Nice workbook Caz. This will do the job for BRC very well. One small point, when the risk assessment produces a low risk hazard (as opposed to a medium or high risk) it is normally not required to put the hazard through the decision tree. I am assuming the Green hazards are low risk.
It relates to the significance of the hazard which is the purpose of the risk assessment. The reason is to make sure low risk hazard don't become CCP's which can sometimes happen with the CODEX decision tree.
George
Dear George,
I agree with your comment regarding prioritisation.
The US reference
HACCP procedure (NACMCF 1997) also definitely agrees with you.
But IMO Codex 2003 is poorly written regarding implementation and use of the hazard analysis, eg the section title specifies "identified" hazards, fair enough, but the immediately following text refers to "each" hazard so that the intended progression is blurred. And since BRC follows the Codex line the situation is maintained although para. 2.8.1 tries to re-orient the focus. The (obviously) missed word in both documents was something like "significant". (Curiously the initial Codex definition of "hazard analysis" is IMO much better, BRC's glossary predictably tries to condense it thereby IMO losing some of its clarity again
).
One can also find numerous published examples / books which apply the Decision Tree to every step.
And similarly some training courses. The reason here IMO is that the "gross" approach makes the explanation soooo much easier, eg this pattern > CCP, otherwise > just forget it. Now you’ve done
HACCP, Congratulations. Clink, Clink.
(nonetheless, it's a pleasure to read Caz's elegant prose
)
Rgds / Charles.C
PS - i should add that for "traditional"
HACCP and BRC I have always determined
CCPs based solely on the result of a risk matrix ( occurrence likelihood x severity) result without using a Decision Tree at all. Not encountered any auditorial problems although a few auditors have "worried" over the absence of a tree and requested validation (eg Codex!
, and certain EC documents).
To my mind there has been a substantial amount of brainwashing on this aspect. Seems to me that ISO 22000 tried hard to improve the Codex presentation but still managed to foul it up due to their own garbled logic which remains after 8years. Reprehensible IMHO. (I did notice a document on the IT recently suggesting that some further thoughts were currently active.)
