The 1997 NACMCF document is a revision of the 1992 HACCP guidelines and there was also something publish by NACMCF in 1989 that discussed the 7 principles. I have not been able to find the 1992 document online but if I remember correctly it did not include validation which is why I believe that when it was added it was basically force fitted into the verification principle to maintain 7 principles. I may have a paper copy of the 1992 document stored away in some of my old HACCP training materials I developed in the mid-90's so if I can find it I will scan it and make it available for those that might have an interest in the history and evolution of HACCP.
Dear williamw,
I had a look through my hardcopy archives. You are certainly correct in that the 7-principles originated pre-1997, possibly even pre-1989.
Regarding validation, i agree with you that it looks to have been somewhat of an afterthought.
I can see 3 particular
haccp documents referenced prior to the 1997 on-line items but there may well have been others –
(a) the NACMCF publication adopted in November 1989
(b) a Draft Codex report on
HACCP circulated in October 1991
© the NACMCF publication adopted in March 1992
None of (a-c) seem to be on the IT.
Comments –
Each document contains the 7-principles.
With respect to validation, these documents are not very informative concerning specific requirements or chronology within the development of the
haccp plan. I guess this reflects the changes in thinking which were occurring over
haccp implementation at the time.
(a) NACMCF/89 has no mention of validation anywhere, including the definition list.
(b) CODEX/91 has a 1-line mention as a possible activity within verification, (Codex principle 6). No further details. There is no list of definitions.
© NACMCF/92 has a listed definition –“an initial review to ensure that all elements of the
haccp plan are accurate”. No further details / mentions.
In fact, for Codex, the 1997, 2003 revs also contain very little additional information regarding requirements and chronology for validation other than a rather ambiguous, listed definition – “obtaining evidence that the elements of the
haccp plan are effective”.
In contrast, the NACMCF 1997 rev, has a much clearer definition – “That element of verification focused on collecting and evaluating scientific and technical information to determine if the
HACCP plan, when properly implemented, will effectively control the hazards.”
This represents a quite precise chronological statement.
2 sections of the previous 4 constituting the 1992 Verification Principle have now been categorised as validation components but still maintained within the 1997 Verification Principle.
The Codex document on Validation Guidelines appeared in 2008 which implicitly separates the Va process from the Ve Principle –
Validation: Obtaining evidence that a control measure or combination of control measures, if properly implemented, is capable of controlling the hazard to a specified outcome.
Detailed examples are given.
This represents a quite precise chronological statement. Some obvious similarity to NACMCF 1997.
Verification: The application of methods, procedures, tests and other evaluations, in addition to monitoring, to determine whether a control measure is or has been operating as intended.
Also precise in the chronological sense.
So, regardless of which system mentioned above is selected, the chronology for Va now seems identical. And similarly close for Ve if one considers only the verification component(s) within the Verification Principle of NACMCF 1997.
I still feel that if SQF had accurately followed the (updated)
haccp intentions of Codex and NACMCF in the Standard’s text, the oddities as variously discussed on this forum should not have occurred.
Rgds / Charles.C