1a.doc   430.5KB   463 downloads
Attached File  DOC2a.doc   231.5KB   476 downloads
Attached File  E0a.xls   54KB   507 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

PS – I hv no doubt there will be some unintentional typos/inconsistencies present, pls inform by pm if minor. If unsure, no problem to post.


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#33 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,955 posts
  • 790 thanks
167
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 11 June 2010 - 06:27 AM

Dear FSSM,

Apologies for (very) delayed response to yr vegetable flowchart but I found that an unexpectedly substantial amount of work was necessary to attempt an answer to yr question. And probably similarly with respect to those reading this response. Posted Image

I mainly agreed with the posted comments on the physical hazards aspect of the vegetable chain - HACCP-ISO 22000 so I have focused on microbiological issues.

To save forum space, it seemed useful to put the content into 4 attachments (DOC0a, DOC1a, DOC2a, E0a). These contain –

(DOC0) – Main text.

(DOC1) - Background material - includes discussion on (i) the general risk status of vegetables and overall viewpoint of Risk Assessment/HACCP applicability, (ii) variable definitions of HACCP / CCP interpretation as particularly (but not exclusively) related to vegetables, + selected HACCP / risk-based analyses in the vegetable farm-to-fork chain, (iii) ISO 22000 related studies for vegetables (seemingly very few), (excluding books), (iv) official example of a simplified quantitative approach to estimating a required process bacterial reduction performance (bean sprouts).

(DOC2) – Background material - (i) a summary of some “descriptions” of the OPRP function which I found interesting and informative, (ii) details of method of assessment of OPRP / CCP in excel sheet E0. (Sadly the concept’s exact relevance still remains rather questionable as far as I am concerned, probably due to my incomplete understanding.)

(E0) – Excel sheet for an ISO 22000 based determination of the “Significant” Control Measures (CMs) in a sample flow chart for the Production of Minimally Processed Vegetables (an essentially Postharvest System)

I hope the material is interesting and useful, any comments very welcome as usual.

Attached File  DOC0a.doc   279KB   541 downloads
Attached File  DOC1a.doc   430.5KB   463 downloads
Attached File  DOC2a.doc   231.5KB   476 downloads
Attached File  E0a.xls   54KB   507 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

PS – I hv no doubt there will be some unintentional typos/inconsistencies present, pls inform by pm if minor. If unsure, no problem to post.


Posted Image

Not quite sure about your CCP - Receiving raw material - Hazard contains Salmonella, E.coli O157 Control Measure COA / supplier audit etc

Is this level of control sufficient to make this a CCP?

Does a later step in the process (Washing with Chlorinated Water) remove the hazard?

Regards,

Tony
  • 0

#34 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,447 posts
  • 3244 thanks
346
Excellent

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

Posted 11 June 2010 - 01:10 PM

Dear Tony,

Appreciate yr feedback.

Is this level of control sufficient to make this a CCP?


I agree it’s (very?)debatable but it can be textually validated as stated (Q.E.D. :smile: )
** added - I hv expanded the previous sentence, pls see end of this post
Perhaps more realistically, a defined (and validatable) supplier maximum pathogen level could achieve an overall acceptable performance objective when combined with the “disinfection” step. A real, validated example is in DOC1(ii).
The application of a satisfactory (ie nil detection) / 5 x 25g sample analysis to justify a statement like "free of pathogen X" seemed a bit too far-fetched to me to include as an acceptable HACCP critical limit in this, hopefully, reasonably honest evaluation despite its presumably matching the ISO 22000 requirements. The Americans are at least a bit nearer the truth with their considerably increased sampling densities in some commodities.

I guess restaurants / supermarkets offering certain types of fresh / chilled salads (w/without the disinfection option) are continuously faced with such dilemmas. Hence BRC et al.

Does a later step in the process (Washing with Chlorinated Water) remove the hazard?


I presume you refer to the 2nd washing which is undefined in the flow chart (I generously added the “chlorinated” water meaning probably approx. 1ppm since the maintenance of such a free residual is more or less a standard in vegetable postharvest process textbooks. In fact it’s sometimes given as a traditional HACCP - CCP on the basis of “minimising” cross-contamination ).

However, if by “remove” you mean eliminate, I think that every article / book I hv looked at agree that any “conventional” chlorination treatment will not remove the specific hazards mentioned.

