Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Let's talk ISO 22000!


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 20 August 2004 - 11:51 AM

Hi,

I have studied the Draft ISO 22000 in details and will be glad to share with those who like to discuss it in this forum.

Please forward your questions. Other Consultants (you have all been very quiet) who are members of this forum are encouraged to participate.

Regards
Charles Chew


  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#2 encore!

encore!

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 29 May 2006 - 09:41 AM

Hi,

I have studied the Draft ISO 22000 in details and will be glad to share with those who like to discuss it in this forum.

Please forward your questions. Other Consultants (you have all been very quiet) who are members of this forum are encouraged to participate.

Regards
Charles Chew


Are there any general requirement for ISO 22000 like ISO 9001??
  • 0

#3 chen

chen

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 30 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 29 May 2006 - 11:36 AM

Hi,

I have studied the Draft ISO 22000 in details and will be glad to share with those who like to discuss it in this forum.

Please forward your questions. Other Consultants (you have all been very quiet) who are members of this forum are encouraged to participate.

Regards
Charles Chew



Hi Charles,

Is ISO 22000=ISO 9000+HACCP+some new requirements+industry/country specific requirements, just like how they structured the other ISO systems that were built around ISO 9000.

Thanks and regards
Chen
  • 0

#4 wayne

wayne

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 39 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 29 May 2006 - 02:05 PM

Hi Everyone

I am new here although I have been watching the forum for a while. I should think it is time to jump in and air my view on ISO22000.

If we can go back to the early drafts then it is not difficult to come to understand the requirements of the new standard. With my understanding the equation should read:

ISO22000 = the 8 principles of qms + the 12 steps of codex (HACCP) + PRPs + OPRPs + customer requirements + regulatory requirements + religious requirements (if this applied) + data validation + data verification + system review + re-validation + improvement + updating + ++ etc etc.

This equation sounds complicated but hope that you can digest it. May I invite those who have hands-on experience on implementing the system to add more on or to improve this equation.

Regards
Wayne


  • 0

#5 encore!

encore!

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 29 May 2006 - 04:08 PM

Hi Everyone

I am new here although I have been watching the forum for a while. I should think it is time to jump in and air my view on ISO22000.

If we can go back to the early drafts then it is not difficult to come to understand the requirements of the new standard. With my understanding the equation should read:

ISO22000 = the 8 principles of qms + the 12 steps of codex (HACCP) + PRPs + OPRPs + customer requirements + regulatory requirements + religious requirements (if this applied) + data validation + data verification + system review + re-validation + improvement + updating + ++ etc etc.

This equation sounds complicated but hope that you can digest it. May I invite those who have hands-on experience on implementing the system to add more on or to improve this equation.

Regards
Wayne


I'm new to all this standards. From all above the requirement u mention, how they can integrate with ISO 9001 and HACCP? As in other way, what are their similarity of this 3 standards? btw, addition question, what is PRPs and OPRPs?


Regrads
encore!
  • 0

#6 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 29 May 2006 - 07:36 PM

Hi Everyone
ISO22000 = the 8 principles of qms + the 12 steps of codex (HACCP) + PRPs + OPRPs + customer requirements + regulatory requirements + religious requirements (if this applied) + data validation + data verification + system review + re-validation + improvement + updating + ++ etc etc. This equation sounds complicated but hope that you can digest it. May I invite those who have hands-on experience on implementing the system to add more on or to improve this equation.



= safe food :thumbup:

Glad you decided to take the plung and join the discussions Wayne.

Regards,
Simon

I'm new to all this standards. From all above the requirement u mention, how they can integrate with ISO 9001 and HACCP? As in other way, what are their similarity of this 3 standards? btw, addition question, what is PRPs and OPRPs?


Have you got a copy of the standard encore? I've not got my copy to hand, but I'm pretty sure there's a matrix in the standard cross referencing ISO 9001, HACCP with 22k.

With regard to PRP's and oPRP's there has been a lot of confusion and discussion about these round here. Try these definitions, they are the official ones from the standard:

Definition of Prerequisite Program (PRP)

Definition of Operational Prerequisite Program (oPRP)

Regards,
Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#7 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 29 May 2006 - 11:55 PM

Hi all,

Been busy. In reality, the summary given by Wayne says it all.

I have nothing more to add. Thanks Wayne.


Cheers


  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#8 wayne

wayne

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 39 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 30 May 2006 - 11:23 AM

Hi Simon

My own definitions for PRPs & oPRPs are:

PRPs = infrastructure & maintenance programmes that required to produce safe food.

OPRPs = any activities that can be affected by human behaviours during the production of safe food.

If we look at these closely then we should get the definition right. Your comment is welcome.


Charles - I have missed out one important element in the equation for ISO22000. i.e. data implementation. Without this the system cannot be verified or validated.

