HACCP Plan and CCPs
Hi All,
I just have a quick question.
In relation to a haccp plan for a meat plant - Is it ok to have a CCP for chilled storage on intake and call it CCP1 and then to have a CCP for chilled storage on dispatch and call it CCP1 also (As they are for the thing - i.e. chilled storage)
Appreciate the advice.
Thanks.
Hi All,
I just have a quick question.
In relation to a haccp plan for a meat plant - Is it ok to have a CCP for chilled storage on intake and call it CCP1 and then to have a CCP for chilled storage on dispatch and call it CCP1 also (As they are for the thing - i.e. chilled storage)
Appreciate the advice.
Thanks.
Dear Tom draper,
Quick maybe. Precise not. :smile:
Are you. for example (1) "manufacturing" or (2) just receiving/storing/despatching ?
(1) has 1 or 2 storage steps "depending".
(2) has 1 storage step.
I assume situation = (1) - 2, ie there is a process between receive/despatch.
It is conventional to number CCPs in the order of the process flowchart step location.
So the answer is NO.
Rgds / Charles.C
PS - situation (2) would logically be self-contradictory in the context of yr OP
Hi Charles,
Sorry for the lack of detail,
Yes it is a meat processing plant i.e.
- Step 1 is product intake / storage (here is CCP1 for temp less than 7C)
- The meat then goes through a number of different process i.e. cutting, trimming, metal detection (CCP2) etc.
- Then one of the last steps is in to chilled storage for dispatch where there is another (CCP1 for temp less than 7C)
Should the chilled storage temp for dispatch be CCP3?
Is it just best practice to do it like this or is it stated anywhere?
Thanks for all the help.
Dear Tom draper,
Numbering is just a question of following the flowchart chain (assumed linear) from start to finish and adding “1's”. So yes, CCP3 (assuming a total of 3CCPs as mentioned yr post). (Some artistic people also add a tag to define the type of hazard, eg CCPB3 where B = (micro)Biological).
Numbering is not compulsory afaik (I don’t use it routinely) inasmuch as the hazard analysis should anyway fully define the location steps of the CCPs with respect to the process flowchart. But Numbering looks professional and is a convenience for cross-referencing, identifying CCPs on the flowchart / haz.analysis and many-step processes. The only snag is that if the CCPs or the flowchart change later, can cause updating everywhere unless you have some “smart” systems which will update automatically. No problem for a stable set-up though.
Rgds / Charles.C
PS - One exception to the above might be if yr FS standard specifies numbering for some strange reason.
Personally.... I wouldn't consider chilled storage a CCP... it is surely a pre-requisite? but to answer your question, if the hazards and controls are the same for chilled storage at both stages then you can call them both CCP1, I have done it and it hasn't been questioned.
I'd still reconsider the CCP though :sleazy:
Where it is a recurring control on the same flowchart, then I would call it one CCP (i.e. maintenance of the cold chain) the HACCP study would then identify at what points within the flowchart that one control has to be monitored & how, i.e. temps checks at goods in, temp checks in storage & temp checks on distribution. etc. This is something I've always done and it's satisfied external auditors but having been audited recently using another person's paperwork (where I had recently been appointed) we were pulled up on the identification of three separate CCP's where they all related to temperature control but at different points of the flowchart.
Dear Tom draper,
Below is the result of randomly picking 6 hits from googling “listing haccp CCPs”.
All were basically as per the 4 shown.
But I have little doubt that other variations could be (eventually) validated from further searching.
Listing haccp CCPs.xls 250.5KB 52 downloads
Rgds / Charles.C