Appreciate the additional sample. Even more interesting.
I fear I’m a hard (stubborn?) sell for a HACCP instructional, or perhaps I misunderstand the intention of this programme.
I initially got the impression that this is supposed to be a self-teaching program for, basically, HACCP newcomers. This seemed compatible with the presentation of the risk assessment procedure. But then I noted comments such as –
“Your decision should be soundly based on experience and professional judgement.”
This seems to imply designed for someone who has already had substantial HACCP training and would likely have seen all the basic RA stuff already? So I am slightly puzzled as to the targetted user.
I further have some disagreements / disappointments with the RA procedure. Some (maybe most) are inevitably subjective (aka personal) but also reflect my own assessment of many threads on this forum.
(1) Section 1 was IMO rather well done. Better than many texts I have seen.
(2) I consider the 3x3 matrix ineffective for general haccp/RA use due to insufficient discrimination. (even after accepting that RA is anyway a probabilistic measure). I realize thousands (millions?) will disagree .
(3) I disagree with comments such as –
“all those hazards scoring 2 and below will be controlled and managed through effective prerequisite programmes”.
IMO a non-significant hazard may also simply not require to be controlled.
( I appreciate that the RA handling of PRPs is debated. I prefer the, IMO, pure RA viewpoint that a PRP is literally that, ie precedes the RA, although some retroactivity is, humanly, inevitable ).
(4) There is no mention as to the location of the reference point for the likelihood estimation. The current threads here have demonstrated that this aspect confuses people, and understandably so. One can find differing presentations in textbooks, also with no cross-comments. From memory, both Codex / NACMCF avoid this element. And one reason the discrepancy (if it is such) persists is Zero Examples (or glossed-over ones).
(5) The significance of “Significant score” is without any discussion, eg Why 3 and not 4 (or even 9) ? The fact is that such choices may have consequences. I give the program credit for at least emphasizing that the options do exist (avoided altogether in some texts) but it then abruptly stops. Or perhaps this was amplified in further text.?
(6) A side-comment - the approach given is, I guess, traditional Codex style. It might be argued that the ISO, control measure centric vision (other than the disastrous OPRP) is the future. But maybe not for UK - BRC.
I realize the above critique implies that a fuller appreciation of RA may demand a further textbook . IMO, this is an unfortunate fundamental problem when one tries to present a condensed text on “How to HACCP”. Very few texts go into the nitty-gritty of actual process details / RA so the examples given (if any) make it seem sooo straightforward. Maybe it is easier than FMEA but then again ......
Rgds / Charles
PS - Regardless of the above, i can see why the methodology could work for the OP. Especially if there is a suitable segment on basic Food Hygiene vis-a-vis HACCP. Just for once, maybe not Chicken or Egg.
PPS - I deduce this online feature is quite new as it is unmentioned in the FSA / Campden review of UK situation published in 2013 (added - looks like launched ca..April 2014) -
FSA - Campden_report_final,2013.pdf 813.77KB
The contents of the report, eg with respect to HACCP, perhaps explain the motivation / need behind the project, eg pgs 26-29.
3PS - i also noted this "quote" on FSA website -
Many firms we’ve spoken to often use consultancy firms to ensure that they have HACCP under control – this tool changes everything.