Jump to content

202Online Users

  •  
Photo
- - - - -

Yoghurt Risk Assessment (ISO 22000, 7.3 - 7.4.4)


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

#85 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,973 posts
  • 392 thanks
65
Excellent

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

Posted 26 February 2012 - 12:41 PM

Hi Charles

Are CCP's 2 & 3 - pastuerisation of cream & skim really CCPs? If the decision tree is inlcuded in the assessment process we would determine that the hazard is removed at a later stage in the process - CCP4 Yoghurt Pasteurisation.


My Note2 was inserted to hopefully neutralise this (I anticipated) arguable point. I suspected that most processors would
operationally implement all the pasteurisations as a CCP regardless of any theoretical niceties. By "Decision Tree" I assume you are specifically referring to the Codex version. Frankly, I have major reservations over the majority of the variety of trees in current use. Accordingly I decided to avoid trees altogether. I find the method used relatively non-inflammatory. None of the procedures I have seen including current one are ideal IMO (ISO/probability) but since all are probably auditorially acceptable I guess
pragmatism rules.


Fine but a simple answer to the question "Will a subsequent step eliminate the hazard" quite clearly eliminates CCP2 & CCP3. If we revert to using the assessment 7.4.4 a-g, & score c 1 (Start relative to yoghurt base pasteurisation) & e 1 (the consequences of failure are not severe) then both would score 16 and be categorised as OPRP's.

The assessment of control measures doesn't seem to have distinguished between CCP's and OPRP's

Columns O,P,Q…. etc?


You have no OPRP's

I don't believe all the remaining hazards that aren't classified as CCP's are OPRP's and so therefore there should also be categorisation of PRPs & OPRP's - maybe < 10 & < 18

Which hazards are you referring ?


All of the hazards:

A hazard assessment shall be conducted to determine, for each food safety hazard identified (see 7.4.2), ............whether its control is needed to enable the defined acceptable levels to be met.


So the initial stage identifies significant hazards - I am assuming that only these are OPRP's & CCP's and all other hazards are controlled by PRPs?


A couple of other things:
FB Control & Filtration - not significant?
I assume that S.aureus controls are expected to control B.cereus as well
There would also need to be some controls of base mixing - it is usually warmed
Coding?

Kind regards,

Tony

Edited by Tony-C, 26 February 2012 - 01:10 PM.

  • 0

#86 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 6,968 posts
  • 1427 thanks
117
Excellent

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

Posted 26 February 2012 - 04:38 PM

Dear Tony,

IMO, yr comments are an excellent demonstration of the subjectivity of the ISO 22000 standard. And its interpretations. Both these results are familiar to traditional HACCP of course.

I suspect ISO’s resurrection of the “validation” card in ISO 22004, thereby diminishing the quantitative significance of the result of the CCP/OPRP categorisation, was their own attempt at closure (escape?).

Based on this forum, the primary requirement for auditorial purposes seems to be a “logical” approach to the hazard analysis > 7.4.4. I suggest that current presentation is one interpretation which meets the requirement. I have no doubt that there are others.

and all other hazards are controlled by PRPs?

To rephrase, what is a CP ? Your guess is as good as mine ? Maybe better. :smile:

Regarding yr later queries, I incorporated what seemed to be the majority opinions from a literature search. As usual, the unanimity was not 100%.

I feel I should also mention that without the motivation/input provided from Simon and Yourself, this project would surely never have gotten off the ground, never mind reached a result. :thumbup: :clap:

Best Rgds / Charles.C

PS (added) - Mention was made earlier and in my Excel haccp analysis to Caz’s assistance. The (traditional) haccp plan for yoghurt which she contributed is repeated below. Thanks again Caz!
Attached File  COM-HACCP-001.xls   254.5KB   128 downloads
  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#87 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,973 posts
  • 392 thanks
65
Excellent

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

Posted 26 February 2012 - 04:54 PM

Dear Tony,

IMO, yr comments are an excellent demonstration of the subjectivity of the ISO 22000 standard. And its interpretations. Both these results are familiar to traditional HACCP of course.

I suspect ISO’s resurrection of the “validation” card in ISO 22004, thereby diminishing the quantitative significance of the result of the CCP/OPRP categorisation, was their own attempt at closure (escape?).

Based on this forum, the primary requirement for auditorial purposes seems to be a “logical” approach to the hazard analysis > 7.4.4. I suggest that current presentation is one interpretation which meets the requirement. I have no doubt that there are others.


To rephrase, what is a CP ? Your guess is as good as mine ? Maybe better. :smile:

Regarding yr later queries, I incorporated what seemed to be the majority opinions from a literature search. As usual, the unanimity was not 100%.

I feel I should also mention that without the motivation/input provided from Simon and Yourself, this project would surely never have gotten off the ground, never mind reached a result. :thumbup: :clap:

Best Rgds / Charles.C


No thank you Charles for your contribution :clap: - I am restricted by several conflicts of interest :oops:

I agree that there is no way that you can be criticised if you have something as a CCP which probably isn't or an OPRP that probably isn't - you have decided to have more control!

We may think it is a problem - how do the auditors cope?

Kind regards,

Tony
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users