15 replies to this topic

[MicroSysCo]

I am currently going through my second 22K audit and I am forever bewildered by the confusion and mixed opinion regarding 22000 and even more so OPRP's. I have recently been asking more experienced practitioners what they thought the intent was behind 22000 and the classification of OPRP's and what OPRP's serviced that CCP's had not previously done in the traditional HACCP system.

Opinions raised thus far have indicated, over classification of CCP's and a need to continuously monitor CCP's or in time to ensure product safety at consumption.

I am hoping that with the experiece on this forum I will get some more ideas of what we should aim to achieve with OPRP classification and therfore better understanding of there place in a process in relation to CCP's.

Appreciate any ideas!

[rsandrin]

I think the reason to the OPRPs exist is because they are a form to reduce or minimize the hazards on the process line, but they don't have the function to eliminate them... here in my work we treat the OPRPs like CCPs making monitoring, verification, validation and all controls but not so critically as on a CCP.

[mind over matter]

OPRP, PRP, and CCP are control measures. In HACCP, say "hand washing" is classified as PRP, however, if you are praparing a food (e.g. preparing burger and sandwichesby hands, etc), then hand washing may become oPRP in ISO 22000.The degree of control should be dependent on risk. It's hard to say it's a CCP without a knowing how your processes are set up.

I suggest you do some searching on this site... for sure you'll find out more great explanations.

Edited by mind over matter, 18 October 2011 - 06:50 PM.

[Charles.C]

Dear MicroSysCo,

Welcome to the Forum !,

As I'm sure you know, yr queries are by no means unusual. I am not a direct user of the ISO standard but I can offer some input from longtime viewing of posts here and some looking around the net. Some people will not agree with my opinions of course.

The truth is that the differences of opinion such as you refer hv arisen from various reasons. Originally the team which developed ISO 22000 had certain initial objectives in introducing the concept of OPRP however as a result of feedback through the drafting stages a lot of changes occurred. To understand the pre-issuing background of the 22k standard unfortunately requires considerable digging into the recorded seminar / internal details, many of which are available on this forum ca 2003-5 but rarely on the net (in English language anyway).

Subsequent to the issuance of the standard, the arguments over interpretation of OPRP continued (if you can read French, there are copious records available on the Net in certain archives). AFAIK, the only detailed textbooks on this topic are in French, authored by people who were part of the team which developed ISO 22000. And these people also still had differing viewpoints on certain aspects !

I am not an auditor however some of the posts here ca 2005 by auditors indicate that some confusion existed for them also however it appears that a fair amount of auditorial rationalisation (necessarily) soon took place even if not openly stated. Plus ISO 22004 was rapidly issued to (attempt to) clarify some of the confusion. After that the ISO team seem to have more or less left the whole issue in the hands of consultants, auditors etc (maybe i am being unfair to ISO but that's my opinion).

It is rather amazing to me that so little "official" discussion of this topic has appeared in open sources compared to say traditional HACCP however perhaps one should remember that HACCP has taken 30+ years so far and is still able to arouse arguments over what is a CCP. The difference is that considerable expert material is readily accessible on the net to facilitate self-study however, even so, i would not claim that HACCP is easy.

Anyway, if you wish to see some review of the OPRP background, I can suggest this post as a starter (and the surrounding thread) -

http://www.ifsqn.com...dpost__p__36566
(eg DOC2)

There are many later threads containing further discussions / arguments on the topic if you are really interested but these tend to bypass the original ideas and focus on the current, more rationalised-pragmatised, viewpoints as auditorially popular. But perhaps you are fully aware of these already?.

Rgds / Charles.C

[MicroSysCo]

Thanks all for for the quick response, Also thanks Charles for the diirection on other forums. I am slightly relieved that so much confusion exists but I do find it frustrating that a standard designed for Food Safety has so much confusion from Food SAfety Proffessionals!
I am simply baffled by the inconsitency between auditors. To be honest I wish there was another Standard that we could look into because this one just seems to cause more questions than answers and after certification and two surveliiance audits we are still arguing on classifications and the methods on how OPRps are determined.

Well that is my rant, Im sure by now you can all tell I am in the middle of an audit! Thanks again and I look forward to picking more brains regarding these topics!

