Any of the 3 procedures mentioned previously (ie via standard Codex Tree, extended decision tree, extended scoring method) can IMO form the basis of a logical method to categorise control measures for process steps into CCPs or OPRPs. As already illustrated in this thread, it is the details which may be debatable.
To attempt to answer yr question in a systematic way would involve questions like –
How many characteristics from the set (a-g) in 7.4.4 do you (or your auditor) wish to involve in the CCP/OPRP assessment ?
ISO 22004 suggests a possible prioritisation –
The following may guide the organization in the categorization process:
— the impact of a control measure on the hazard level or frequency of occurrence (the higher impact there is, the more likely the control measure belongs to the HACCP plan);
— the severity on consumer health of a hazard that the measure is selected to control (the more severe it is,
the more likely it belongs to the HACCP plan);
— the need for monitoring (the more pressing the need, the more likely it belongs to the HACCP plan).
The precise meaning of the above guide is not exactly crystal clear either IMHO
IMO, all the 3 procedures above have some objections but all hv been used and approved (somewhere). Personally, I currently prefer the last one in principle but that’s just me (not myself a user of ISO 22000).
Rgds / Charles.C
PS - If you want a specific opinion of yr current procedure or any suggestions to "improve", you could post the relevant pieces here, eg how to change baking from a CCP into an OPRP
added - As an example, could use an unweighted (albeit subjective)1-3 scoring-type system similar to those previously presented on this forum [“3” representing my interpretation of the CM’s ability to achieve a closest approach to ISO 22000’s “ideal” CCP]. A possible (just guessing the process style) “baking” result for 7.4.4 (a-g) might then be 3,1,3,2,3,1,3 giving total 16. One previously suggested criterion for separating CCPs/OPRPs is (>= 18) = CCP, otherwise OPRP.
added (2) – Reverting to the discussion several posts back regarding use of the Codex Tree to indicate CCPs / OPRPs, as an illustration of the variety of ingenious interpretations in use, an alternative option which "restarts" from Qu2 in the standard Codex tree is illustrated in the published Procert Decision Tree which is attached below. This simply regards the “NO” as automatically yielding a result of OPRP. Qu4 in the standard tree has been (subjectively) dropped which is obviously debatable.
(It should be remembered that ISO 22004 requires any proposed control measure to hv been validated as "food safety control-effective" before
ProCert ISO 22000 decision tree.pdf 126.1KB