AFAIK “remove” for (almost all) this product category / the specified pathogens is officially undefined in absolute terms as compared to, say, the meat industry but most theoretical refs tend to take a semi-speculative, medium-worst case scenario, add a safety factor and assume a minimum infective dose of approx 1cfu. The result is typically a required target reduction for the chlorine treatment(s) in the >=5D range compared to the typically quoted max of approx. 2D. Not surprisingly this is a hotbed of research and there are several alternative commercial systems in the literature which are claimed to reduce further but I didn’t delve deeply into their validated performances as I got the impression that they are not yet substantially in use (I may be wrong).
One very special vegetable exception to above generalisation is bean sprouts due to their extremely nasty track record. This has a semi-official (I think) disinfection procedure in USA involving a massive chlorination dosage due to the potentially equally massive levels of particularly Salmonella (eg log7) and E.coli O157 which can arise in the growth cycle. The estimated elimination requirements are described in document 1(iv). The (eliminating) chlorine dosage can be up to 20,000ppm (eg see http://www.fda.gov/f...s/ucm078789.htm )

Please feel free to criticise any aspects of the deductive logic for the CCP / OPRP interpretations.
Frankly, just like traditional HACCP, I get the feeling that ISO 22000 has now (subjectively)accumulated a variety of "standard" CCPs / OPRPs and as long as an auditor sees no alarming deviations from the "norm" the actual mode of derivation will be essentially ignored other than checking to see if the auditee can answer things like "what is a CCP / OPRP? and (perhaps)understands his/her magic risk matrix" :smile:

Rgds / Charles.C

** added - I had somewhat based my CCP concept on analogous data previously visible in various website (traditional) HACCP plans. After rechecking, I found several had now vanished, eg cfia, or the content edited so my pro-CCP opinion has further weakened :smile: . Here is a sample usage (see [2]) of the type which prompted my original posting –

Attached File  ccp raw material receiving vegetables.png   52.19KB   133 downloads

(Forsythe 2010)
This example is from a “traditional” HACCP plan for chicken salad. Any validation will clearly require an explanation of the meaning of the ambiguous "critical limits" and show how these achieve PERHAL . This comes back to the necessity of defining a credible end-product FSO.
Currently, any use of examples like the above would seem to mandate certification to farm assurance programs for primary production, eg in the UK, programs like the Assured Combinable Crops Scheme (ACCS) and the Assured Produce (AP) scheme or GFSI benchmarked systems such as CanadaGAP, SQF 1000, GlobalGAP and PrimusGFS. Some of these standards have been summarised as –

“An appraisal of farm assurance schemes will reveal that they usually embody the principles of quality assurance in structures that essentially describe GAP in the production of agricultural foodstuffs. Farm assurance schemes may vary in their scope and content because they have been written to apply to different types of agricultural produce. However, whatever their orientation with respect to the agricultural produce to which they relate, they typically express the core principles of quality assurance employed in the context of farm assurance.”
And
“In the future we may see farmers using IS0 22000 to develop food safety management systems that fully incorporate the concept of pre-requisite programmes, thus to integrate the systems with GAP. Where it is not possible to implement CCPs at farm level, the execution of pre-requisite programmes under IS0 22000 and as part of GAP may result in an acceptable level of control if not the prevention or elimination of hazards.”
(Blackburn 2009)
As per the above, the question of CCP-type control measure status is returned to setting a generally acceptable FSO. In mathematical terminology, the situation might be described as : “certification is necessary but not sufficient.”
Nonetheless, it still seems to me that (as commented above) receivers such as retailers hv very little option but to place their faith / due diligence requirements in certified suppliers / their implemented programs for providing a “safe” product although the above comments are inexorably tending to the conclusion that this food category is by default “unsafe”, albeit in a quantitatively undefined way. In this respect, the prevalence data generated from the large-scale baseline surveys as already linked in this thread could offer a potential validation mechanism for the effectiveness of assurance programs. For example see http://aem.asm.org/c...t/full/73/1/250 , Crepet 2006.
  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#35 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 11 June 2010 - 11:06 PM

Dear FSSM,

Apologies for (very) delayed response to yr vegetable flowchart but I found that an unexpectedly substantial amount of work was necessary to attempt an answer to yr question. And probably similarly with respect to those reading this response. Posted Image

...

Rgds / Charles.C

PS – I hv no doubt there will be some unintentional typos/inconsistencies present, pls inform by pm if minor. If unsure, no problem to post.


Dear Charles.C:

Thank you for getting deeper in this issue, it is a lot of information and I haven´t had enough time to digest it.

I will post my comments asap.

