Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Methodology for oPRP and CCP determination


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

#26 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,460 posts
  • 3246 thanks
347
Excellent

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

Posted 19 March 2009 - 03:01 PM

Dear Colleen,

Welcome to the forum :welcome: and thks for yr comments. Yr queries are relevant but their answer is probably "subjective". Bennii ?? :smile:

We hv found previously that putting emails in posts can lead to targetting by spam bots so I've removed yr address.

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#27 Colin Joy

Colin Joy

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • South Africa
    South Africa

Posted 23 March 2009 - 09:35 AM

Re email address: sorry, saw that someone else on the forum had put in a personal address in April last year.

re questions: can someone help me re interpreting those questions in Section 7.4.4 PLEEZE! :unsure:
eg. a) "its effect on identified food safety hazards relative to the strictness applied". the first section is clear, ie. if the control measure illiminates the hazard then it is effective...how does one add the "relative to the strictness applied" part???

It seems as if not all the criteria are on effectiveness, but on the importance of the measure...am I right? eg. e) and f) - how is effectivess assessed here? It seems as if we are assessing its importance by these criteria..???


  • 0

#28 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 23 March 2009 - 08:55 PM

BUMP


  • 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!


#29 S.U.Siddiqui

S.U.Siddiqui

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 24 posts
  • 5 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Pakistan
    Pakistan
  • Location:Pakistan

Posted 09 April 2009 - 06:02 AM

Hi Collin,

I agree with you on the point. Some terminologies and sentences in the standard are confusing. 7.4.4 (a) asks you to assess the effects of selected control measure(s) on identified hazard relative to YOUR applied strictness.

Consider an example and hope it would help. A magnet attracts iron, we all know that but this attraction depends upon some features i.e. distance from iron, size of iron piece, state of iron piece (free or bound) etc. Hence, despite being a PROVEN iron attractant it will not attract an iron piece from a long distance.

Similarly,a PROVEN control measure (for a particular hazard) may not be effective WITH IN YOUR SYSTEM. It does not mean that the CM is NOT EFFECTIVE, but it shows that due to variable R.M Quality, Process or Other Limitations that CM is not capable of showing the desired EFFECTIVENESS

Standard asks you to assess these kind of limiting factors which can affect the effectiveness of your CM.

Hope this clears the point.

Cheers
Siraj


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#30 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,460 posts
  • 3246 thanks
347
Excellent

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

Posted 10 April 2009 - 05:48 AM

Dear Colin,

I suggest you look up ISO 22004, para 7.4.4. This clarifies some of yr queries although I agree the overall topic is not very transparent. The latter is by design IMO so as to allow subjectivity.

Rgds / Charles.C

@ S.U.Siddiqui. Ths for yr input and welcome to the forum :welcome:


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#31 bennii

bennii

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 34 posts
  • 23 thanks
2
Neutral

  • South Africa
    South Africa
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:South Africa

Posted 24 April 2009 - 12:29 PM

Hi folks

Been out of touch with the side for a while. I just started my next ISO 22000 implementation and will tweak the docs a bit from suggestions and see if what we all contributed make things easier/better.

Will keep you posted.
Bennii


  • 0
Circle 7 Consulting
www.circle-seven.co.za
Systems for the Wine Industry

"Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention,
sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful execution; it represents the
wise choice of many alternatives"

#32 s kumar

s kumar

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 21 December 2010 - 07:51 PM

Dear Benni and shakti,

thks a lot for posting such clarifying docs on assessment of ccps and oprps.

S kumar


  • 0

#33 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,958 posts
  • 791 thanks
167
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 22 December 2010 - 05:15 AM

Just to add to the comments in this forum:

Strictness can be defined as:
- Kept within narrowly specific limits.
- The fact or condition of being rigorous and unsparing: austerity, hardness, harshness, rigidity, rigor, rigorousness, severity, sternness, stringency, toughness

It seems as if not all the criteria are on effectiveness, but on the importance of the measure...am I right? eg. e) and f) - how is effectivess assessed here? It seems as if we are assessing its importance by these criteria..???


ISO 22004 guidance on the categorization process (As mentioned by Charles):
the impact of a control measure on the hazard level or frequency of occurrence (the higher impact there is, the more likely the control measure belongs to the HACCP plan);
the severity on consumer health of a hazard that the measure is selected to control (the more severe it is, the more likely it belongs to the HACCP plan);
the need for monitoring (the more pressing the need, the more likely it belongs to the HACCP plan).


  • 0

#34 s kumar

s kumar

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 31 March 2011 - 05:52 PM

Dear Benni,

I found your procedure very informative which gives clear distinction between OPRP and CCP. Just need clarification as asked by Charles on the validation. How can the ratings given or the procedure validated?? Is there any reference available? Hoping to get a reply sooonnn..Tx in advance


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users