Cheers

[Simon]

To be honest I wish there was another Standard that we could look into because this one just seems to cause more questions than answers and after certification and two surveliiance audits we are still arguing on classifications and the methods on how OPRps are determined.

Given the choice I don't know why people put themselves through the pain of ISO 22000. Why not try BRC or SQF, written in plain English and GFSI compliant, so in theory accepted everywhere.

Regards,
Simon

[mind over matter]

Given the choice I don't know why people put themselves through the pain of ISO 22000. Why not try BRC or SQF, written in plain English and GFSI compliant, so in theory accepted everywhere.

Regards,
Simon

Perhaps the reason is that ISO 22000 is stand-alone standard.

[Simon]

I don't get you MOM,

As far as I know BRC/SQF are stand alone standards...what is your definition of a stand alone standard?

Regards,
Simon

[mind over matter]

I don't get you MOM,

As far as I know BRC/SQF are stand alone standards...what is your definition of a stand alone standard?

Regards,
Simon

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar about BRC/SQF. If all of them are stand alone standards, I'm unsure the reason why top management of my previous company prefer ISO 20000 over BRC/SQF.

You ask "Given the choice I don't know why people put themselves through the pain of ISO 22000. Why not try BRC or SQF, written in plain English and GFSI compliant, so in theory accepted everywhere."

Perhaps my only comment is that ALL standards are open to interpretation.

[Simon]

In the UK / European / Australian / North American markets customers are more and more requiring their suppliers to become certified to one of the GFSI approved standards. Some countries prefer a particular standard (e.g. BRC in UK) and some customers require a specific standard...others say any is OK as long as it's one of the GFSI approved standards. ISO 22000 is not GFSI approved and would not be acceptable to most retailers. FSSC 22000 is because it includes ISO 22000 and sector specific PRP's. Read about FSSC 22000 here >>

Regards,
Simon

[mind over matter]

Thanks Simon. So, it's a matter of the requirements of a particular country you are in and if you sell to other/foreign countries --what their requirements are.

[Simon]

Thanks Simon. So, it's a matter of the requirements of a particular country you are in and if you sell to other/foreign countries --what their requirements are.

Sort of. As an example a UK based supplier selling product solely in the UK - most of his customers would require BRC Certification. If he got a new customer in Germany the customer may require IFS Certficiation. Now the German customer may accept BRC under negotiation, but then again he may demand IFS, so if he was a good potential then the supplier needs to decide what to do. Say no and potentially risk losing the contract or obtain IFS certficiation. This is the whole idea of GFSI, so that you get certified to one of the GFSI approved standards and it is accepted everywhere; thus reducing cost and duplication. The theory being all of the GFSI approved standards are equal. It's certainly a worthy goal, but will take some time.

Regards,
Simon

[Ashish_tqm]

The meaning of stand alone standards is these standard doesn't require any supporting standards like ISO 22000 or any other.. they have all requirements specified in it only. In other words for the certifications of BRC/SQF standards you need not take help of any other standards, even you can take the reference but its optional..

I don't get you MOM,

As far as I know BRC/SQF are stand alone standards...what is your definition of a stand alone standard?

Regards,
Simon

[Simon]

The meaning of stand alone standards is these standard doesn't require any supporting standards like ISO 22000 or any other.. they have all requirements specified in it only. In other words for the certifications of BRC/SQF standards you need not take help of any other standards, even you can take the reference but its optional..

Yes that's my definition of 'stand alone' also Ashish. The member referred to ISO 22000 as a 'stand alone' standard and in my opinion it is not...and that caused the confusion.

Regards,
Simon

[LanieLouw]

That could maybe answer my question, we are HACCP certified, but now need to go GFSI - and my first reaction was to go FSSC 22000, but I'm now so confused? You say BRC is maybe a better option, Simon?

[Simon]

That could maybe answer my question, we are HACCP certified, but now need to go GFSI - and my first reaction was to go FSSC 22000, but I'm now so confused? You say BRC is maybe a better option, Simon?

It depends on factors, the main one being what your customers prefer.
My advice to you is to canvas the opinion of your customers.

Regards,
Simon