Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

OPRP In ISO 22000:2018


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Reem Abu Alfahem

Reem Abu Alfahem

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Jordan
    Jordan

Posted 24 July 2019 - 12:12 PM

Dear all ,

 

Thanks for your huge efforts ,i have learned a lot from this forum.

 

 

I have a question regarding ISO22000:2018

 

 Could OPRP manage both significant and insignificant Hazards or it's just deal with Significant Hazards?

 

Example : Cans Air blowing is one of our a process steps in powdered milk factory ,this step was designed to remove any physical hazards inside cans before Powdered milk filling process, However our food safety team evaluated the hazard in this process step and found it  insignificant hazard, as the Likelihood of hazard occurrence is possible (3) and the severity is Moderate(3), the risk level is 3*3 =9 

The justification of this result relays on the performance of our tins supplier and our experience.

 

* we use 5*5 Risk matrix  , P * S>12 is considered as significant risk.

 

 

Could you please advise.

 

 

Best Regards  



#2 Raguram Tamilmani

Raguram Tamilmani

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 17 posts
  • 5 thanks
3
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 24 July 2019 - 01:48 PM

Dear Reem,

 

As per ISO 22000 standards the definition for OPRP related to significant food safety hazard. But inside an organization OPRPs can be applied anywhere to increase safety of a food product. In that case action criterion and measurement or observation should be in place for effective control.

 

From your example,

 

List the measurement or observation method at Cans Air blowing step and also check how often you are finding physical hazard, if the physical hazard can be eliminate in the previous steps and you are ensuring that step is efficient. Then you can remove Cans Air blowing step from OPRPs list.



Thanked by 2 Members:

#3 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 16,378 posts
  • 4577 thanks
786
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 24 July 2019 - 02:52 PM

Dear Reem,

 

As per ISO 22000 standards the definition for OPRP related to significant food safety hazard. But inside an organization OPRPs can be applied anywhere to increase safety of a food product. In that case action criterion and measurement or observation should be in place for effective control.

 

From your example,

 

List the measurement or observation method at Cans Air blowing step and also check how often you are finding physical hazard, if the physical hazard can be eliminate in the previous steps and you are ensuring that step is efficient. Then you can remove Cans Air blowing step from OPRPs list.

 

 IMO the terminology OPRP is intended to be implemented with respect to "significant" hazards although a combination of control measures may exist to control a significant individual hazard (see def. 3.30 below). (The definition of OPRP has substantially changed in comparison to the original 2005 version).

 

Quoting the Standard -

 

8.5.2.4.1  Based  on  the  hazard  assessment,  the  organization  shall  select  an  appropriate  control measure or combination of control measures that will be capable of preventing or reducing the identified significant food safety hazards to defined acceptable levels.
The organization shall categorize the selected identified control measure(s) to be managed as OPRP(s) (see 3.30) or at CCPs (see 3.11).

 

 

 

3.30
operational prerequisite programme
OPRP
control measure (3.8) or combination of control measures applied to prevent or reduce a significant food safety hazard (3.40) to an acceptable level (3.1), and where action criterion (3.2) and measurement (3.26) or observation enable effective control of the process (3.36) and/or product (3.37)

 


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 2 Members:

#4 Reem Abu Alfahem

Reem Abu Alfahem

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Jordan
    Jordan

Posted 25 July 2019 - 05:45 AM

Dear Reem,

 

As per ISO 22000 standards the definition for OPRP related to significant food safety hazard. But inside an organization OPRPs can be applied anywhere to increase safety of a food product. In that case action criterion and measurement or observation should be in place for effective control.

 

From your example,

 

List the measurement or observation method at Cans Air blowing step and also check how often you are finding physical hazard, if the physical hazard can be eliminate in the previous steps and you are ensuring that step is efficient. Then you can remove Cans Air blowing step from OPRPs list.

 

 

 

Dear Raguram, 

 

The other control measures that may controlling the physical hazards inside cans are 

1.QC sampling and Inspection when cans shipment received.

2.visual inspection through mirror by production employees.

3. Air blowing step is remove any physical hazards (including Dust) that failed to be detected through QC Sampling and through Mirror visual inspection.

 

According to this sequence we found it as an OPRP, But my concern is we classified it as insignificant hazard so it will not comply with the definition of OPRP  in ISO 22000:2018.

My question: Should we reevaluate the hazard and raise the risk level to significant hazard to be classified as OPRP.



#5 Raguram Tamilmani

Raguram Tamilmani

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 17 posts
  • 5 thanks
3
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 25 July 2019 - 07:22 AM

Dear Reem,

I have understood about your question, please check the below mentioned link i hope you will get an idea about OPRP decision making,
https://www.google.c...-HwZeyE7HJ2u8-4

In your case, the severity of the physical hazard is less but the possibilities are high. Even though qa/qc checks done at receving point, during storage or before production step possibilities of getting contaminated is high due to poor handling, dusty environment or poor storage. Please check for your own desicion.