It would be much appreciated if some one can provide us with his/her modeling system for "Validation & Verification". I should think many of us would like to lean this.

Regards
Wayne


  • 0

#9 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 30 May 2006 - 02:42 PM

Hi Wayne,

Do you think its possible to derive a "decision tree" for PRP identification just like the "CCP Decision Tree"?

Also, thank you for re-emphasizing the often misunderstood equation of ISO 22000= HACCP + QMS which is not quite right and in fact, a far cry from the demand it requires.

Charles


  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#10 wayne

wayne

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 39 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 30 May 2006 - 04:20 PM

Charles

Unless you are looking out for troubles otherwise you do not need to take the PRPs through the codex decision tree. What you need to do is to go through the normal way of risk assessment but do consider the combined effects as you move along. Does it make sense? Perhaps you can tell us about your approach to this.

Regards
Wayne


  • 0

#11 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 31 May 2006 - 01:17 AM

Unless you are looking out for troubles otherwise you do not need to take the PRPs through the codex decision tree.



Wayne,

Not quite inviting troubles but we would end up with a lot of work such as a "PRP Determination Tree if it is any help. Admittedly, I do not bother to use the approach as what you have said is in a way very true otherwise I would end up having a separate OPRP and PRP Determination Table.

Therefore if we follow the Codex CCP Hazard Analysis format (as suggested by the Std) - we would only concern ourselves with CCP identifications vis-a-vis the HACCP Plan.

I guess understanding what is OPRP or PRP is itself a prerequisite :spoton: IMO, I still contest that the issue of categorization is unimportant as it does not make the foods any less safer but as in any audits, definitions are indeed very important.
  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#12 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 31 May 2006 - 02:55 PM

ISO22000 = the 8 principles of qms + the 12 steps of codex (HACCP) + PRPs + OPRPs + customer requirements + regulatory requirements + religious requirements (if this applied) + data validation + data verification + system review + re-validation + improvement + updating + ++ etc etc.



Wayne,
My approach to ISO 22000 is Quality Management Achievement + Process Achievement + Product Achievement + Facility Design Achievment + Data Verification + Data Validation + Input Review + System Upgrade Review / Updating ++++ = Composite Food Safety Management System

The above is a composition of many combined FS resources and measures but are not shown in details however each core FS component has its own FS sub-components which will often work in unison.
  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#13 wayne

wayne

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 39 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 01 June 2006 - 11:30 AM

Charles

You are very close to it but not quite. Like many others, you are narrowly focused in the path of qms. QMS alway says that do what you have said and say what you have done. This is not right!!! Certainly not right. You should do what the law says and at the same time please your customer. Can you re-visit the process diagram given in the new standard, digest it and the answer is there. Let me know if you still couldn't get out of this trap.

Regards
WeeChong


  • 0

#14 Witch

Witch

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 66 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Germany
    Germany

Posted 01 June 2006 - 12:48 PM

Do you think its possible to derive a "decision tree" for PRP identification just like the "CCP Decision Tree"?


Hallo Charles,
in fact there is one in the 22004!
I think it´s quiet useful!

My personal differentiation between PRP and CCP is: PRP is a dimmer, it reduces the probability of a hazard; CCP is a on/out-switch. It turns off the hazard.

:bye:
Andrea
  • 0

#15 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 01 June 2006 - 02:24 PM

Andrea

Thank you for the lead. I actually have done a model based on one of the drafts but I have no intention of building it into the HACCP Plan and as Wayne suggested and I totally agree, it may be an invitation to trouble with the auditor especially one who does not understand the standard well enough.





Hi Wayne,

Of course the issue of Customer Requirements and Satisfaction including Regulatory Compliance is undoubtedly part of the equation that I had mentioned. Its the core of the whole standard intention.

However, since we are expecting to see BS EN ISO 22000 become a European Food Law one day, what is your view on private standards such as BRC, IFC etc


  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#16 just me

just me

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 61 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Malaysia

Posted 01 June 2006 - 02:31 PM

I actually have done a model based on one of the drafts but I have no intention of building it into the HACCP Plan and as Wayne suggested and I totally agree, it may be an invitation to trouble with the auditor especially one who does not understand the standard well enough.

Dear Charles,

How would you justify to the auditor your categorization of each hazard (& the relevant control measures) into PRP or O'PRP if it is not worked into your HACCP Plan?? :uhm:

Cheers,
  • 0

#17 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 01 June 2006 - 03:06 PM

How would you justify to the auditor your categorization of each hazard (& the relevant control measures) into PRP or O'PRP if it is not worked into your HACCP Plan??


