27 replies to this topic

[Scampi]

That's a good outcome!  This can fall in nicely with continuous improvements. Things like these become great training tools on the consequences of plans not being followed.

[Charles.C]

Progress is to know that it is a training issue more than likely at the monitoring level and not a real process issue that needs reassessment, Thanks

 

TBH I am amazed but thanks for the feedback.

The CCP monitoring procedure as described in earlier posts of this thread seemed to be one of the most confusingly complicated I have ever encountered.

But if it works OK for you and the auditor, then should not be too far out.

[Philip Jones]

I believe you have fallen into the common trap of making too many controls, particularly inter-related ones (time and temperature), CCP.  They are, in my view operational controls leading to the CCP which relates to adequate cooking, i.e. an Fo, or D value of whatever.  This allows you to decide on the safety of the final product by reference to tables for example, and release product because it is safe.

It is silly if you have a time CCP of 2 mins and a temp CCP of 80 deg for example and you are required to rejuect for CCP failure for a time of 1min 59 seconds but a temperature of 90 degrees, which would clearly be safe.

Challenge your HACCP and your understanding of CCPs. These need to have a truly critical limit, above is safe, below may be unsafe and therefore rejectable.