Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

PRP/ oPRP/ CCP


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

#26 Esther

Esther

    Member

  • IFSQN Member
  • 220 posts
  • 13 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Spain
    Spain
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:La Coruña- Spain
  • Interests:Local and international food law; food industrial processes; food safety management systems;GMP; lean manufacturing; share knowledge

Posted 30 March 2008 - 04:12 PM

Hello all

Totally agree to Downtown and Suzuki,

Charles, to put it in a simpler manner: an OPRP is like a critical point inside a PRP which is relevant for a certain kind of plant.

But I would like to add something: "Maintenance" is said to be a PRP, well, then we could think that the task of verification of the metal detection equipment should be an OPRP, could not we ?? But it is not an OPRP because metal detection has been established as CCP on the product flow diagram.

Any comments ??

Sincerely
Esther


  • 0

#27 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,452 posts
  • 3244 thanks
347
Excellent

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

Posted 31 March 2008 - 08:39 AM

Dear Esther,

Charles, to put it in a simpler manner: an OPRP is like a critical point inside a PRP which is relevant for a certain kind of plant.

My comment is that you may, or may not be correct. The only thing I’m sure of is that the standard can be interpreted in many different ways. :clap: IMO, the next version will hv a lot of explaining to do.

I’m beginning to like Bennii’s approach which rather ignores the semantic variable (I think) and just plugs in a sufficient variety of numbers to probably satisfy an auditor. The snag is that it appears you may end up with a very large number of Oprps (many of the conventional control points ??). I do not think this was intended by the original drafters and it seems anti-HACCP to me, but ISO 22004 seems to allow (accept?) for this option. Pragmatism wins again. :smile:

Rgds / Charles.C.
  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#28 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 April 2008 - 09:21 AM

But I would like to add something: "Maintenance" is said to be a PRP, well, then we could think that the task of verification of the metal detection equipment should be an OPRP, could not we ?? But it is not an OPRP because metal detection has been established as CCP on the product flow diagram.


Esther,
If you follow the process approach model, you would have the HACCP Plan and the OPRPs being identified PRIOR to implementation but AFTER validation. So indeed, due to the critical nature of the step, metal detecting is a CCP (if the worksheet on your FMEA indicates so). However, it is also true that maintenance is a PRP and under the standard, the verification activity is an OPRP.

Regards
Charles Chew
  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#29 Esther

Esther

    Member

  • IFSQN Member
  • 220 posts
  • 13 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Spain
    Spain
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:La Coruña- Spain
  • Interests:Local and international food law; food industrial processes; food safety management systems;GMP; lean manufacturing; share knowledge

Posted 14 May 2008 - 09:27 AM

DEar Charles Chew

Upps!! now a bit confused.

Following with the metal detection CCP:

The fact of testing every day the metal detection equipment with standard pieces is, for you:

a) a monitoring control activity ( = verification activity ) related to the CCP

or

b) a OPRP ( = verification activity ) related to maintanance ( in this case, maintenance of said equipment )

Sincerely
Esther


  • 0

#30 YongYM

YongYM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 230 posts
  • 52 thanks
6
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Reading, Watching TV, Singing Karaoke & Sight-seeing

Posted 14 May 2008 - 10:42 AM

Dear Esther:

For me, it is a) a monitoring control activity ( = verification activity ) related to the CCP as you do not have any other step to eliminate physical hazards especially the metal.

However, if you have ten metal detectors before the above metal detector and you are monitoring their performances, all the metals detectors are considered OPRP and you are actually verifying the OPRPs.

Please correct me if I am wrong.


Yong


  • 0

#31 vecdika

vecdika

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 26 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Turkey
    Turkey
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Türkiye

Posted 10 July 2008 - 11:20 AM

Dear Kara,

PRP and oPRP are program and both of them have control measures which are control the hazards.
All control measures are monitoring. Some monitoring haven't critical-limits to measure the effectness of control measure cause of the impossibility of hazard measurement . This kind of control measures (hazard is not measured) are included to PRP and monitored without critic limits.
For example: Hazard is "the contamination of patogens from the garbage which are around the farm."
Conrol measure for garbage is "the send away of garbage". This control measure included in PRP and monitored without critic limits as "if the garbage are sent away or not"

Best Regards
Vecdi Karacaoğlu
www.nevgrup.com.tr


Edited by vecdika, 10 July 2008 - 11:24 AM.

  • 0

#32 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,452 posts
  • 3244 thanks
347
Excellent

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

Posted 11 July 2008 - 08:35 AM

Dear Vecdi,

Nice to see you active again in the forum :thumbup:

The terminology interpretation of ISO 22000, especially as relating to HACCP. has already caused considerable confusion / head-scratching as you have no doubt noticed in this thread. It is one of the most difficult features in the standard IMO which is very sad considering the central importance of HACCP within the standard.

PRP and oPRP are program and both of them have control measures which are control the hazards.


In fact, there is at least one, hopefully, authoritative reference (Didier Blanc) which states that prps are control measures.

However I also agree that para 3.8 of standard states that they are programmes, basic conditions and activities !

Rgds / Charles.C
  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users