5 replies to this topic

[steliosa]

Does anybody know the difference between them?

 

for some people it seems to be the same, in other cases i see a difference, saying vaccp is for economically motivated adulteration. 

 

Is there something standard or it depends on the writer

 

Best regards

[Charles.C]

Does anybody know the difference between them?

 

for some people it seems to be the same, in other cases i see a difference, saying vaccp is for economically motivated adulteration. 

 

Is there something standard or it depends on the writer

 

Best regards

 

Hi steliosa,

 

The terminologies are arbitrary and their meanings/usage may vary between sources. Certain Organisations have defined their own interpretations, eg GFSI.

 

Your choice likely depends on yr specific source of interest, ie context.

[redfox]

Hello Stellosa,

 

TACCP  is for FSMA/FDA  which includes bio-terrorism. GFSI focuses on VACCP which is more on fraudulent activity or intentional adulteration for economic gain or (EMA) econimocally motivated adulterated. If you are in the US or exporting your product to the US, better to include TACCP in your risk assesment. IMO, TACCP is much broader in scope than VACCP, so no need to do VACCP coz EMA is included already when you do TACCP.

 

regards,

redfox

[Charles.C]

Hi Steve,

 

Afaik the (TACCP/VACCP/HACCP) topic is currently a minefield of interpretive confusion, often from both internal and external POVs.

 

I enclose below a February 2016 “Review” which attempts to compare some European (eg GFSI, PAS) and USA (eg MSU, FSMA) viewpoints.  Offhand, it appeared to me that the differences are more evident than the similarities.  A few quotes   –
 

 

For example, VACCP isn’t anywhere in FSMA’s "Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food" document. And, there are no references to “food fraud.” However, there are references in the document to EMA: “We [FDA] continue to believe that hazards that may be intentionally introduced for economic gain will need preventive controls in rare circumstances, usually in cases where there has been a pattern of economically motivated adulteration in the past. Economically motivated adulteration that affects product integrity or quality, for example, but not food safety, is out of the scope of this rule.”

 

Later in "Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food" document, Response 402 stresses EMA is out of the scope of FSMA, unless people are sickened: “We [FDA] define hazards to only include those agents that have the potential to cause illness or injury. Economically motivated adulteration that affects product integrity or quality, for example, but not food safety, is out of the scope of this rule. We continue to believe that there is benefit in taking this preventive approach to economically motivated adulteration, and not solely on enforcing the preexisting misbranding and adulteration provisions of the FD&C Act after a violation occurs.”

 

However, there is some confusion because FDA refers to a food defense risk analysis as a “vulnerability assessment,” according to FFI’s (Food Fraud Initiative) report.

 

In fact, PAS 96:2014, “Guide to protecting and defending food and drink from deliberate attack,” published by the British Standards Institute, makes no distinction between EMA or food fraud and intentional contamination and identifies them all as threats. Though the guide covers TACCP in detail, including assessing vulnerabilities and risks and setting up critical controls, it makes no specific reference to VACCP.

 

I couldn’t see any more recent reviews than the above but the practical situation may be “fluid”.

 

Note that the GFSI, ver7 Guidance referred above seems presently scheduled for 2017.

 

 VACCP and HACCP (and TACCP),2016.pdf   559.59KB   539 downloads

 

PS - shortly after the above, mainly VACCP-related, article the same source issued this (comparative) TACCP focused document. IMO it's a more difficult read than the VACCP one. It includes a BRC definition of TACCP.

 TACCP and HACCP,2016.pdf   501.12KB   440 downloads

[Karenconstable]

Hi,

 

Generally speaking most experts in the field use the following definitions: 

 

VACCP (Vulnerability Assessment Critical Control Point) Pronounced ‘vassup’.  VACCP = prevention of economically motivated food fraud.

TACCP (Threat Assessment Critical Control Point) Pronounced ‘tassup’.  TACCP = prevention of malicious threats to food, such as sabotage, extortion or terrorism.

Having said that, these terms are not actually used within any of the GFSI food safety standards, nor in most industry guidance documents and aren't particularly useful as acronymns, since the 'critical control point' part doesn't make sense the same way it does in HACCP.  Better to talk about 'vulnerability to fraudulent adulteration' or 'threat of malicious tampering', for example.

[thakurmk1111]

Dear All,

 

Can anyone  Send / Arrange example document in which analysis done based on / considering TACCP / VACCP.

Example document based on Bakery industry will be more helpful.

 

Thanks.