4 replies to this topic

[George @ Safefood 360°]

Hi All,

 

My latest blog on a topic we often speak about on the forum.

 

George

 

http://safefood360.c...-now-for-haccp/

[Charles.C]

Hi All,

 

My latest blog on a topic we often speak about on the forum.

 

George

 

http://safefood360.c...-now-for-haccp/

 

Dear George,

 

Thanks for the nice chunk of  historical / philosophizing.

 

One might indeed suggest that the HACCP wheel has turned. Or perhaps We simply get what we deserve ?.

 

First, I believe, there was FMEA. Then HACCP appeared as a simplification, albeit still a  quite complex microbiological risk assessment procedure but with the saving grace of generating a simple, clutchable conclusion,  a CCP.

It took quite a while for the initial methodology to be translated into the more compact / user-friendly NACMCF/Codex interpretations of the 1990s so that the horde of CCPs for even the most simple of processes started reducing. Additional drivers were the notion of  Prerequisites  plus the narrowed focus on what constituted a reportable CCP, eg “minimizing” a hazard’s risk became less fashionable.

 

But now, we have the gift of ISO 22000 and GFSI. The former, as per its generic Principles, has bestowed the variably interpreted OPRP function thereby enabling a flock of CCP look-alikes (or not) to be inferred as desired. The latter has inevitably promoted the due diligence convenience  of  risk-assessing everything in sight. Additionally the ISO+GFSI (?)-catalysed trend to expand the scope of  Prerequisites into the "process" itself (“QA Support Programs”  can now occasionally be seen as a generic component ) has further diluted the significance of the CCP.

 

But what do we actually want ? Total control by Prerequisites + OPRPs ?

 

Rgds / Charles

[Barrie@RJT]

For my 'ay-puth' (half-penny's-worth, for those in the UK only knowing decimilisation....), I lean towards the ISO2000 approach.  I find it more logical, even though I'm not 100% on its decision tree.

 

I just hope my BRC auditor has similar leanings.....!!

[George @ Safefood 360°]

Dear George,

 

Thanks for the nice chunk of  historical / philosophizing.

 

One might indeed suggest that the HACCP wheel has turned. Or perhaps We simply get what we deserve ?.

 

First, I believe, there was FMEA. Then HACCP appeared as a simplification, albeit still a  quite complex microbiological risk assessment procedure but with the saving grace of generating a simple, clutchable conclusion,  a CCP.

It took quite a while for the initial methodology to be translated into the more compact / user-friendly NACMCF/Codex interpretations of the 1990s so that the horde of CCPs for even the most simple of processes started reducing. Additional drivers were the notion of  Prerequisites  plus the narrowed focus on what constituted a reportable CCP, eg “minimizing” a hazard’s risk became less fashionable.

 

But now, we have the gift of ISO 22000 and GFSI. The former, as per its generic Principles, has bestowed the variably interpreted OPRP function thereby enabling a flock of CCP look-alikes (or not) to be inferred as desired. The latter has inevitably promoted the due diligence convenience  of  risk-assessing everything in sight. Additionally the ISO+GFSI (?)-catalysed trend to expand the scope of  Prerequisites into the "process" itself (“QA Support Programs”  can now occasionally be seen as a generic component ) has further diluted the significance of the CCP.

 

But what do we actually want ? Total control by Prerequisites + OPRPs ?

 

Rgds / Charles

Hi Charles,

 

For me the next step is to set aside for once and for all CCP's, PRP's, oPRP's, QCP etc. In the real and objective world we have Hazards; the Risk posed by these Hazards; a Control appropriate to the risk; Monitoring; Verification and Validation. A robust, simple and usable model that represents this and can be applied across the process, business and community is what we need so we can stop arguing about what name(s) we give them. 

 

George

[Charles.C]

Hi Charles,

 

For me the next step is to set aside for once and for all CCP's, PRP's, oPRP's, QCP etc. In the real and objective world we have Hazards; the Risk posed by these Hazards; a Control appropriate to the risk; Monitoring; Verification and Validation. A robust, simple and usable model that represents this and can be applied across the process, business and community is what we need so we can stop arguing about what name(s) we give them. 

 

George

Dear George,

 

Hear, hear! 

 

But I wouldn't like to see Sanitation CCPs being revived.

And i am fortunate in never much encountering allergen problems.

 

Rgds / Charles