91 replies to this topic

[Charles.C]

Dear Tony,

I have opened/viewed the .xlsx file in a few non-M$ programs. The files shown are of quite similar appearance so hopefully representative for comment purposes. The full-function programs I used are however probably unreliable for saving files / subsequent Excel purposes.

I like the efficient-looking (.xlsx) workbook layout however, as far as the presentation of control measure information goes it seems to me that the layout shown in my earlier attachment can "do the job" also. I noticed the addition of some more detail in the list of control measures in the workbook, thks.

I note the first 2 tabs of yr workbook are waiting to be filled in. No problem if a team of "clickers" is available .

Simon’s recent post enquired what remaining steps are required to be addressed.

It would certainly be nice IMO if various missing specifications, eg as listed in my previous post, were completed .

However, I suggest that “frills” such as the ones above be added later since the intention of the project is (I think) to benefit other posters with an intelligible / legitimate “conclusion” in a finite time-frame.
I therefore propose to progress to the hazard analysis section of the standard, ie 7.4 et seq.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Tony-C]

Dear Tony,

I like the efficient-looking (.xlsx) workbook layout however, as far as the presentation of control measure information goes it seems to me that the layout shown in my earlier attachment can "do the job" also. I noticed the addition of some more detail in the list of control measures in the workbook, thks.

Rgds / Charles.C

I agree it did and does do the job, this just gives more options for members to play with !

Sorry for the delay, here is the xls version

 Control Measure Summary Sheets Hazards Sample.xls   80KB   2003 downloads

Regards,

Tony

[Simon]

I agree it did and does do the job, this just gives more options for members to play with !

Sorry for the delay, here is the xls version

 Control Measure Summary Sheets Hazards Sample.xls   80KB   2003 downloads

Regards,

Tony

17 days, 1 download, 0 replies.

Come on let's get this one finished.

[Charles.C]

Dear All,

I attach 1st version of an ISO/fssc 22000 yoghurt hazard analysis / CCPs etc with some explanatory information on additional sheets as indicated. I hope the content is intelligible.

If you hv any comments/criticisms on the text, please do not hesitate to communicate.

 ISO 22000 Hazard Analysis for Yoghurt, yha 1.0a.xls   451KB   4779 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

PS - Happy Xmas and New Year to Everybody !

[Tony-C]

Dear All,

I attach 1st version of an ISO 22000 yoghurt hazard analysis / CCPs etc with some explanatory information on additional sheets as indicated. I hope the content is intelligible.

If you hv any comments/criticisms on the text, please do not hesitate to communicate.

 ISO 22000 Hazard Analysis for Yoghurt, yha 1.0a.xls   451KB   4779 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

PS - Happy Xmas and New Year to Everybody !

Thank you Charles I can see some effort has gone into this and as the festive season is upon us I think I will wait until the New Year to comment !

Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year !

Tony

[Simon]

Excellent work Charles, I'll leave it to the experts to thrash out the details, but thanks for your efforts to culture and keep this topic alive.

Best wishes,
Simon

[hygienic]

Dear All,

I attach 1st version of an ISO 22000 yoghurt hazard analysis / CCPs etc with some explanatory information on additional sheets as indicated. I hope the content is intelligible.

If you hv any comments/criticisms on the text, please do not hesitate to communicate.

 ISO 22000 Hazard Analysis for Yoghurt, yha 1.0a.xls   451KB   4779 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

PS - Happy Xmas and New Year to Everybody !

Thanks Charles, the attachement exactly what I am seeking for , I will change the steps and every thing based on our flow diagram and our products ,etc...
Realy helpfull .

Hygienic
Regards

[Tony-C]

Dear All,

I attach 1st version of an ISO 22000 yoghurt hazard analysis / CCPs etc with some explanatory information on additional sheets as indicated. I hope the content is intelligible.

If you hv any comments/criticisms on the text, please do not hesitate to communicate.

 ISO 22000 Hazard Analysis for Yoghurt, yha 1.0a.xls   451KB   4779 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Charles,

Thanks for all the hard work that has obviously gone into this

Had a chance to look through it:

Are CCP's 2 & 3 - pastuerisation of cream & skim really CCPs? If the decision tree is inlcuded in the assessment process we would determine that the hazard is removed at a later stage in the process - CCP4 Yoghurt Pasteurisation.

