4 replies to this topic

[DP2006]

Hi everybody,

I am working with a food ingredient supplier to help them develop their HACCP and Hazard Analysis for their raw materials in advance of them seeking ISO22000 registration towards the end of 2012.

I am aware that ISO22000 states that documented procedures must be in place for a number of key areas eg control of documents,corrective action, internal audits etc.

I know that there are many suppliers of templates for ISO22000 documentation and was curious about the views, likes and dislikes of ISO22000 auditors with respect to style / layout of the documents. However how do different auditors view variation in document style for recording results of the Hazard Analysis and selection of PRPs etc?

Clearly emphasis should be on following a logical, structured and comprehensive process in selection PRPs or carrying out a Harzard Analysis but how do different auditors view variations in the style, layout and content of documentation like Hazard Analysis checklists?

Are auditors looking a records showing the process that has been gone through to evaluate what hazards exist or are they mainly interested in the final outcome ie a plan showing the hazards, targets / critical limits, control measures, PRP / OPRP / CCP etc?

Would welcome anyones views on this!

Thanks

DP2006

[Charles.C]

Dear DP2006,

Few comments.

ISO22000 as such seems to be effectively defunct if a GFSI approved system is required. FSSC22000 is necessary. And therefore PAS220 also.

The basic answer to yr later paragraphs, simplistic though it may be, seems to be that auditors require to see a response to the specific elements of the standard. The exact haccp methodology used seems to be quite open as long as it can be categorised as "logical evaluation". The original standard was probably issued as a (hasty) compromise from what was intended to be a much more definitive document. ISO 22004 is in some respects a continued fix-up, eg its emphasis on the chronological introduction of validation of proposed haccp control measures.

As an example of HACCP layouts, you might look up the yoghurt case study which contains various comments from Tony-C, the designer of the forum's sponsored FSSC 22000 package.

http://www.ifsqn.com...dpost__p__39585

Some typical layouts can also be seen, I think, in the forum downloadable samples of FSSC package.

I am also interested to hear other responses to yr auditorial questions.

Rgds / Charles.C

[tsmith7858]

Most of the auditors that I have had for ISO 22000 and then FSSC 22000 as well as others (BRC, AIB, Silliker) are not as concerned about the formats as they are how you came to your conclusions. Templates are alway a risk because they may steer you away from something critical because it is not part of the template but you can use them for format if it makes you more cormfortable. The bottom line is that the PRP and HACCP plans are written for you to understand, not to make the auditor's job easy. If it makes sense to you and you can explain it, that is what matters.

Auditors do want to see something along the lines of a risk assessment for each step in a process flow and specifications for ingredients that helped you make your decision. If you selected something as a CCP they will want to see how you chose your critical limits and how they were validated. Some want to see the same for OPRP.

Charles, I would not call ISO 22000 defunct as it is the main piece of FSSC 22000 but I would agree that the end goal should be FSSC 22000 not ISO 22000.

[Bala]

Hi everybody,

I am working with a food ingredient supplier to help them develop their HACCP and Hazard Analysis for their raw materials in advance of them seeking ISO22000 registration towards the end of 2012.

I am aware that ISO22000 states that documented procedures must be in place for a number of key areas eg control of documents,corrective action, internal audits etc.

I know that there are many suppliers of templates for ISO22000 documentation and was curious about the views, likes and dislikes of ISO22000 auditors with respect to style / layout of the documents. However how do different auditors view variation in document style for recording results of the Hazard Analysis and selection of PRPs etc?

Clearly emphasis should be on following a logical, structured and comprehensive process in selection PRPs or carrying out a Harzard Analysis but how do different auditors view variations in the style, layout and content of documentation like Hazard Analysis checklists?

Are auditors looking a records showing the process that has been gone through to evaluate what hazards exist or are they mainly interested in the final outcome ie a plan showing the hazards, targets / critical limits, control measures, PRP / OPRP / CCP etc?

Would welcome anyones views on this!

Thanks

DP2006

[Bala]

My personal opinion is - initially "outcome" as you have defined. But as system matures, one would expect to reach the "unknown" ie keep looking for new hazards from reasearch, similar products, known hazards in key ingredients, local enviornment. etc From generic or a common set, evolve into a location specific, prduct sepcific, process specific, environment specific .....tthe faser one moves....safer can be the product.