Codex or ISO 22000 decision tree?

Hi, i want to make a haccp plan to implement the IFS food. To find the CCPs what decision tree is the right to use, the one in the codex with 4 questions or the one used in iso 2000 with 8 questions?

Thanks in advance

CODEX is tried and true.

 

Does IFS specify any preference in their standard?

 

Marshall

Yes, codex alimentarius, but i think that the tree used in ISO 22000 is more complet. 

 

Thanks 

 

CODEX is tried and true.

 

Does IFS specify any preference in their standard?

 

Marshall

Yes, codex alimentarius, but i think that the tree used in ISO 22000 is more complet. 

 

Thanks 

 

Hi Moura,

 

Not a user myself but ifs6, ver6 (not familiar 6.1)  has this auditorial guideline -

 

ifs6- 2.2.3.6.2.png   126.17KB   10 downloads

 

The CP referenced above is occasionally equated to the OPRP of iso's haccp but afaik neither terminologies are mentioned in Codex's haccp. IFS seem to offer no specific Guidelines on the selection of CP. The comments in above pic seem to imply that many potential CPs are avoidable through appropriate PRPs.

 

If by "complete" you mean even more ambiguous than Codex's haccp i would totally agree. :smile:

Hi Moura,

 

Actually afai can see, the 8 guestions in the iso22000 code do not unfortunately define a specific decision tree unlike that presented by  Codex. The FS experts have been arguing interminably over the preferred "rankings" required to design a tree since 2005, particularly in the French Literature.

 

The second version of iso2004 contains a summary of the suggested, currently preferred viewpoints although IMO the layouts offered way back in 2005 period may still be the easiest to implement.

 

The Codex presentation/Tree is also by no means devoid of ambiguities either but there are at least several less questions to argue over. However perhaps you like to get well down into "the weeds".

 

And then you have the CPs.

If you are implementing an ISO22000 system, have a look at the CocaCola/Michigan State Decision Tree - it results in PRPs and oPRPs as options to control hazards.
It is the prerogative of your HACCP Team to establish all significant hazards as CCPs without using a decision tree at all. But I thoroughly recommend a formal approach through the use of a CCP Decision Tree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Moura,

:welcome:

Welcome to the IFSQN forums.

IFS stipulates that your system should be based on Codex Alimentarius principles:
2.2.1 HACCP system
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system
Hazard Analysis 2.2.1.1 The basis of the company’s food safety control system shall be a fully implemented, systematic and comprehensive HACCP system, based upon the Codex Alimentarius principles.

IFS does not stipulate which decision tree to use, just that there must be a logical reasoned approach:
2.2.3.6 Determine critical control points (CA Step 7 – Principle 2)
2.2.3.6.1 The determination of relevant critical control points (CCP's) shall be facilitated by the application of a decision tree or other tool(s), which demonstrates a logical reasoned approach.

​So I would say that both would be acceptable providing you demonstrate the logic of your decisions.

Kind regards,

Tony

Many thanks Tony. I will use the codex tree because is to one that is mentioned in IFS.

Enviado do meu SM-N9500 através do Tapatalk

Moura,

 

I recommend that you use the Codex decision tree. ISO 22000 does not require a tree, but topics to address when determining PCC's or PPRos. It's simplier, more obvious and correct. The expectation of the IFS is that, for hazards evaluated as significant, that in the decision tree do not result in PCC, are CPs.

 

​Um abraço

Moura,

I recommend that you use the Codex decision tree. ISO 22000 does not require a tree, but topics to address when determining PCC's or PPRos. It's simplier, more obvious and correct. The expectation of the IFS is that, for hazards evaluated as significant, that in the decision tree do not result in PCC, are CPs.

​Um abraço

Obrigado Simao um abraço

Enviado do meu SM-N9500 através do Tapatalk

Obrigado Simao um abraço

Enviado do meu SM-N9500 através do Tapatalk

 

Please use English language.

Hi, i want to make a haccp plan to implement the IFS food. To find the CCPs what decision tree is the right to use, the one in the codex with 4 questions or the one used in iso 2000 with 8 questions?

Thanks in advance

 

Hi Moura,

 

A little clarification -

 

from ifs ver 6.1 -
 

 

CP – Control point

Identified by the hazard analysis as essential in order to control the likelihood of introducing or proliferation of food safety hazard in the product and / or the environment.

A CP can be considered as an OPRP (Operational Prerequisite Program), as defined in ISO 22000

 

IMO this implies that  IFS will accept an iso22000 methodology / associated iso-trees to determine oprp (=CP) and also, presumably. iso-CCPs.

(Personally, I would check in advance with my intended CB just in case).

 

This is despite IFS's elsewhere mention of Codex Alimentarious in a haccp context.

 

In fact, it is not obvious to me how the Codex Principles (or the Codex tree)  can provide CPs since afaik the latest version of Codex-haccp does not even mention such ?.

(OT -  NACMCF's haccp does define  a CP but I have no idea (and there seems no Guidance) on how CPs should be selected in the NACMCF system, intuition ??

 

Regardless, if you wish to compare the Standard Codex Tree to an "appropriate" ISO22000 tree for determining CCPs i would say that they are not much different although IMO the learning curve for iso22000 (so as to separate CCPs/OPRPs) will take a lot longer time.

 

Good Luck !

Hi Charles. Many thanks for your good explanation.

Hi Moura,

A little clarification -

from ifs ver 6.1 -


IMO this implies that IFS will accept an iso22000 methodology / associated iso-trees to determine oprp (=CP) and also, presumably. iso-CCPs.
(Personally, I would check in advance with my intended CB just in case).

This is despite IFS's elsewhere mention of Codex Alimentarious in a haccp context.

In fact, it is not obvious to me how the Codex Principles (or the Codex tree) can provide CPs since afaik the latest version of Codex-haccp does not even mention such ?.
(OT - NACMCF's haccp does define a CP but I have no idea (and there seems no Guidance) on how CPs should be selected in the NACMCF system, intuition ??

Regardless, if you wish to compare the Standard Codex Tree to an "appropriate" ISO22000 tree for determining CCPs i would say that they are not much different although IMO the learning curve for iso22000 (so as to separate CCPs/OPRPs) will take a lot longer time.

Good Luck !

Enviado do meu SM-N9500 através do Tapatalk

Hi Moura,

indeed IFS requirements vs HACCP are that the basis of the company’s food safety control system shall be a fully implemented, systematic and comprehensive