The assessment of control measures doesn't seem to have distinguished between CCP's and OPRP's

I don't believe all the remaining hazards that aren't classified as CCP's are OPRP's and so therefore there should also be categorisation of PRPs & OPRP's - maybe < 10 & < 18

Kind regards,

Tony

[Charles.C]

Dear Tony,

Thanks for the comments.

Are CCP's 2 & 3 - pastuerisation of cream & skim really CCPs? If the decision tree is inlcuded in the assessment process we would determine that the hazard is removed at a later stage in the process - CCP4 Yoghurt Pasteurisation.

My Note2 was inserted to hopefully neutralise this (I anticipated) arguable point. I suspected that most processors would operationally implement all the pasteurisations as a CCP regardless of any theoretical niceties.
By "Decision Tree" I assume you are specifically referring to the Codex version. Frankly, I have major reservations over the majority of the variety of trees in current use. Accordingly I decided to avoid trees altogether. I find the method used relatively non-inflammatory. None of the procedures I have seen including current one are ideal IMO (ISO/probability) but since all are probably auditorially acceptable I guess pragmatism rules.

The assessment of control measures doesn't seem to have distinguished between CCP's and OPRP's

Columns O,P,Q…. etc?

I don't believe all the remaining hazards that aren't classified as CCP's are OPRP's and so therefore there should also be categorisation of PRPs & OPRP's - maybe < 10 & < 18

Which hazards are you referring ?

Rgds / Charles.C

[Tony-C]

Hi Charles

Are CCP's 2 & 3 - pastuerisation of cream & skim really CCPs? If the decision tree is inlcuded in the assessment process we would determine that the hazard is removed at a later stage in the process - CCP4 Yoghurt Pasteurisation.


My Note2 was inserted to hopefully neutralise this (I anticipated) arguable point. I suspected that most processors would
operationally implement all the pasteurisations as a CCP regardless of any theoretical niceties. By "Decision Tree" I assume you are specifically referring to the Codex version. Frankly, I have major reservations over the majority of the variety of trees in current use. Accordingly I decided to avoid trees altogether. I find the method used relatively non-inflammatory. None of the procedures I have seen including current one are ideal IMO (ISO/probability) but since all are probably auditorially acceptable I guess
pragmatism rules.

Fine but a simple answer to the question "Will a subsequent step eliminate the hazard" quite clearly eliminates CCP2 & CCP3. If we revert to using the assessment 7.4.4 a-g, & score c 1 (Start relative to yoghurt base pasteurisation) & e 1 (the consequences of failure are not severe) then both would score 16 and be categorised as OPRP's.

The assessment of control measures doesn't seem to have distinguished between CCP's and OPRP's

Columns O,P,Q…. etc?

You have no OPRP's

I don't believe all the remaining hazards that aren't classified as CCP's are OPRP's and so therefore there should also be categorisation of PRPs & OPRP's - maybe < 10 & < 18

Which hazards are you referring ?

All of the hazards:

A hazard assessment shall be conducted to determine, for each food safety hazard identified (see 7.4.2), ............whether its control is needed to enable the defined acceptable levels to be met.

So the initial stage identifies significant hazards - I am assuming that only these are OPRP's & CCP's and all other hazards are controlled by PRPs?


A couple of other things:
FB Control & Filtration - not significant?
I assume that S.aureus controls are expected to control B.cereus as well
There would also need to be some controls of base mixing - it is usually warmed
Coding?

Kind regards,

Tony

Edited by Tony-C, 26 February 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[Charles.C]

Dear Tony,

IMO, yr comments are an excellent demonstration of the subjectivity of the ISO 22000 standard. And its interpretations. Both these results are familiar to traditional HACCP of course.

I suspect ISO’s resurrection of the “validation” card in ISO 22004, thereby diminishing the quantitative significance of the result of the CCP/OPRP categorisation, was their own attempt at closure (escape?).