Dear Wai Ling,

The OPRPs and PRPs will be shown in a separate section of the manual.
  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#18 Witch

Witch

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 66 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Germany
    Germany

Posted 02 June 2006 - 07:25 AM

it may be an invitation to trouble with the auditor especially one who does not understand the standard well enough.


Maybe you know, I wrote a booklet about 22K. there we have a statement from a german auditor who is leading in training and decision groups in germany. He said it will be very much easier to audit instead of IFS or BRC because 22K looks for the effects of all measures together and it is not important whether you define a measure PRP OPRP or something else. The most important is validation! If you can show effectiveness, I think you will not have a problem!

:bye:
Andrea
  • 0

#19 wayne

wayne

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 39 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 02 June 2006 - 04:01 PM

Andrea
You have my word. Validation and verification of the effectiveness of the combined measures are the key issues in the new standard. But, I wonder whether you could share with us your model for validation and verification. May be from that of your booklet. I am also writing up a book on ISO22k and it is well underway. I will announce it when it is ready.

Regards


  • 0

#20 wayne

wayne

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 39 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 03 June 2006 - 02:32 AM

Charles

You are very close to it but not quite. Like many others, you are narrowly focused in the path of qms. QMS alway says that do what you have said and say what you have done. This is not right!!! Certainly not right. You should do what the law says and at the same time please your customer. Can you re-visit the process diagram given in the new standard, digest it and the answer is there. Let me know if you still couldn't get out of this trap.

Regards


  • 0

#21 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 03 June 2006 - 04:18 AM

it is not important whether you define a measure PRP OPRP or something else.



Andrea,

Thank you for emphazing this issue as I had done on numerous previous occassions that we are dealing with food safety where public health is paramount. Whether a correct definition of a measure is a PRP or OPRP is relatively important but at the same time getting it WRONG does not make the food UNSAFE either BUT the data analysis from Validation and Verification of the System if found to be not effective in achieving the intended FS objectives would surely make the food UNSAFE.
  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#22 wayne

wayne

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 39 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 15 July 2006 - 05:07 PM

Charles

You are very close to it but not quite. Like many others, you are narrowly focused in the path of qms. QMS alway says that do what you have said and say what you have done. This is not right!!! Certainly not right. You should do what the law says and at the same time please your customer. Can you re-visit the process diagram given in the new standard, digest it and the answer is there. Let me know if you still couldn't get out of this trap.

Regards
wayne


  • 0

#23 gun

gun

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 18 August 2006 - 04:28 AM

HI, I am a new member of this forum. I am working on one of the FDA funded traceability project. I was also in the committee which, wrote comments on ISO 22000:2005 draft. It is very interesting to see that peole are quite sceptical about about new food safety standards. I am very much aware that it needs further assessment and clarification in certain points. But please keep the hope high. We need these standards.

Hi,

I have studied the Draft ISO 22000 in details and will be glad to share with those who like to discuss it in this forum.

Please forward your questions. Other Consultants (you have all been very quiet) who are members of this forum are encouraged to participate.

Regards
Charles Chew


  • 0

#24 okido

okido

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 205 posts
  • 11 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 August 2006 - 07:59 AM

Hi,

I do not feel that the industry is sceptical about new food safety standards they are rather practical.
If you have chosen for standard x and are running a solid business that makes safe products it takes a lot of time to have the standard fully understood and implemented in all corners of the organization.
It is just not practical to change every few years to the newest standard.
The main hurdle is that every new standard that faces day light has it's own new slang. For what reason? Translating this slang into understandable language for day to day operations takes again a long period of time.
Simply implementing a new standard like ISO22k does not make products safer, only people can make safer products.
I choose to stay with a standard that is fully understood by my people and educate them in adding new elements to the management system. These elements can come from new standards like ISO22k, legislation, experiences elsewhere, or anything else.
Food safety is an intricate part of the management system in my vision.


Remember to share good fortune with your friends, Okido


  • 0

#25 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 21 August 2006 - 08:23 AM

Hi,

I do not feel that the industry is sceptical about new food safety standards they are rather practical.
If you have chosen for standard x and are running a solid business that makes safe products it takes a lot of time to have the standard fully understood and implemented in all corners of the organization.
It is just not practical to change every few years to the newest standard.
The main hurdle is that every new standard that faces day light has it's own new slang. For what reason? Translating this slang into understandable language for day to day operations takes again a long period of time.
Simply implementing a new standard like ISO22k does not make products safer, only people can make safer products.
I choose to stay with a standard that is fully understood by my people and educate them in adding new elements to the management system. These elements can come from new standards like ISO22k, legislation, experiences elsewhere, or anything else.
Food safety is an intricate part of the management system in my vision.

You talk a lot of sense Okido. Sure we can learn from new things, but why make a wholesale change "if it ain't broke don't fix it." - there again if your customers' say so... :unsure:

Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users