17 replies to this topic

[afend]

Hello!

 

If anyone has a moment to spare can you please check my HACCP hazards analysis and provide any feedback.

 

BTW-We are a popcorn processing plant.

 

Please and thank you to anyone who can help!!

 

Attached Files

•  hazards.xlsx   15.25KB   406 downloads

[debaduttajayaprakash]

Do you got a product flow chat to refer 

[afend]

Sure!

 

Attached Files

•  flow charts.xlsx   20.54KB   286 downloads

[mduane]

What do you mean by the Significance column? the numbers seem a little random, do you have a key for them?

I really like the way you put the associated pre-req. program and documents on the analysis good organization.

Which are your CCPs? This goes over all your process steps (as it should) but you need to define your CCP and the justification. Also, in your flow chart any CCPs you have need to be numbered and labeled. 

 

[afend]

Thanks--

 

I drew my numbers from this risk assessment matrix (attached).

 

My apologies for having to submit this in parts, but I originally created all in Google Drive and I'm having some issues uploading it in other programs.

Attached Files

•  Quality Assurance Risk Assessment Matrix.docx   20.52KB   244 downloads

[Dharmadi Sadeli Putra]

 3_codex_principles_by_dr_sylie_mialet_en.pdf   751.51KB   177 downloads

Edited by avila muncar, 08 July 2014 - 08:01 AM.

[Dharmadi Sadeli Putra]

Hi,

You have to describe the hazards more specific such as hairs instead of employee physical contamination. Another example, what kind of hazard being concerned in air compressor contamination. By doing so, you will be able to determine their significance and control measures appropriately.

Good luck

Attached Files

•  3_codex_principles_by_dr_sylie_mialet_en.pdf   751.51KB   91 downloads

[cazyncymru]

Hi Afendrick

 

Here are my comments

• I would add two columns before significance called likliehood and severity to demonstrate how you reached the significance figure.
• I would put my allergen separate. It's not wrong how you've done it, but it makes it easier for an auditor to read and it demonstrates that you've taken allergens as a separate risk.
• I disagree with Avila muncar's comment about naming the actually contaminant ; I would do that on my pre-requisite risk assessment (there is a template here if you do a search for it)
• You need to include your decision tree ; what did you use? I personally use the CCFRA 4th edition because, as you have done, I have recorded the pre-requisite that controls the risk.
• I must admit, I never add a column with the document that it refers to in. And I've never been questioned on it. But if you are, you need to refer to the issue / version number. Just means you have to change your HACCP everytime you update a document.

As a starting point, its not bad

 

Caz x

[Charles.C]

Dear afendrick,

 

Thks for being willing to be a coconut shy. Very brave IMO.

 

I can remember agonizing over the “best” procedure when I first did a Hazard Analysis. In truth there is no consensus best way IMO. If it fulfils a logical route based on “standard’ publications it should be acceptable to most people. Unfortunately there are many “standard’ presentations, particularly between different food industries and locations.  The previous posts are inevitably based on what corresponds to peoples' own norms or sometimes opinions. Mine are no different.

 

I presume this is a RTE product.

 

(1) There are a near-infinite number of acceptable ways to present a hazard analysis. The choice is occasionally determined by the onward intentions, eg the auditor. The (logical) risk methodology can also acceptably vary, my comments are made with respect to my own usual procedure (which has historically  changed many times).

 

(2) It is worth remembering that the “significance” is ideally equated to the risk of the consumer  (ie at the end of the flow) receiving a food hazard of a “significant” nature. I suspect yr evaluation is maybe not in agreement with this logic ?(eg see [6])

 

(3) It is usually easier to number steps in a flow diagram so as to then cross-reference the numbers in the hazard analysis (although yr process is so short that not much difference here). The flow chart layout is OK but IMO a box diagram looks better.

 

(4) I agree with Avila Muncar, the hazards should be specified. Some auditors/books agree/ some don’t.

 

(5) There are a few “routine” hazards missing/underqualified IMO. If you wish to compare can try the model yoghurt hazard analysis on this forum (not that it’s claimed to be comprehensive or anything).

 

(6) IMO, some of yr significance data are illogical, ie incorrect, especially where prerequisite programs are involved. The presentation IMO implies that yr PRPs are ineffective. (my opinion is debatable based on specific methodology used).