Based on this forum, the primary requirement for auditorial purposes seems to be a “logical” approach to the hazard analysis > 7.4.4. I suggest that current presentation is one interpretation which meets the requirement. I have no doubt that there are others.

and all other hazards are controlled by PRPs?

To rephrase, what is a CP ? Your guess is as good as mine ? Maybe better.

Regarding yr later queries, I incorporated what seemed to be the majority opinions from a literature search. As usual, the unanimity was not 100%.

I feel I should also mention that without the motivation/input provided from Simon and Yourself, this project would surely never have gotten off the ground, never mind reached a result.

Best Rgds / Charles.C

PS (added) - Mention was made earlier and in my Excel haccp analysis to Caz’s assistance. The (traditional) haccp plan for yoghurt which she contributed is repeated below. Thanks again Caz!
 COM-HACCP-001.xls   254.5KB   1709 downloads

[Tony-C]

Dear Tony,

IMO, yr comments are an excellent demonstration of the subjectivity of the ISO 22000 standard. And its interpretations. Both these results are familiar to traditional HACCP of course.

I suspect ISO’s resurrection of the “validation” card in ISO 22004, thereby diminishing the quantitative significance of the result of the CCP/OPRP categorisation, was their own attempt at closure (escape?).

Based on this forum, the primary requirement for auditorial purposes seems to be a “logical” approach to the hazard analysis > 7.4.4. I suggest that current presentation is one interpretation which meets the requirement. I have no doubt that there are others.


To rephrase, what is a CP ? Your guess is as good as mine ? Maybe better.

Regarding yr later queries, I incorporated what seemed to be the majority opinions from a literature search. As usual, the unanimity was not 100%.

I feel I should also mention that without the motivation/input provided from Simon and Yourself, this project would surely never have gotten off the ground, never mind reached a result.

Best Rgds / Charles.C

No thank you Charles for your contribution - I am restricted by several conflicts of interest

I agree that there is no way that you can be criticised if you have something as a CCP which probably isn't or an OPRP that probably isn't - you have decided to have more control!

We may think it is a problem - how do the auditors cope?

Kind regards,

Tony

[Lelouch_rayne]

Hi guys,

 

 

 

While reading this, i'm very envious that i totally missed out the progression of this topic. Very educational, very impressive on how you able to pull out a HACCP plan based on members contribution.

 

I'm trying to scan all previous thread regarding FSSC 22000 implementation because we're planning on having one. And I'm totally black out with the subject, no previous learning, no seminar, and no guidance.   just trying to learn on my own, which is practically suicide.

 

If you have any thread which also discussed the same subject, hope you could share it to me.

 

 

 

Thank you guys,

 

Joan

[Charles.C]

Hi Joan,

 

The logical route IMO would be to first find one or more of a seminar / consultant / training. The first must locally exist / not cost a fortune ?? This is surely 1st step for many people.

 

There are 2.5 sides to integrate within the Standard - MS (iso9001), FS (iso-haccp, iso22002-1-PRPs) (food).

 

As I understand you are well-familiar with BRC (iso9001 + Codex haccp) System. The difficulty with iso-fssc usually tends to revolve around the non-prescriptive structure.

 

If you are OK with iso9001 and brc a lot of the basic structure should be "fairly" similar to fssc except for haccp (hence the yoghurt). There is at least one example manual on the forum (i think) illustrating a progression from  iso9001 > BRC food.

 

It depends on where yr precise fssc blockage is but maybe have a look at -

 

(a) clause cross-matrix for brc-iso22000 which is available here. 60-70 % probably similar basic  layout structure. (I originally used the basic  format of  iso 9001 to structure a BRC manual and then filled in the BRC prescriptive stuff around it). .

 

(b) example iso22000 manual recently linked here + those already linked to you. These contain some actual data which illustrate appropriate contents/layout.

[Lelouch_rayne]

Hi Charles



Fine but a simple answer to the question "Will a subsequent step eliminate the hazard" quite clearly eliminates CCP2 & CCP3. If we revert to using the assessment 7.4.4 a-g, & score c 1 (Start relative to yoghurt base pasteurisation) & e 1 (the consequences of failure are not severe) then both would score 16 and be categorised as OPRP's.



