Thank you, Charles.
All this are information that I all ready have and unfortunately I don't find it suitable for defining wether a control measure or a combination of control measures are prp, oprp or ccp. I was hoping there was some approved combination between the ordinary decision tree for HACCP and the one created by pro cert.
If you use only the last mentioned for all process steps and all existing control measures a lot of control measures will end up being oprp when they are really just prp, or they will turn out to be unnecessary according to the decision tree. Also the two methods are contradictory in defining CCP...
Are there really no better way to define the control measures?
Dear Hygiene Consult,
Well, basically I think the present results are attributable to the standard as presented, plus typical auditorial requirements / interpretations.
IMO it is necessary to accept that Risk Assessment is, by definition, (very) subjective although some posts here will disagree in the context of ISO 22000.
FSSC22000 has somewhat pre-defined the scope of prerequisites via PAS2220 although grey areas can still occur.
AFAIK,, an official specified procedure to determine/categorise
CCP/OPRP does not exist anywhere. Based on 2200/2204 as presented, it is difficult to see how such could anyway occur ?. Some industries seem to have promoted their own internal “standard” Trees, eg French seafood companies. Based on comments in this forum, auditors go with this non-specific situation and follow the requirements of a “logical methodology” as left open to self-interpretation in the standard(s). As you probably know, the situation was commented (negatively) on within the Procert website several years ago and since then AFAIK nothing has materially changed, ie no official revisions / interpretations of the original pair of standard/guideline.
Most professional (English) software programs for the
CCP/OPRP content seem to favour appropriately adjusted versions of the traditional Codex tree although some exceptions exist. Personally I find the Codex methods rather poor in the ISO context but they are undoubtedly convenient (eg rapid) and apparently well-accepted by auditors. From memory, the one sponsored by this site also includes an expanded procedure as optional.
Are there really no better way to define the control measures?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "better"
Rgds / Charles.C
