Need help and advise in this decision tree for ISO 22000:2018

Hello everyone,

It is my first time posting, I would really appreciate some advice on this version of decision tree for CCP & OPRP determination:

It was edited from the decision tree for process step from my country's national HACCP standard (based on / adopted from Codex)

The reason we attempted this edit is to incorporate and consider the changes from ISO 22000:2018 especially on deciding the OPRP part.

Capture1.JPG   62.52KB   17 downloads

Weaknesses:

1. At the part where I indicate with a green box, it is still unclear if the step will end up as CCP / OPRP (still up to the food safety team to decide),

2. I have always been following this statement: if a significant hazard is not controlled as a CCP then it will be controlled as an OPRP.

For reference, here is the original decision tree:

Capture2.JPG   54.33KB   17 downloads

Thank you very much!

Kee Kee

Hello everyone,

 

It is my first time posting, I would really appreciate some advice on this version of decision tree for CCP & OPRP determination:

It was edited from the decision tree for process step from my country's national HACCP standard (based on / adopted from Codex)

The reason we attempted this edit is to incorporate and consider the changes from ISO 22000:2018 especially on deciding the OPRP part.

 

Capture1.JPG

 

Weaknesses:

1. At the part where I indicate with a green box, it is still unclear if the step will end up as CCP / OPRP (still up to the food safety team to decide),

(since in ISO 22000:2018, while CCP must be measureable, OPRP can be measurable or observable).

Does anyone has any idea how to improve this part?

 

2. I have always been following this statement: if a significant hazard is not controlled as a CCP then it will be controlled as an OPRP.

Do you think this decision tree is clear in demonstrating this?

Hoping to have the decision tree to continue supporting this statement and not to deviate from this

But if there is other better / clearer methods are always welcome.

 

For reference, here is the original decision tree:

 

Capture2.JPG

 

 

Thank you very much!

 

Kee Kee

Hi gkk,

IMO the original Codex Tree was/is not very suitable for modification to be appropriate for iso22000.

I suggest you have a look at some of the trees which were specifically targeted/published for iso22000, eg -

https://www.ifsqn.co...ion/#entry34239

There is a thread(s) here specifically oriented to OPRP/CCP decision for iso22000 (2018) also, eg -

https://www.ifsqn.co...18/#entry136663

Hi gkk,

 

IMO the original Codex Tree was/is not very suitable for modification to be appropriate for iso22000.

 

I suggest you have a look at some of the trees which were specifically targeted/published for iso22000, eg -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...ion/#entry34239

 

There is a thread(s) here specifically oriented to OPRP/CCP decision for iso22000 (2018) also, eg -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...18/#entry136663

Thank you very much Charles, I see that you have put in the link now for the 2018 part, I really appreciate that. I was reading that thread started by Lyon since yesterday (and continuing now) and getting a bit drowned in it already...will see how I survive (unfortunately my technical knowledge in this is not good so trying to figure things and not get lost (though that is pretty much the case most of the time)

Thanks again.

Thank you very much Charles, I see that you have put in the link now for the 2018 part, I really appreciate that. I was reading that thread started by Lyon since yesterday (and continuing now) and getting a bit drowned in it already...will see how I survive (unfortunately my technical knowledge in this is not good so trying to figure things and not get lost (though that is pretty much the case most of the time)

Thanks again.

Hi gkk,

I agree that it's heavy going, even more so for the 2018 version IMO.

I don't personally much like any of the trees which are in the Literature, particularly for non-simple situations, but the alternatives to trees tend to have other disadvantages also.

Based on numerous posts in this forum over the years, most auditors seem happy to accept any "plausible-looking" method if the output results match their own experience/expectations. Some presentations have different yes/no interpretations for some less "mainline" factors, eg synergy effects, but auditors mainly seem to disregard such variations.

Personally, for iso22000:2005 I think the CocaCola offering is probably the most (relatively recent), published, user-friendly tool that I have seen in English Language (although Procert's older [2005] scheme is probably the simplest to implement). I prefer to  make 2-3 minor textual changes to CocaCola version.  I anticipate most, probably all, auditors will accept this method. 

For iso22000:2018, as I noted in link, it seemed to me that the CocaCola method should also be fairly easy to modify for compatibility. The scoring method(s) in link should also be acceptable IMO but  will likely require more effort to implement.

Other users may have different preferences of course. Horses for Courses. :smile:

Hi gkk,

 

I agree that it's heavy going, even more so for the 2018 version IMO.

 

I don't personally much like any of the trees which are in the Literature, particularly for non-simple situations, but the alternatives to trees tend to have other disadvantages also.

 

Based on numerous posts in this forum over the years, most auditors seem happy to accept any "plausible-looking" method if the output results match their own experience/expectations. Some presentations have different yes/no interpretations for some less "mainline" factors, eg synergy effects, but auditors mainly seem to disregard such variations.

 

Personally, for iso22000:2005 I think the CocaCola offering is probably the most (relatively recent), published, user-friendly tool that I have seen in English Language (although Procert's older [2005] scheme is probably the simplest to implement). I prefer to  make 2-3 minor textual changes to CocaCola version.  I anticipate most, probably all, auditors will accept this method. 

 

For iso22000:2018, as I noted in link, it seemed to me that the CocaCola method should also be fairly easy to modify for compatibility. The scoring method(s) in link should also be acceptable IMO but  will likely require more effort to implement.

 

Other users may have different preferences of course. Horses for Courses. :smile"

Thank you so much Charles for pointing out to me the Coca-Cola and Procert decision tree, and yes I was reading your comments in the other thread and taking note of where you commented and also about the textual changes. I really appreciate this.

Dear GKK,

Critical limits for the CCP and action criteria for OPRP.

As per ISO 22000, Critical limits shall be measurable and action criteria shall either be measurable or observable.

In the 4th question itself we will decide whether significant hazard is managed by CCP or OPRP. As it says, if any subsequent step prevents or reduce the hazard to acceptable level, then the hazard is managed by OPRP. This OPRP either measurable or observable.

IMO the question in red in the attached decision tree is not required. If the answer for the 4th question is no then it shall be managed by CCP and critical limits shall be measurable.

Regards

Mahantesh

Dear GKK,

 

Critical limits for the CCP and action criteria for OPRP.

 

As per ISO 22000, Critical limits shall be measurable and action criteria shall either be measurable or observable.

 

In the 4th question itself we will decide whether significant hazard is managed by CCP or OPRP. As it says, if any subsequent step prevents or reduce the hazard to acceptable level, then the hazard is managed by OPRP. This OPRP either measurable or observable.

 

IMO the question in red in the attached decision tree is not required. If the answer for the 4th question is no then it shall be managed by CCP and critical limits shall be measurable.

 

Regards

Mahantesh

Dear Mahantesh, 

Thanks for your comment, yes, I see your point here.

The Standard explicitly requires consideration of 8 specific items (ie in 8.5.2.4.1,xxx .4..2)

At least half of them seem to be absent in the tree attached in OP.

However, it is also a fact that related omissions also occurred in some published trees for the 2005 version and the former were often disregarded in subsequent audits (some implicit support for this approach was included in iso22004).

Currently the minimal content required for  auditorial compliance with iso22000:2018 is uncertain. Accordingly it seems prudent to address as many of the Standard's explicit  requirements as possible. I anticipate that some flexibility will shortly be evident.

Food safety is the top most priority for the Organization who is in Food and feed Industry. ISO 22000 enables Organizations to put in place all the safety measures/System that help them to improvise overall performance. URS India offers ISO 22000 Certification in all cities, India.