Regards,

FSSM
  • 0

#36 excellens

excellens

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 24 posts
  • 9 thanks
1
Neutral

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

Posted 14 June 2010 - 12:35 AM

Dear Colleagues,

Some months ago, Charles gave us access to a Coca Cola/ Michigan State Food Safety presentations. There's a presentation about the selection of CCP and OPPR's.

http://fskntraining...._04_English.pdf

Attached you'll find the suggested decision tree

Regards

Excel

Attached Files


  • 0

#37 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 30 September 2010 - 04:20 PM

This are two links that might be of interest to those involved with vegetables...


http://onlinelibrary...10.01630.x/full


Nou, X. and Luo, Y. (2010), Whole-Leaf Wash Improves Chlorine Efficacy for Microbial Reduction and Prevents Pathogen Cross-Contamination during Fresh-Cut Lettuce Processing. Journal of Food Science, 75: M283–M290. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01630.x

http://onlinelibrary...1722.x/abstract

Luo, Y., He, Q. and McEvoy, J. L. (2010), Effect of Storage Temperature and Duration on the Behavior of Escherichia coli O157:H7 on Packaged Fresh-Cut Salad Containing Romaine and Iceberg Lettuce. Journal of Food Science, 75: M390–M397. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01722.x

Regards,

FSSM


Edited by Charles.C, 11 September 2014 - 03:50 PM.

  • 0

#38 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,447 posts
  • 3244 thanks
346
Excellent

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

Posted 30 September 2010 - 08:35 PM

Dear Excellens,

I previously forgot to thank you for your nice diagrammatic efforts. :thumbup:

There is one box (No3) where the text is odd, ie why would one wish to maintain a significant hazard.? I seem to remember being equally confused by the same text in the original reference.

I hv to say that after working on the previous “vegetables” document, I hv become increasingly negative with respect to most published procedures for differentiating OPRP / CCP in respect to the “requirements” as per the official standard. More precisely, it seems to me that the standard is of sufficient ambiguity that one can adjust risk evaluations almost at will and satisfy auditor’s requirements, I doubt that this was the original intention. Maybe it’s a good thing in practice, ie pragmatic, but seems to defeat the original objectives (whatever they precisely were). I daresay my opinion can be deduced from my recent posts in this thread. It seems to me that, as currently utilised, OPRP is simply becoming redundant for practical purposes.

Would appear that ISO hv no current intention of making any changes / clarifications in the OPRP content perhaps due to their preoccupation with becoming fully GFSI compliant. I am wondering if a decline in usage of ISO 22000 will occur in favour of the other GFSI –non-oprp-requiring co-members.

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#39 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,447 posts
  • 3244 thanks
346
Excellent

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

Posted 30 September 2010 - 08:51 PM

Dear FSSM,

thks yr links (both to same article? :smile: ).

I extracted a bit -

The products were stored at 5 and 12 °C until their labeled “Best If Used By” dates, and the microbial counts and product quality were monitored periodically. The results indicate that storage at 5 °C allowed E. coli O157:H7 to survive, but limited its growth, whereas storage at 12 °C facilitated the proliferation of E. coli O157:H7. There was more than 2.0 log CFU/g increase in E. coli O157:H7 populations on lettuce when held at 12 °C for 3 d, followed by additional growth during the remainder of the storage period. Although there was eventually a significant decline in visual quality of lettuce held at 12 °C, the quality of this lettuce was still fully acceptable when E. coli O157:H7 growth reached a statistically significant level. Therefore, maintaining fresh-cut products at 5 °C or below is critical for reducing the food safety risks as E. coli O157:H7 grows at a rapid, temperature-dependent rate prior to significant quality deterioration.


Frankly, based on the above, i don't really see how their results at 12,5degC support their conclusion of <5degC, eg why not 6degC? maybe you hv to read the whole article, ie find a library. :smile:

Either way, the results are presumably alarming for people who may hv reason to distrust their raw material (everybody?) and store near 12degC (8degC as most home refrigerators / everybody??). i wonder what the starting concentrations were / how much back-up for their conclusion by other studies? (not disagreeing, just validating :smile: . )

Rgds / Charles.C
  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#40 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,447 posts
  • 3244 thanks
346
Excellent

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

Posted 25 October 2010 - 05:36 AM

Dear All,

Just for casual interest, the table below (found on the net) shows a variety of food hazards / control measures classified into CCPs / OPRPs respectively. I believe the presentation was intended as part of an auditor group-evaluation scheme rather than a (concluded designation) reference list but sort of interesting nonetheless IMO.

Attached File  Collection of examples of various CCPs - OPRPs.png   337.35KB   198 downloads

Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#41 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,955 posts
  • 790 thanks
167
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 25 October 2010 - 05:52 AM

Dear All,

Just for casual interest, the table below (found on the net) shows a variety of food hazards / control measures classified into CCPs / OPRPs respectively. I believe the presentation was intended as part of an auditor group-evaluation scheme rather than a (concluded designation) reference list but sort of interesting nonetheless IMO.

Attached File  Collection of examples of various CCPs - OPRPs.png   337.35KB   198 downloads

Charles.C


Hi Charles

Thanks for that, an interesting insight.