 

(7) As already noted, the column on justification would be simplified/improved/eliminated(?) by using Lik/Sev columns.

 

(8) The procedure for deciding a CCP needs to be specified (somewhere). Should also be validatable.

 

(9) The risk matrix looks like one of the textbook versions, should be readily validatable if required.

 

(10) IMO a Decision Tree is superfluous. I have never used one. But it’s a matter of opinion.

 

(11) I know it occurs but personally I don’t like the use of financial parameters in the risk matrix.

 

As you can see, peoples’ opinions can vary depending on their own preferred methodologies. This particularly involves what method determines a “significant” hazard / CCP. Some methods don’t even use a “significant hazard” approach, eg go direct to a Decision Tree/CCP.

 

I agree with Caz, IMO  it’s not bad for a first attempt. Some of my comments, as I noted, may also depend on the particular approach in use.

 

Thks for the posts.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[Sharon (Dewsbury)]

as in number 8in the reply above, Before you decide if its a CCP or not you may want to show you have considered codex the decision tree with the 6 questions (1-5 with a 2 a). Simply number the questions in the tree and add a column for each saying Y or N to the question.

Sharon

[makkawi]

It is very interesting plan

[Rodriguez-Gonzalez]

Cheers with your efforts

 

My advice to review the hazards is that when you think about hazard, try to think about the agent that causes the problems. Attached are highlighted the hazards that you need to review.

 

In this video, at around 00:50 seconds you will see the hazard categories that I use. You can "zoom in" and be specific if you have information about the hazard or "zoom out" and list the hazard category to account for unknowns.

 

 

This hazard database can also give you an idea of hazard groups, is not that complete yet.

 

http://active.inspec...introe.aspx?i=5

 

I can also send you my updated hazard list if you like.

Attached Files

•  hazards.xlsx   15.43KB   150 downloads

Edited by amazingboy, 20 September 2022 - 02:27 PM.

[Rudra]

Hello,

I try to add my comments if they gonna have a value added:-).

IMO, a hazard analysis should be very detailed and very scientific. I felt that the hazard analysis is too vast / general and not precise to how hazards are bein controlled.

You could have added a column which mention the effects of the hazards on health. This proves that your are taking into consideration your consumers' health while doing the hazards analysis.

Moreover, I found some hazards not clearlyclassified for eg pest contamination was classified as physical, while in my opinion , it must be a biological / microbiology as well(pests are vehicles of many microbes!). I could not find any scientific reference in your table. Checlkists or any other records should be referenced (document control).

Please refer to my comments in the table annexed.

It wonder if my comments are right?

 

Rudra

Attached Files

•  hazards(2).xlsx   14.22KB   122 downloads

[Sussy]

This is an old post which I just chanced upon while searching for hazards related to popcorn. I've seen in your hazard analysis that mycotoxin is a possible biological hazard. According to the FDA, mycotoxin or specifically aflatoxin which can be related to corn based products do not affect popping kernels as they write in their compliance program guidance manual chapter 7 - molecular biology and natural toxins:

     "The characteristics of the cultivar of corn used for popping make it unlikely to be contaminated with aflatoxins.

[Charles.C]

This is an old post which I just chanced upon while searching for hazards related to popcorn. I've seen in your hazard analysis that mycotoxin is a possible biological hazard. According to the FDA, mycotoxin or specifically aflatoxin which can be related to corn based products do not affect popping kernels as they write in their compliance program guidance manual chapter 7 - molecular biology and natural toxins:

     "The characteristics of the cultivar of corn used for popping make it unlikely to be contaminated with aflatoxins.

 

Hi sussykraus,

 

Thks for the input.

 

JFI, is it possible to give a link or reference to yr quoted comment ?

[Sussy]

See Part III page 2 section B - corn and corn products

 

http://www.fda.gov/d...t/ucm073294.pdf

[Mahmoud d]

Hello!

If anyone has a moment to spare can you please check my HACCP hazards analysis and provide any feedback.

BTW-We are a popcorn processing plant.

Please and thank you to anyone who can help!!

[Charles.C]

 

Hello!

If anyone has a moment to spare can you please check my HACCP hazards analysis and provide any feedback.

BTW-We are a popcorn processing plant.

Please and thank you to anyone who can help!!

 

Question ? Spam ?