Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Hazard analysis worksheet

Share this

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

foodsafetyboy

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 72 posts
  • 9 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 August 2011 - 06:29 AM

Dear All,

I need your advise in making a Hazard analysis worksheet. I recently made a Hazard analysis worksheet for our Process (a complex process), raw materials, and incoming domestic water. When I presented it to my colleagues, they would want me to lump raw materials and incoming domestic water into the hazard analysis worksheet for our process (falling under receiving step) making only one hazard analysis worksheet.
We got an argument as I want to elaborate the Haccp analysis worksheet and they wanted it to just be simple and practical.


I just need your opinion for same

Kind regards,
Food safety boy


  • 0

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5703 thanks
1,553
Excellent

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

Posted 27 August 2011 - 05:57 AM

Dear foodsafetyboy,

IMEX, the lumped procedure is more typical. Reasons as per yr post.

However i also like yr style, splitting off some "standard" but critical items like incoming water, plastics, cardboard packaging which hv referencable, general, international standards. Saves space later but little more work at beginning. May not work if many kinds of packaging material of course. :smile:

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

foodsafetyboy

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 72 posts
  • 9 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 August 2011 - 07:00 AM

Dear foodsafetyboy,

IMEX, the lumped procedure is more typical. Reasons as per yr post.

However i also like yr style, splitting off some "standard" but critical items like incoming water, plastics, cardboard packaging which hv referencable, general, international standards. Saves space later but little more work at beginning. May not work if many kinds of packaging material of course. :smile:

Rgds / Charles.C


I agree Charles, I also find it hard at the beginning but eventually got my way of splitting them in the long run. Guess I just have to make it simpler for them to also have ease of explaining the worksheet to an auditor should I be on leave.

Thanks Much Charles! Posted Image

Regards / Foodsafetyboy

  • 0

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,789 posts
  • 1423 thanks
782
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:World
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 30 August 2011 - 05:27 AM

Dear All,

I need your advise in making a Hazard analysis worksheet. I recently made a Hazard analysis worksheet for our Process (a complex process), raw materials, and incoming domestic water. When I presented it to my colleagues, they would want me to lump raw materials and incoming domestic water into the hazard analysis worksheet for our process (falling under receiving step) making only one hazard analysis worksheet.
We got an argument as I want to elaborate the Haccp analysis worksheet and they wanted it to just be simple and practical.


I just need your opinion for same

Kind regards,
Food safety boy


I have come across a similar situation recently where the incoming water is an ingredient that undergoes a number of treatments and as such I decided to draw a separate process flow sheet and hazard analysis worksheet specific to water as an ingredient. Water for other uses is covered by PRP's.

My view would be that whether you need to extend to a separate worksheet depends on what happens to the incoming water on site and what you use it for.

Regards,

Tony

  • 0

IFSQN Implementation Packages, helping sites achieve food safety certification since 2009: 

IFSQN BRC, FSSC 22000, IFS, ISO 22000, SQF (Food, Packaging, Storage & Distribution) Implementation Packages - The Easy Way to Certification

 

Practical Internal Auditor Training for Food Operations - Available via the previous webinar recording. Fantastic value at $97/per person, but don’t take our word for it, read the Customer Reviews here

 


George @ Safefood 360°

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • Corporate Sponsor
  • 374 posts
  • 328 thanks
32
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland and USA

Posted 02 September 2011 - 11:41 PM

I like this post...:smile:

It highlights an issue regarding HACCP and the principles that underscore it. I have come across this issue time and again when working with food companies and observing audits.

In short the question is does a company need to conduct a hazard analysis on each individual ingredient / packaging item or can they be lumped into one generic exercise? HACCP is not entirely clear on this. As Charles C points out the tendency is to keep it simple. However if you look at some of the Retailers Technical Standards they are very clear that each ingredient has to be fully hazard & risk assessed - a job of work which can be very difficult, time consuming and requires a separate worksheet. HACCP is very much process step focused.

The water example is good. If a water treatment process is present then it makes logical sense to separate it out. If it is not present it is more likely to be dealt with generally or as a PRP. But one would assume that where water treatment is present someone at some point would have conducted a separate and detailed hazard analysis and risk assessment that determined water treatment was required?

In the past I have found it best to conduct a reasonably detailed assessment of the inputs. However complex products (such as those containing over 50 individual ingredients, for example) would leave you with very little time to get any other work done.

I have found the best approach is to split them into generic categories such as:

  • Fresh meats
  • Frozen meats
  • Water
  • Dry powder ingredients
  • Fruits
  • Vegetables
and so on... you will pick up most of the significant hazards.

George

  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5703 thanks
1,553
Excellent

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

Posted 03 September 2011 - 12:03 PM

Dear George,

Interesting comments. :thumbup:

I appreciate the concept of the simplification and I guess that fundamentally it relies on categoryX members having the same set of hazards.

I use this sort of approach in seafood haccp-ing and it works quite well where you hv a common source / flora, eg category A - ocean-going seafood (eg cold -water marine species), category B - seafood from near-land environments (eg estuarine living, oysters) etc. Unfortunately biological diversity also throws up a few human-unfortunate specialisations also, eg the famed puffer fish, some tuna , some sharks.

The practical conclusion to above was that the ingeniously prescriptive US-FDA publish an awesome mini-encyclopedia of investigated seafood species listing/detailing the most “significant” atypical hazards and their possessors. So in practice, one has to scan the list if any “new” species usage. (almost equally amazing, they include a detailed / categorised list of process-originated hazards also).

AFAIK, the above seafood publication is unique, hv never seen any similar official treatises for fruit, vegetables etc(??). Presumably items from ground level origin will differ from tree swingers (unless harvesting from the dropped ones is also significant perhaps, eg apples). And I imagine that allergenic options will be one immediate diversity. Similarly pork to trichinosis.

Nonetheless, I agree the idea is certainly valid and can work / assist.

Also analogous I guess to that used in catering haccp where process-similar items are sub- categorised.

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C




Share this

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users