11 replies to this topic

[boediprasetyo]

Hello Dear All Sir/ Madam,

 

My name is Boedi, just the beginner for learn of food safety , I need help for all of you.

Our products are acidified food (in glass jar, vaskette, dan tin can), my questions are:

a. among my discussion with my friend the capping (for glass jar), sealing (for vaskette) and seaming (for tin can) are CCP? do they right? because based my risk assessment that process are just OPRP and what does hazard on that process?

b. after production process, we put some products for incubation test (37 "C (14 days) and ,55 "C (7 days)), can we release only in 7 days or must be wait until 14 days too?

 

Thank you in advance

 

Kindly regards,

 

Boedi

[Charles.C]

Hello Dear All Sir/ Madam,

 

My name is Boedi, just the beginner for learn of food safety , I need help for all of you.

Our products are acidified food (in glass jar, vaskette, dan tin can), my questions are:

a. among my discussion with my friend the capping (for glass jar), sealing (for vaskette) and seaming (for tin can) are CCP? do they right? because based my risk assessment that process are just OPRP and what does hazard on that process?

b. after production process, we put some products for incubation test (37 "C (14 days) and ,55 "C (7 days)), can we release only in 7 days or must be wait until 14 days too?

 

Thank you in advance

 

Kindly regards,

 

Boedi

 

Hi Boediprasetyo,

 

Thanks for yr post and Welcome to the Forum !

 

I can try (a) for starters.

 

There is more than one interpretation of OPRP but I prefer the route that (i) initially requires determining whether a hazard is Significant or not. if so, then (ii), it remains to decide whether the significant hazard will be controlled via a OPRP program or as associated with a CCP control measure.

 

(i) depends on yr process and the Risk Assesment (RA) (Likelihood Occurrence x Severity).

(ii) depends on yr methodology to distinguish between CCP and OPRP.

 

IMEX the risk assessment (i) does not yet define whether a CCP or OPRP is involved but perhaps yr methodology is different.

 

Can you explain why yr RA suggests an OPRP is required ?

 

PS - what is a vaskette ?

 

PPS - haven't checked but my guess is that the incubation periods/temperatures in (b) are validated from a Standard Procedure. If so, the answer is probably No.

[boediprasetyo]

Hello Charles,

 

Thank you for your assistance.

 

a. For that RA, last night I review again an become a QCP, what do you think?

 

Here, the way I define an OPRP and QCP,

 

      Specific Aspects OPRP
(Operational Prerequisite Programme) QCP                                          (only for qualitative aspects) WHERE IT APPLIES ON THE PRODUCT FLOW ON THE PRODUCT FLOW SISTEMATICALLY, ON 100% OF THE PRODUCT YES YES ALLOWS THE PHISICAL ELIMININATION (DEFINITIVELY) OF THE HAZARD (= "NECESSARY & SUFFICIENT" CONDITION) N.A. YES
(for qualitative aspects) ALLOWS TO REDUCE THE PRESENCE OF THE HAZARD (= "NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT" CONDITION) YES N.A. ALLOWS TO PUT INTO EVIDENCE / TO MEASURE THE PRESENCE OF THE RISK ITSELF YES N.A. THE RELATED MONITORING IS AIMED TO CHECK THE CORRECT OPERATING CONDITIONS DURING THE PROCESS AND, IF ANY, THE RESULTS OF CONDUCTED OPERATION (eg.: quantity and quality of complaints, by-products, foreign materials, etc..) HAVE A DIRECT INTESITY MEASURE OF THE CRITICAL-FOR- THE- QUALITY DEFECT OVERTAKING THE LIMITS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATES NON CONFORMING PRODUCT N.A. YES RECORDING OF MONITORING IS COMPULSORY NO YES RECORDING OF THE DECISION ABOUT THE NON CONFORMING PRODUCT IS COMPLUSORY TO BE VERIFIED YES  

b. For vaskette is a plastic tray

c. Yes, your guess is right the incubation is validated from our Standar Procedure

 

By the way, how can I attach file (s) in this message?

 

Regards

 

Boedi

                               

[boediprasetyo]

Dear Charles,

 

Here, I repeat again for the way to define an OPRP & QCP

=> For OPRP

a. WHERE IT APPLIES => ON THE PRODUCT FLOW

b. SISTEMATICALLY, ON 100% OF THE PRODUCT => YES

c. ALLOWS THE PHISICAL ELIMININATION (DEFINITIVELY) OF THE HAZARD (= "NECESSARY & SUFFICIENT" CONDITION) => N.A

d. ALLOWS TO REDUCE THE PRESENCE OF THE HAZARD (= "NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT" CONDITION) => YES

e. ALLOWS TO PUT INTO EVIDENCE / TO MEASURE THE PRESENCE OF THE RISK ITSELF => YES

 

f. THE RELATED MONITORING IS AIMED TO => CHECK THE CORRECT OPERATING CONDITIONS DURING THE PROCESS AND, IF ANY, THE RESULTS OF CONDUCTED   OPERATION (eg.: quantity and quality of complaints, by-products, foreign materials, etc..)

