Unlike my boss i have to asess all the potential risks,
Yes the cooking would probably kill the bacteria, but would you want your child eating a jacket potato covered in dog pee, maybe you don't think that as not of high significance?
Dear Moochie,
As I mentioned in the earlier post, I am only commenting, as I think you have raised a very valid point for "Standards' versus 'Experience' versus "perceptions' etc. At the outset, any PRP I have for a food manufacturing site would clearly define access restrictions and animals would be certainly restricted.
But, I would also reiterate that the standard provides us with enough tools to document a food safety plan that can defend itself, (i.e. the boss would find enough justifications in it for any restrictions etc...)
1. From your Boss's point of view, the intended use of your product allows for "washing" and "cooking". it is great that you consider an eventuality where the customer may not follow this recommendation. But, if we look at risks beyond the scope of our plan (i.e. for the products with an intended use), then we may end up with solutions which sound great to society, but may not be good business for the shareholders.
For e.g. with caffienated drinks , some companies advise consumption volumes to be limited to 500ml, but if a consumer drinks excessive amounts , the food safety plan cannot be faulted for not having put a control measure in place to mitigate that.
2. Secondly, (once again please excuse me, I am just seeking clarifiaction from the forum, using your excellent example), you started me thinking on whether dog pee on a potato could pose a risk for my child.
Fickle as Internet sourced information can be, I find that Dog urine odes contain "Dog urine contains urea, creatine, uric acid, carbohydrates, enzymes, fatty acids, hormones, sodium, potassium, chloride, magnesium, calcium and ammonia.Read more:
What Is the Chemical Composition of Dog Urine? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/...l#ixzz1HBCRWhkL"
Further more, you can apparently drink ones own or even a dogs urine, (if you were about to die of dehydaration), without any harm caused.
So using the Codex Risk matrix, this hazard would not pose as a significant hazard.
3. But, from common sense and perceptional view points I would certainly avoid dogs visiting the factory. In a previous post a suggested control measure was a hermetically sealed walkway for dogs.
Now , if the risk posed was high, then the owner could still satisfy his whim, provided he invested in a walkway. But , if not the risk does not justify the additional investment by the company, which obviously is of no profit to the saherholders. (in such case the owner could bring his dog in...)
----
I do believe that as Food safety managers we need to recommend the most profitable food safety solutions, and the standard provides us the tools to do just that, so we do not have to call upon the 'good nature' of the management teams to support the food safety plans.
Cheers
SriramB
