Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
- - - - -


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

#26 Charles.C


    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 13,981 posts
  • 3855 thanks

  • Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF

Posted 27 March 2006 - 02:25 PM

Simon -

(1) USA Dev.of haccp plans with via d.trees - http://seafoodhaccp....anuals_pdf.html

(2) Canada - main page http://www.inspectio...cp/haccpe.shtml
d.tree esp. http://www.inspectio...ol2/vol2e.shtml

(3) NZ - haccp plan development (there is a note deep in the text that the exact method of risk appraisal has been left to the user - rather evasive perhaps). http://www.nzfsa.gov...haccp/index.htm

The pre-requisite requirement for packaging in some cases is 'a letter of guarantee from the supplier.' This maybe results from a minimum prescribed official requirement. Adequate ??#

A lot of the basics in above is hardly new but I suspect that the actual method of assessing risk is still often problematical. Mad cows ??

I know - it's always easy to criticise.

# added, - Sorry, this was over-simplistic, people are very tolerant on this site. Although packaging approval seems to be effected in many ways outside Europe (hence my comment), any purchaser of plastic packaging would presumably be delighted if their supplier was BRC/IOP approved.

Rgds Charles.C

Edited by Charles.C, 27 March 2006 - 07:00 PM.

Kind Regards,



#27 Simon


    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,578 posts
  • 1111 thanks

  • 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 27 March 2006 - 07:18 PM

Thanks for the links Charles. :beer:

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator

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!

#28 Johnson Opoku-Boateng

Johnson Opoku-Boateng

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 5 posts
  • 0 thanks

  • Ghana

Posted 15 April 2017 - 05:20 AM

Dear Charles,


I can appreciate your confusion and yes, it happens that your raw and packaging materials should be assessed to ascertain if there are potential hazards that could have an effect on consumers. In my many years of handling HACCP, the issue of taking RM/PM through the Codex decision tree has been a bit challenging. The simplest rule of thumb has been, to put in a Supplier Approval system to deal with the identified hazard. But simply saying "Approved Supplier" as a control measure and showing documents to prove that is not enough I guess. I am still stuck with the opinion that, the Codex decision tree should be able to clearly and unambiguously help us to either put the responsibility at the doorstep of the supplier  or take up the responsibility through process steps within our establishment.


A worthwhile exercise for us on this platform would be, to identify a few raw materials such as milk powder, paper for food packaging etc, take them through the codex decision tree and agree on a common solution.


I am not worried about auditors, since most of us on this page are auditors anyway. I am worried about protecting the consumer through scientific means of ensuring food is safe.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate