3 replies to this topic

[swanswal]

I was having an interesting discussion today on the Codex CCP decision tree (and variants of it), specifically with regard to Q3 (could contamination occur or increase to unacceptable level).

 

It seems to me that the whole reason the Hazard is being assessed is because it had already been determined that the hazard could occur, so the answer to this question is always Yes!

 

Has anyone out there got an example of a Hazard where this question was answered No?

 

Regards

[Charles.C]

I was having an interesting discussion today on the Codex CCP decision tree (and variants of it), specifically with regard to Q3 (could contamination occur or increase to unacceptable level).

 

It seems to me that the whole reason the Hazard is being assessed is because it had already been determined that the hazard could occur, so the answer to this question is always Yes!

 

Has anyone out there got an example of a Hazard where this question was answered No?

 

Regards

 

Hi Swanswal

 

IMO the pre-emptive issue to yr query is Codex's intended meaning of “identified” hazards".

Possibly followed by the assumed scope of Prerequisites and the pre-Codex tree handling thereof.

Logic-wise i found the claimed equivalent NACMCF initially more clear but less so with their "tree" content.

 

Personally I have never used the Codex tree.

[swanswal]

Thanks Charles.  I use a modified format of the decision tree (to include oPRP's) so the old Q3 (which I see is Q5 in the Safefood Whitepaper) is not an issue for me, but this question MUST have merit as I believe learned people come up with this stuff and there must be something to it that I am missing.

 

Interesting that (so far) no one has presented a hazard where this question is answered No yet.

 

ps, LOVE this forum.......

[Charles.C]

Thanks Charles.  I use a modified format of the decision tree (to include oPRP's) so the old Q3 (which I see is Q5 in the Safefood Whitepaper) is not an issue for me, but this question MUST have merit as I believe learned people come up with this stuff and there must be something to it that I am missing.

 

Interesting that (so far) no one has presented a hazard where this question is answered No yet.

 

ps, LOVE this forum.......

 

Hi swanswal,

 

I assumed you meant to exclude later PRP modified versions of Codex, etc

 

Here are 2 observed possibilities  -

 

Environmental cross-contamination with allergens due poor cleaning – YNNN

 

Allergens not identified at labelling step - YNNN