Jump to content

  •  

Welcome Guest to the International Food Safety & Quality Network

The IFSQN is an international discussion group mainly for food safety professionals, but also for others who have questions about the topic. It connects those interested in food safety to each other, and to information. The purpose of the website is to share knowledge, experiences, and ideas to make food safer around the world. Feel free to browse the forums as a guest, however to participate and to take advantage of the Forum Software Features, you will need to register for an account...

Click Here to Join the IFSQN Community >>

- - - - -

Risk Assessment Matrix


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

#37 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,177 posts
  • 38 thanks

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

Posted 22 April 2008 - 01:04 PM

C. Tree is some what inadequate these days. Have a look at FMEA risk assessment - its in the article.


  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#38 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,699 posts
  • 262 thanks

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 22 April 2008 - 05:17 PM

I agree but I also think we can get bogged down in systems when a bit of common sense would do wonders!


  • 0

#39 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,177 posts
  • 38 thanks

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

Posted 23 April 2008 - 06:38 AM

Certainly, its all about common sense and logic within the context and range of of scientific facts; scientific testings; etc etc.......... What and how else can it be when your process controls are not in a position to eliminate or prevent but albeit to reduce the potential risks to an acceptable level.


  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#40 Jean

Jean

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 429 posts
  • 4 thanks

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Female

Posted 23 April 2008 - 09:25 AM

Dear All,



Thanks GMO for the link on HACCP & Risk Assessment. Mr. Philip Comer’s presentation on the risk matrix was value added and interesting.

I agree with you & Charles Chew that a lot of common sense and logic has to be put in to devise controls to prevent or eliminate the risks to an acceptable level, also would like to add experience & practice are required too in conducting RA.



I was quite impressed with the food matrix by Mr. Philip as it quantifies the risks to a greater extent and hence there are fewer chances for RA to be subjective with the factors stated when deciding on the consequences….like with respect to people, reputation and societal cost.



Regards,



J


  • 0
Best regards,

J

Only the curious will learn and only the resolute overcome the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always excited me more than the intelligence quotient. Eugene S Wilson

#41 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 6,405 posts
  • 1305 thanks

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 23 April 2008 - 12:01 PM

Dear All,

Ahem, to revert to the original question from Rita comparing risk matrix to decision tree, I personally have always preferred the matrix approach since it seemed more direct / explicit although the practical implementation is obviously highly subjective. The Dtree offers a more “spelled-out” procedure perhaps although there is still an implicit requirement for a (similarly subjective) risk analysis (explicit in ISO 22000) within the evaluation. It also promotes the use of shortcuts to CCPs for certain situations which has caused some previous debate in this forum, eg metal detectors. The resultant patterns of Y/N answers are maybe more auditor-friendly although their production can still require significant head scratching IMEX. Sadly, AFAIK, there are very few detailed practical presentations on the IT for either method although I suppose this maintains the tolerable subjectivity. Have never seen a published pro/con comparison of the two methodologies ?? Anybody ??

To my understanding, HACCP is a kind of “reduced” form of FMEA with 2 main variables instead of 3. Frankly, I find 2 parameters enough of a handful already although I am willing to be convinced by a practical comparison ?? Anybody ??

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

#42 Jean

Jean

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 429 posts
  • 4 thanks

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 April 2008 - 07:30 AM

Referring and reverting to Rita’s question,



I would like to ask what is the advantage of having a matrix compared to decision tree or risk assessment done using likelihood and severity.

Have any of you got different conclusions by using the above methods??

I would like to know from where the matrix is developed and whether these are specific for the various industries.





Decision tree is more of a qualitative technique for risk assessment whereas matrix is quantitative. DTree is a supportive tool that uses a set of questions or decisions for arriving at the probable consequence or outcome. Matrix is also a decision support tool which also arrives at the outcome by evaluating / rating and comparing with different alternatives or criteria.



I reviewed hazard analysis few months back with a matrix and arrived at the same CCPs.



If I am not wrong, the hazard risk assessment matrix was derived from MIL-STD-882B (System Safety Program Requirements)





Regards,



J
  • 0
Best regards,

J

Only the curious will learn and only the resolute overcome the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always excited me more than the intelligence quotient. Eugene S Wilson

#43 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 6,405 posts
  • 1305 thanks

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 24 April 2008 - 09:54 AM

Dear Jean,

If I am not wrong, the hazard risk assessment matrix was derived from MIL-STD-882B (System Safety Program Requirements)



Many thanks for this useful pointer. After a quick IT look, officially you seem to be incorrect but unofficially maybe ??

HACCP itself dates back to the late 1960’s ("officially" Pilsbury 1973 ?), not sure when first matrix appeared though I think quite early.

FMEA was apparently formally launched in the 1940’s (Wiki) but hv no idea when it first used matrices.

MILSTD 882B was officially issued in 1984 and was apparently the first in the series to show a matrix ( http://www.dtic.mil/.../mcallister.pdf. ) though the series itself goes back to the 1960’s so unofficially ??

Rgds / Charles.C
  • 0

#44 Jean

Jean

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 429 posts
  • 4 thanks

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 April 2008 - 12:44 PM

Thanks Charles for the clarification. :rolleyes:

Regards,

Jean


  • 0
Best regards,

J

Only the curious will learn and only the resolute overcome the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always excited me more than the intelligence quotient. Eugene S Wilson

#45 rita

rita

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 30 posts
  • 0 thanks

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Female

Posted 25 April 2008 - 07:19 PM

THANKS A LOT FOR THE INFORMATION AND EXPERIENCES SHARED.


  • 0

#46 Jean

Jean

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 429 posts
  • 4 thanks

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Female

Posted 19 July 2008 - 05:26 PM

While it is imperative to fully understand the pathogenic impact of each species of micro-organism, it is also equally important to understand the level of infective dose of each species that could cause harm to adverse health impact. A moderate pathogenic hazard that has limited spread such as "bacillus cereus" is just as potent as a severely hazardous species.

FSMS is not just about severity, likelihood or risk - its about risk management as well which means "zero tolerance". Comments appreciated.


Dear Charles Chew,

Sorry, for a very late reply as I didn’t notice your post.

Thank you for a feedback.

I agree with you the infective dose of each species should be known while doing the risk assessment. In fact FSMS should be zero tolerance. Moreover the infective dose may vary, depending on various factors like the host, immunity, geographical location, occupation etc.... For example, the infective dose for Salmonella is around 15-20 cells in high risk population, whereas it may be a million (approx.) to cause illness in a healthy person. Just a thought regarding the estimation of the infective dose which are arrived upon from any epidemiological studies or by tests done on any healthy volunteers, the values may not be appropriate for estimating the risks. Therefore any potential hazard should have suitable control measures devised to manage the risk of a health hazard.
  • 0
Best regards,

J

Only the curious will learn and only the resolute overcome the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always excited me more than the intelligence quotient. Eugene S Wilson

#47 Jean

Jean

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 429 posts
  • 4 thanks

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Female

Posted 27 October 2009 - 05:04 AM

I have found a useful link on Risk assessment and thought this would be useful.

http://www.ccohs.ca/...assessment.html


  • 0
Best regards,

J

Only the curious will learn and only the resolute overcome the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always excited me more than the intelligence quotient. Eugene S Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users