 

g. OVERTAKING THE LIMITS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATES NON CONFORMING PRODUCT => N.A.

h. RECORDING OF MONITORING IS COMPULSORY => NO

i. RECORDING OF THE DECISION ABOUT THE NON CONFORMING PRODUCT IS COMPLUSORY => TO BE VERIFIED

 

=> For QCP

a. WHERE IT APPLIES => ON THE PRODUCT FLOW

b. SISTEMATICALLY, ON 100% OF THE PRODUCT => YES

c. ALLOWS THE PHISICAL ELIMININATION (DEFINITIVELY) OF THE HAZARD (= "NECESSARY & SUFFICIENT" CONDITION) => YES (for qualitative aspects)

d. ALLOWS TO REDUCE THE PRESENCE OF THE HAZARD (= "NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT" CONDITION) => N.A

e. ALLOWS TO PUT INTO EVIDENCE / TO MEASURE THE PRESENCE OF THE RISK ITSELF => N.A

f. THE RELATED MONITORING IS AIMED TO => HAVE A DIRECT INTESITY MEASURE OF THE CRITICAL-FOR- THE- QUALITY DEFECT

g. OVERTAKING THE LIMITS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATES NON CONFORMING PRODUCT => YES.

h. RECORDING OF MONITORING IS COMPULSORY => YES

i. RECORDING OF THE DECISION ABOUT THE NON CONFORMING PRODUCT IS COMPLUSORY => YES

 

Sorry for incovenience before.

 

Regards,

 

Boedi

[boediprasetyo]

Hello Charles,

 

Finally I can find how to attach a file.

 

Here, how to I define the OPRP & QCP

Attached Files

•  legend_1.xls   937KB   108 downloads

[mamad123]

hi boedi

 

regarding on your question (a), it could be OPRP when the effectiveness of remaining step or control depends on them, for example, your process requires sterilization or  pasteurization after seaming step, those step are negligible without proper seaming. 

 

regards,

mamad

[Charles.C]

Hello Charles,

 

Finally I can find how to attach a file.

 

Here, how to I define the OPRP & QCP

 

Hi Boedi,

 

Sorry about the unobvious procedure to attach files. There is a help link at top left of page which is useful for many things but for this particular function it is IMO very poor. The initial Procedure should probably be pinned at the top of the info. section on main forum page.

 

Thanks for your post/attachment.

 

Is the “OPRP” you describe intended to be used for the ISO (or FSSC) 22000 Standard ? AFAIK, these are the only Standards which use this terminology.

 

If Yes I am a little confused since –

 

(a) the Standards mentioned above have no mention of the term QCP ?

(b) the various criteria you have listed seem mostly unrelated to the requirements listed in para. 7.4.4 of the ISO 22000 Standard for the decision between  CCP/OPRP ?.

 

Perhaps this is some other “OPRP” function unrelated to the above Standards ?

 

Please clarify.

[boediprasetyo]

Hello Charles,

 

Sorry to late reply.

 

You are right, the term of OPRP is refer to ISO (FSSC) 22K,  I use it becuase in my decision tree is not the same like example of decision tree by CODEX, in my decision tree the control measure are not only CPP or not, but also PRP, OPRP, CP and CCP (for QCP is an additional).

Also in my risk assessment is not only consider about severity and likelihood, but include detectability.

 

That's all Charles for why I use the term of OPRP.

 

Warmly regards,

 

Boedi

[Charles.C]

Hi Boedi,

 

Thks for reply.

 

Yes, some people choose to include Detectability. It's OK if you like work.

 

Currently, afaik, many people simply use iso22002-1 for the Prerequisites. (mandatory for FSSC). This approach is used in the last link included below.

 

CP is also not required by ISO but I appreciate some people use it from choice/NACMCF-based HACCP.

 

Referring to my (b) of previous post  I'm uncertain how yr list of criteria answers the Standard's requirements for items 7.4.4 (a-g).

 

There have been a lot of Decision Trees and other methodologies reported on this forum for CCP/OPRP differentiation. Many of the suggestions are reviewed/linked/attached  in this post and subsequent posts -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...ion/#entry34239

 

You might also find these comparisons of some different methods of some interest -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...indpost&p=85787

 

A worked  "model" example of one possible response to sections 7.3 - 7.4.4 is illustrated in this thread/excel file here -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...ge-4#entry50651

[boediprasetyo]

Dear Charles,

 

Many thanks, for your references really help me a lot

 

Warmly regards,

 

Boedi

[Tony-C]

Hello Charles,

 

Sorry to late reply.

 

You are right, the term of OPRP is refer to ISO (FSSC) 22K,  I use it becuase in my decision tree is not the same like example of decision tree by CODEX, in my decision tree the control measure are not only CPP or not, but also PRP, OPRP, CP and CCP (for QCP is an additional).

Also in my risk assessment is not only consider about severity and likelihood, but include detectability.

 

That's all Charles for why I use the term of OPRP.

 

Warmly regards,

 

Boedi

 

Hi Boedi,

 

I think that you are making something people find confusing more complicated and that is a recipe for disaster. You should focus on food safety first and categorize as per the ISO 22000 standard into PRPs, OPRPs and CCPs. Quality is secondary here.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[boediprasetyo]

Hi Tony,

 

Thank you for your explaination too.

 

Regards,

 

Boedi