8 replies to this topic

[CLEMENT GRIFFITHS]

The file link  is here file:///C:/Users/clement/Documents/How%20Food%20Companies%20Can%20Modify%20Their%20Existing%20HACCP%20Plans%20into%20an%20All-Encompassing%20Food%20Safety%20Plan%20-%20Food%20Safety%20Magazine.html

 

The idea is to calculate a 

risk level for physical hazards so that a control measure ( PRP, oPRP or CCP) can be assigned. The matrix has values running from 1-48 and my task is to figure out how these values were derived.

 

The reference is saying that Risk level = Severity Rating × Size Rating × Likelihood/Probability

 

Has anyone seen this article and can show how a value of 1-48 is calculated?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Charles.C]

Hi Clement,
 
Please supply a meaningful link.
 
Or, even easier, upload the file.

[pHruit]

Hi Clement,
You've copied the address for what looks like the shortcut on your desktop to the webpage article you downloaded - from the filename I presume this is what you'd meant to share: https://www.foodsafe...od-safety-plan/

 

From a quick read, it looks like you calculate the value using the categories shown about 2/3 of the way down the page. They haven't actually listed the numerical scores next to the categorisations, but these make sense if you just assign values of 1 for the 1st in the list, 2 for the 2nd in the list etc.
E.g.

A piece of metal that is 3cm across and could be expected to occur around every two months would be assessed as:

Severity - Metal piece = major . Scores 3.

Size rating - 3cm size = choke hazard (between 2cm and 4.5cm). Scores 4.

Likelihood - Every two months = potential (between 1 and 6 months). Scores 3.

Total risk level = 3x4x3 = 36, i.e. significant critical risk. Which is pretty much as you'd expect - 3cm pieces of metal in your food every 8-9 weeks is not good!

 

 

 

[Charles.C]

The risk formula is a variation of FMEA risk priority number.

 

IMHO -

 

(1) the decision tree is mainly good, albeit based on iso22000/2005, but has some illogical semantics.

(2) the size risk logic is flawed.

(3) i suggest to anyway stay as far away as possible from any system including  oprp.

(4) the cell values, including 48, are probably based on qualitative guesswork, not dissimilar to most other risk matrices.

[CLEMENT GRIFFITHS]

Thanks for the collective feedback. Regarding oPRPs I audited for 3 years and was surprised at how many sites had difficulty accepting this idea. Traditional HACCP with CCPs and PRPs is simply too limited; in fact, FSMA is not a bad idea because for years most of the industry has taken credit for the assumed mitigating effects of GMPs and PRPs without actually doing much to assure implementation effectiveness. We need a control measure to bridge the gap between a PRP and a CCP.

 

Thanks again

[Scampi]

I'm not really sure that this would cover anything that a really good HA would.....seems like a lot of extra steps.....

[Charles.C]

Thanks for the collective feedback. Regarding oPRPs I audited for 3 years and was surprised at how many sites had difficulty accepting this idea. Traditional HACCP with CCPs and PRPs is simply too limited; in fact, FSMA is not a bad idea because for years most of the industry has taken credit for the assumed mitigating effects of GMPs and PRPs without actually doing much to assure implementation effectiveness. We need a control measure to bridge the gap between a PRP and a CCP.

 

Thanks again

 

Hi Clement,

 

Re - oprp, I'm not surprised at all. Even its originators argued over its intended function.

 

The latest version of iso22000 effectively concedes that the original definition was mystically incomprehensible. It is now associated with a more iso22004-type explanation although the final designation remains equally subjective.

 

afaik FSMA does not (officially) use it at all, one of the few good aspects of this, IMO, convoluted project.

 

oprp = PRP = CP = "CCP" = ??, the story has no end in sight.

[Zeeshan]

The risk formula is a variation of FMEA risk priority number.

 

IMHO -

 

(1) the decision tree is mainly good, albeit based on iso22000/2005, but has some illogical semantics.

(2) the size risk logic is flawed.

(3) i suggest to anyway stay as far away as possible from any system including  oprp.

(4) the cell values, including 48, are probably based on qualitative guesswork, not dissimilar to most other risk matrices.

 

Hi Clement,

 

Re - oprp, I'm not surprised at all. Even its originators argued over its intended function.

 

The latest version of iso22000 effectively concedes that the original definition was mystically incomprehensible. It is now associated with a more iso22004-type explanation although the final designation remains equally subjective.

 

afaik FSMA does not (officially) use it at all, one of the few good aspects of this, IMO, convoluted project.

 

oprp = PRP = CP = "CCP" = ??, the story has no end in sight.

What will be the solution to this??? If we have to use ISO 22000 mechanism, how would we be relieved from all these confusions especially OPRP concept?

[Charles.C]

What will be the solution to this??? If we have to use ISO 22000 mechanism, how would we be relieved from all these confusions especially OPRP concept?

 

Hi Zeeshan,

 

afaik unfortunately only one option so, based on above, I'm afraid you are stuck.