8 replies to this topic

[pavika]

Hello everyone,
Greetings!!

Risk assesment forms the basis of any HACCP implementation. However, I understand, that when it comes to SQF, every practice or pre-requisite program that we adopt needs to be on the basis of a systematic risk analysis. For ex.the chemicals to be used, the frequency of cleaning needs to be based on the different hygiene risks pertaining to each area of the facility and surroundings. Similarly, Pest control needs to be based on the risk of infestation in and around the facility and the incoming/outgoing movement of goods.
Now, my query is, that while doing the documentation of PRPs, is it a good idea to do and document a detailed risk analysis related strictly only to that specific PRP, ex pest control, chemical control, FM prevention etc? Or, is it better to go with a risk analysis done and documented for the whole process as a whole and then put relevant control measures wherever applicable.
The first method is more tedious and time consuming, but, in your opinion, Which one seems more robust and effective??

Thanks in advance...

Pavika

[MKRMS]

Hi pavika,

I would perform a risk analysis for all aspects of your business, not only the processes. Include your structures (e.g. building, surrounds), equipment, services and any other relevant aspect of your environment. This will give you a more complete picture of your operations and the associated levels of risk than focusing on processes alone. From this extended analysis you will be very easily able to decide on the levels of control that are appropriate for your operation without having to guess or estimate more than necessary. The extended analysis might even show areas where you are currently lacking control. Be aware that HACCP relates to the process side of your business. The structural risks will be controlled with PRPs. So really your choice of PRPs, like your CCPs, should be based on risk analysis, not on guesswork or the adaptation of a generic strategy.

Usually, I would always recommend to go down the tedious route - it helps you to better understand the influence of the different aspects of your business on the food you produce.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Matt

[pavika]

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the inputs. Cleared the confusion I had regarding basis of PRP implementation.

Regards,

Pavika

[gcse-fhp]

Ah! Risk Assessment! There is never an end to this process. Risk assessment does not have to be an arduous activity. Sometimes you may not even be aware that you are so engaged. In fact almost everybody conducts one form of risk assessment every time a situation is observed, if there is a decision to be made or an action to be taken, etc. Yes, we do need to learn how to properly conduct risk assessments.
As an auditor who visits different operations, I am always performing risk assessment. Every program is assessed if the likely risks that it addresses are actually addressed. Every procedure is assessed. Every observation is assessed as to its possible contribution and to what degree it may contribute to harming a consumer. Risks have varying degrees of significance (critical, high moderate and low) to consumers, to the business and to organization’s survival. Risks also have varying degrees of likelihood and severity.
By all means, conduct risk assessment of individual observations during internal monitoring/inspection activities. You should conduct risk assessment on individual procedure, whole programs and whole system - structures, personnel behavior, practice, and all. You need to conduct risk assessment in order to decide, determine and prioritize corrective or remedial actions.

[Charles.C]

Dear gcse-fhp,

One feels compelled to wonder how you ever reach a conclusion.

Rgds / Charles.C

[gcse-fhp]

Dear gcse-fhp,

One feels compelled to wonder how you ever reach a conclusion.

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Charles.C

You have asked a very good question. In and for every instance, one reaches a conclusion based on one’s skill and experience in assessing risks. Based on the skill level and experience, one is able to conclude whether or not a risk is posed by whatever is assessed, what degree of risk is posed, what the likelihood of occurrence is, and what the severity of the risk is. This is how one reaches a conclusion about what action to take, etc.

I hope this is of some help.
Regards,
gcse-fhp

[Charles.C]

Dear gcse-fhp,

Actually i do believe you have defined one way for making a prioritisation.

The hard part comes next.

Rgds / Charles.C

[pavika]

Dear gcse-fhp,

Actually i do believe you have defined one way for making a prioritisation.

The hard part comes next.

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Charles,

Thanks for joining the discussion,
The hard part that you are referring to would be....?
Regards,
Pavika

[Charles.C]

Dear pavika,

The hard part that you are referring to would be....?

My previous post ?

With respect to yr original post, I presume we are talking about sqf2000 level2 or 2+.
I am not a sqf expert but after scanning the standard i failed to find any general mention of the aspect you are initially referring to in this thread .

Specifically what clause(s) do you mean ?

I presume you are aware that there is an "answers" manual also freely supplied by sqf.?

IMEX of other standards,eg BRC, the presence of requests for "risk assessment", with perhaps a few exceptions (eg supplier approval), does not require draconian-level details for fulfilling the requirements. This is illustrated by examples in many existing threads on this forum.

It appears to me that "risk assessment" has currently acquired the status of "boogyman" for all these food standards. The practical reality is probably rather different. It's frequently just mind games IMO.

Rgds / Charles.C