Hello again to all the team.
Time flies and it is about time for me and my small company to have our second audit on IFS broker and IFS logistics. During our initial auditing ,a NC was identified in our haccp analysis plan. I will share it with you and ask the following questions.
1) Is there any guideline on how to set the likelihood and severity of each hazard? For example is the microbiological contamination by high temperatures during the transportation a severity of 3 or 4? Do i need to reason it based on literature? based on HACCP meetings? I am really lost on it
2) The auditor asked me last time to provide a product flow chart (logistics) and a process flow (broker). Do i need to perform a hazard analysis also for the process flow ?
3) Last question regarding my haccp plan is that i decided to use a 5 x 7 matrix of severity x likelihood. Can i define that I only go to the decision tree when there is a high risk and not in middle risk?
Thanks a lot for your time!
Nice to hear from you again. I see that you ultimately had to select an IFS Standard. Two IFS standards in fact. Out of the Frying Pan >>>>>.
Unfortunately, offhand i do not recall any posts comcerning these 2 standards during this year. (I think a few on IFS Food/Packaging only which are rather different texts).
I downloaded the 2 standards referred but due unfamiliarity can only answer 2 of yr queries in a Codex-generic type of way.
(1) Hazard analysis, particularly the likelihood component, is highly subjective except where (a) a PRP controls so risk is low (as you know), (b) the likelihood/severity is well-known from the literature so unless yr case is different, needs to be followed. IMEX the trickiest area is ~ MM, some people rate this as > high, some as > medium (depending on how risk averse you are).
Yr risk matrix (7x5) is very large/intricate (many graded likelihoods/frequencies). I doubt that quant. data exists for some queries ??. I noted yr text should probably state 35, not 25 ?
The division M/H may also relate as to how/if you follow up the medium/high risk categories which may "rationalise" the difference in a practical sense. The choice is yours, if justifiable.
This document compares different matrix "mixes" and their characteristics/uses -
Risk Matrices.pdf 656.2KB
(eg Pg 21 et seq)
(2) No idea. No direct experience Broking/Logistics. I note that both standards specify a hazard analysis.
(3) This is subjective again so IMO it's up to you. Some food hazard analyses put every hazard at every step thru a decision tree whereas others say it should be reserved for those whose asessed risk is "significant", eg "high". You can defend both styles from the literature. Personally i have never used a decision tree at all, only a matrix. Afai can see IFS do not demand the use of a decision tree (IIRC Codex also only "recommend" its use)