What are the differences?

Actions when monitoring results exceed critical limits procedure vs Handling of potentially unsafe products vs Correction and Corrective Actions vs Control of Nonconforming Product

What are the differences?

Can we say that Handling of potentially unsafe products and Control of Nonconforming Product are the same?

Can I have the views of others please?

Actions when monitoring results exceed critical limits procedure vs Handling of potentially unsafe products vs Correction and Corrective Actions vs Control of Nonconforming Product

What are the differences?

Can we say that Handling of potentially unsafe products and Control of Nonconforming Product are the same?

Can I have the views of others please?

First, what you will do when CCP limits are exceeded, then, if it is an unsafe product you should handle (identify, store, etc.). Corrections and corrective actions might be one procedure, it details what to do, who, when, and how to correct a non conformity and eliminate it. We control non conforming product with a different procedure, that details if product can be used, reprocessed, etc. so it controls if it is delivered from the non conforming product area, and requires to register, why that decision was took.

FSSM

First, what you will do when CCP limits are exceeded, then, if it is an unsafe product you should handle (identify, store, etc.). Corrections and corrective actions might be one procedure, it details what to do, who, when, and how to correct a non conformity and eliminate it. We control non conforming product with a different procedure, that details if product can be used, reprocessed, etc. so it controls if it is delivered from the non conforming product area, and requires to register, why that decision was took.

FSSM

Hi FSSM,

I got your point but I’m not sure if I have explained it well. For the sake of simplicity, we developed the following procedures:
a. Control of documents
b. Control of records
c. Handling of potentially Unsafe Product
d. Correction & Corrective Action.
e. Product Withdrawal & Recall
f. Internal auditing

The standard requires the following procedures:
4.2.2 — Control of documents
4.2.3 — Control of records
7.6.5 — Actions when monitoring results exceed critical limits
7.10.1 — Corrections
7.10.2 — Corrective actions
7.10.4 — Withdrawals
8.4.1 — Internal audit

Given the documents (a to f) we developed, can you say that we met the minimum requirements?

Hi FSSM,

I got your point but I’m not sure if I have explained it well. For the sake of simplicity, we developed the following procedures:
a. Control of documents
b. Control of records
c. Handling of potentially Unsafe Product
d. Correction & Corrective Action.
e. Product Withdrawal & Recall
f. Internal auditing

The standard requires the following procedures:
4.2.2 — Control of documents
4.2.3 — Control of records
7.6.5 — Actions when monitoring results exceed critical limits
7.10.1 — Corrections
7.10.2 — Corrective actions
7.10.4 — Withdrawals
8.4.1 — Internal audit

Given the documents (a to f) we developed, can you say that we met the minimum requirements?

The documented procedure demanded in 7.6.5 is actually the procedure for handling potentially unsafe products as per requirements specified under clause 7.10.3. (one of the confusing aspects of ISO 22000 ). It seems you have fulfilled the requirements for developing mandatory documented procedures as per ISO 22000.

Regards:
M.Zeeshan

hello all!
is "handling of unsafe product" part of the "corrections"?


My point is for example, when i pasteurise milk and i exceed the critical limits i have a "correction" - re-pasteurise it. so is that the step? or i should say that i should "handle the unsafe branch of milk that exceeded the CL ( test it,identify it, store it, labe it etc) and then i should apply the "correction" in this brach of milk?

or should i first do the "correction" and then "handle the potentially unsafe branch of milk" until i test it and identify if it is safe or not and destroy it or sell it?

Thank you!

is "handling of unsafe product" part of the "corrections"?

My point is for example, when i pasteurise milk and i exceed the critical limits i have a "correction" - re-pasteurise it. so is that the step? or i should say that i should "handle the unsafe branch of milk that exceeded the CL ( test it,identify it, store it, labe it etc) and then i should apply the "correction" in this brach of milk?

or should i first do the "correction" and then "handle the potentially unsafe branch of milk" until i test it and identify if it is safe or not and destroy it or sell it?

ISO 22000 standard treated both processes as separate under different clauses (7.10.1 and 7.10.3). As you have stated in your own post "when i pasteurise milk and i exceed the critical limits i have a "correction" - re-pasteurise it". Yes, this is logically a correction process. Then "handle the unsafe branch of milk that exceeded the CL ( test it,identify it, store it, label it etc)" is the process of handling of potentially unsafe product.

The confusion arise while executing these processes in actual situation. Since ISO 22000 is a generic standard applicable to all type of food industries, it would be logical to define these processes separate. IMO, the correction process is usually performed during handling of potentially unsafe product that's why people generally consider correction process as part of handling of unsafe product.

IMO the usual sequence of activities performed when a non conformance is identified are:

1- Separate and identified storage of potentially unsafe product/material
2- Evaluation (Inspection / testing)
3- Separate and identified storage of evaluated product / material
4- Correction, if required.
5- Disposition / Release
6- Corrective Action, if assessed as necessary.

Regards:
M.Zeeshan