I am a little surprised that a glass breakage was not a CCP and also the auditor comments referred to critical limits for OPRP's.

Regards,

Tony
  • 0

#42 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,447 posts
  • 3244 thanks
346
Excellent

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

Posted 30 October 2010 - 07:00 AM

Dear All,

A Short Note on Selection OPRPs / CCPs

This is a (partial :smile: ) agreement with Charles Chew’s opinion in another thread regarding the simplicity of the above-titled topic. However, IMO, this necessitates the consideration of ISO 22004 to be effectively a revised version of 22000 with respect to certain topics, eg the implementation of OPRPs.

One can perhaps equate CCP/OPRP to the Gold / Silver Standards in health treatment procedures, both are proven capable of achieving the desired result but the former has some more desirable features than the other, eg faster recovery.
Similarly, according to ISO 22004, the control measures (CMs) associated with a potential CCP/OPRP must, before categorisation takes place, be validated as achieving the intended level of control (ie acceptable level appropriate to food safety). This validation aspect (eg para 8.2 / 22000) is, IMO, unfortunately understated in paras 7.4 - .7.6, an omission which is attempted to be corrected in 22004, both textually and figuratively (eg see fig3). It seems to me that a viable validation should self-reject control measures which are simply impractical, eg do not permit corrective actions in a timely manner.

As per the above, I feel that a CM associated with an OPRP should have a "capability" close to that of a CM used at a CCP, not just be of "CCP-reject" status as tends to be implied by some categorisation procedures. Such a result also indicates an opportunity for improvement. The high degree of unconcern over the final ratio of CCPs / OPRPs is spelled out in 22004, hopefully read by all auditors.

Choosing the “Acceptable Level” which is the basis of the Hazard Analysis is not always so “simple” IMO, eg is Salmonella more correctly selected as per the typical Regulatory requirement or a more science based route via Minimum Infective Dose analysis ? The former is certainly likely to cause less hassle but adequate on FS grounds ?? (This aspect is, for example, of interest for products like fruit / vegetables with no bactericidal process step; the cumulative result of various CMs can be directly tested / validated to a typical Regulatory requirement but not so readily to MID type criteria.)

As an extension of the simplicity topic, I recently came across this one-stop Decision Tree for selecting between CCP / OPRP based on a slight modification of the traditional Codex HACCP tree. Contains a few innovative ideas and is worth examination IMHO, as is the detailed source document attached. Just shows how people love their pets.

Attached File  iso 22000 oprp decision tree, 2010 -.png   89.53KB   91 downloads

Attached File  safe manufacturing, ver 2010, .pdf   536.08KB   218 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 4 Members:

#43 safefoodindia

safefoodindia

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 10 June 2011 - 08:27 AM

Can we have OPRP after a CCP, I mean can last step of a process can be an OPRP?


  • 0

#44 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,955 posts
  • 790 thanks
167
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 19 June 2011 - 04:24 AM

Can we have OPRP after a CCP, I mean can last step of a process can be an OPRP?


I guess this is possible if you have potential for recontamination with the same hazard. Do you have anything particular in mind?

Regards,

Tony
  • 0

#45 BahmanM

BahmanM

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • Banned
  • 30 posts
  • 6 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 11 November 2012 - 11:37 AM

Attached File  DOC1a.doc   430.5KB   463 downloads
Attached File  DOC2a.doc   231.5KB   476 downloads
Attached File  E0a.xls   54KB   507 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

PS – I hv no doubt there will be some unintentional typos/inconsistencies present, pls inform by pm if minor. If unsure, no problem to post.



very important but not sufficient information
Thanks a lot and we will wait for more.....

Edited by Bahram Doulati, 11 November 2012 - 11:38 AM.

  • 0

#46 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,955 posts
  • 790 thanks
167
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 11 November 2012 - 06:21 PM

very important but not sufficient information
Thanks a lot and we will wait for more.....


What more are you looking for Bahram?

Kind regards,

Tony
  • 0

#47 Bhawani Gorti

Bhawani Gorti

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 35 posts
  • 5 thanks
1
Neutral

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hyderabad

Posted 06 April 2014 - 05:49 AM

Dear Mr. Charles.C / Mr. Tony

I just starting new project on BRC FS Ver 6.0 on Cold Chain (end to end solution) and also GLOBAL GAP on agricultural farm back ward linkage to cold chain facility. Going through the various threads. Information is very usefl and informative to make my action plan ready to give shape for this project.

Once again thanks and great contribution for food safety professionals across the globe.


  • 0
B T Gorti
Chief Executive Officer

Skype id-bhawanigorti
website-www.saradiro.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users