You have no OPRP's
 

 

Hi Charles,

 

 

It seems that having no oPRP's was questioned already by Tony. 

 

Based on the hazard analysis you provided, I agree with Tony that the final pasteurization step will be your CCP (the final step that would likely to addressed your biological hazards). But I'm quite confuse if we make the CCP2 and CCP3 as oPRP's. 

 

According to some references, oPRP's are control with only acceptable criteria (e.g. visual detection of sieves. The acceptable criterion is the integrity of the sieve) unlike CCP's that have clear measurable limits (e.g. final heating. This means the limit is ≥ 120°C). 

 

Based on this examples, would pasteurizer contradict such principle if we declare it as oPRP's? Because all the parameters on pasteurizer are measurable and we can established acceptable limit.

 

 

Am i confusing?? 

[Charles.C]

Hi Joan,

 

 

(1) It seems that having no oPRP's was questioned already by Tony. 

Yes but here only as to the interpretation, not, i think, as to any auditorial consequences if absent**. The problem with oprp  interpretation is that it has always been a (considerable) matter of opinion. Blame ISO's original text/ambiguity.

(2) Based on the hazard analysis you provided, I agree with Tony that the final pasteurization step will be your CCP (the final step that would likely to addressed your biological hazards). But I'm quite confuse if we make the CCP2 and CCP3 as oPRP's. 

At the time of writing (2012), I was able to literature validate  either of the 2 ways discussed.I preferred the one shown. (see note 2 in Excel of Post 79/Comments in Post 84).

(3) According to some references, oPRP's are control with only acceptable criteria (e.g. visual detection of sieves. The acceptable criterion is the integrity of the sieve) unlike CCP's that have clear measurable limits (e.g. final heating. This means the limit is ≥ 120°C). 

ISO-CCPs may utilise non-numerical critical limits. I think the above may be a misinterpretation of the Standard. IMO It is operationally important to be aware of the haccp nuances  given in iso22004 while following the overall step sequence presented  in iso22000.

(4) Based on this examples, would pasteurizer contradict such principle if we declare it as oPRP's? Because all the parameters on pasteurizer are measurable and we can established acceptable limit.

See (3).

The decision (for a significant hazard / validatable control measure) should be based on 7.4.4 (a-g) and perhaps as further explained in iso22004.

The extract below (from Praxion) is IMO the best textual explanation I have seen of ISO's intended distinction(s) between CCP and OPRP. (The methodology used in the yoghurt example attempts to utilise/average the (a-g) decision categories shown. Both average-based methods and decision trees involve "logical" interpretations of the iso22000 standard/clause 7.4.4. Both approaches seem to be equally acceptable to auditors).

 

 

Consider using your HACCP plan to manage a control measure:

• If strict control must be applied.
• If your control measure is likely to fail in the future.
• If a control failure would have severe consequences.
• If monitoring and rapid corrective action is feasible.
• If your control measure must be able to cope with significant processing variability.
• If your control measure is designed to eliminate or reduce the level of a specific food safety hazard.
• If your control measure's place in the system makes it convenient to make it part of your HACCP plan.
• If a control measure helps to boost the effectiveness of another control measure that is also part of your particular HACCP plan.

If the above conditions do not seem to apply to your specific control measure, consider using an operational prerequisite program (OPRP) to manage it.

Consider using an operational prerequisite program (OPRP) to manage a control measure:

• If strict control is not needed.
• If your control measure is unlikely to fail in the future.
• If a control failure would not have severe consequences.
• If monitoring and rapid corrective action is not feasible.
• If your control measure does not need to be able to cope with significant processing variability.
• If your control measure is not designed to eliminate or reduce the level of a specific food safety hazard.
• If your control measure's place in the system makes it convenient to make it part of your OPRP.
• If a control measure helps to boost the effectiveness of another control measure that is also part of your OPRP.

If the above conditions do not apply to your specific control measure, consider using your HACCP plan to manage it.

 

 

 

** Addendum, my error. In the general sense, see this post -

http://www.ifsqn.com...00/#entry104878

[Kushal]

thank u charles