#6 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 16,378 posts
  • 4577 thanks
786
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 25 July 2019 - 10:48 PM

Dear Raguram, 

 

The other control measures that may controlling the physical hazards inside cans are 

1.QC sampling and Inspection when cans shipment received.

2.visual inspection through mirror by production employees.

3. Air blowing step is remove any physical hazards (including Dust) that failed to be detected through QC Sampling and through Mirror visual inspection.

 

According to this sequence we found it as an OPRP, But my concern is we classified it as insignificant hazard so it will not comply with the definition of OPRP  in ISO 22000:2018.

My question: Should we reevaluate the hazard and raise the risk level to significant hazard to be classified as OPRP.

 

I am not familiar with typical haccp plans for can-based operations but, offhand, the "cleaning" procedure you are describing sounds like it would more logically be handled as a  "Prerequisite program" .


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#7 mahantesh.micro

mahantesh.micro

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 137 posts
  • 71 thanks
17
Good

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangalore- Karnataka (India)
  • Interests:Food Safety Standards, Specification developments, Procedures
    Other interests are- cricket and indoor games

Posted 26 July 2019 - 08:42 AM

Dear Reem,

Significant hazards are managed either by OPRP or CCP. You can add some more control measures such as visual inspection, along with air cleaning. If you have multiple multiple control measures then and there is no history of foreign particles found in the cans, then your probability becomes 1 or 2, in such case Can cleaning can be managed through PRP. 

 

Cleaning of Cans preferably done by using vacuum suction type system instead of air, because if you use air for cleaning, the dust or any foreign particles from the can will be blown out and may fall on other materials or in the product itself.

 

Mahantesh



Thanked by 2 Members:

#8 Jeff Y

Jeff Y

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Singapore
    Singapore

Posted 29 November 2019 - 01:56 AM

I agree with Charles C. We do have a similar air blowing operation on cans and most of the time it's just dust and tiny foreign particles (not choking hazard).

Thus, it is better to put it under part of your pre-requisite program.



Thanked by 1 Member:

#9 carine

carine

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 293 posts
  • 21 thanks
4
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 29 November 2019 - 08:49 AM

Im abit confuse on this, wondering how do you all classify it as Oprp or CCP.? Sometimes people said my filtration process is one of the Oprp , i wondering why?   



#10 She_Tap

She_Tap

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 14 posts
  • 5 thanks
3
Neutral

  • Bolivia
    Bolivia

Posted 29 January 2020 - 07:11 PM

The PCC is like a definition .. "a step in the process", meanwhile the PPRO is a control measure. From this point of view, we cant use a decision tree. 

Best regards. 



#11 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 16,378 posts
  • 4577 thanks
786
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 30 January 2020 - 06:42 AM

Im abit confuse on this, wondering how do you all classify it as Oprp or CCP.? Sometimes people said my filtration process is one of the Oprp , i wondering why?   

 

Bit late.

 

See - this post/thread -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...18/#entry138153


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#12 ahmed mohamed

ahmed mohamed

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 19 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Egypt
    Egypt

Posted 31 January 2020 - 09:38 AM

Dear Reem,

 

As per ISO 22000 standards the definition for OPRP related to significant food safety hazard. But inside an organization OPRPs can be applied anywhere to increase safety of a food product. In that case action criterion and measurement or observation should be in place for effective control.

 

From your example,

 

List the measurement or observation method at Cans Air blowing step and also check how often you are finding physical hazard, if the physical hazard can be eliminate in the previous steps and you are ensuring that step is efficient. Then you can remove Cans Air blowing step from OPRPs list.

Thanks for your huge efforts ,i have learned a lot from this post ...



#13 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 16,378 posts
  • 4577 thanks
786
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 31 January 2020 - 12:41 PM

Dear Reem,

 

As per ISO 22000 standards the definition for OPRP related to significant food safety hazard. But inside an organization OPRPs can be applied anywhere to increase safety of a food product. In that case action criterion and measurement or observation should be in place for effective control.

 

From your example,

 

List the measurement or observation method at Cans Air blowing step and also check how often you are finding physical hazard, if the physical hazard can be eliminate in the previous steps and you are ensuring that step is efficient. Then you can remove Cans Air blowing step from OPRPs list.

 

 

Thanks for your huge efforts ,i have learned a lot from this post ...

 

^^^^^(red) This was maybe a possible interpretation using the flexibly ambiguous definition of OPRP in iso22000-2005.

 

But, IMO, after the removal of the ambiguous portion in iso22000-2018, no longer.

 

The likely forthcoming  change in iso22000-2018 was hinted at in iso22004-2014, eg -

 

significant hazard
biological, chemical or physical hazard, identified through the hazard analysis process, which needs to be controlled at critical control point(s) [CCP(s)], or by operational PRP(s) and/or by combinations
thereof 
Note 1 to entry: Lack of control will lead to a potentially unsafe product. Identified hazards, not assessed as significant, need not be controlled at CCP(s) and/or by operational PRP(s)

 


Edited by Charles.C, 31 January 2020 - 01:04 PM.
addsd

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate