Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Carcass temperature measurement from OPRP to PRP


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

#1 MVPV

MVPV

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 9 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Finland
    Finland

Posted 11 September 2019 - 05:25 AM

Hi,

 

carcass temperature has been determinated as OPRP in our process.

I have made a conclusion it should be detemined as PRP because carcass is cutted to parts and temperature is measured again. Time between measurements is about 60 seconds.

 

Between carcass temperature measurements and next measurements it is impossible hazard to increase to unacceptable level.

 

My question is: can temparature measurement determined as PRP not OPRP?



#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 15,711 posts
  • 4319 thanks
705
Excellent

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

Posted 11 September 2019 - 01:57 PM

Hi,

 

carcass temperature has been determinated as OPRP in our process.

I have made a conclusion it should be detemined as PRP because carcass is cutted to parts and temperature is measured again. Time between measurements is about 60 seconds.

 

Between carcass temperature measurements and next measurements it is impossible hazard to increase to unacceptable level.

 

My question is: can temparature measurement determined as PRP not OPRP?

 

I assume this is related to iso22000.

 

i suggest to  -

 

(a) determine if the hazard is controlled by a PRP, the latter being previously selected via 8.2.4 (or iso22002-1).

(b) If the answer to (a) is yes, the control measure will be a PRP (8.5.2.3). >>> STOP/Go to next process step.

(c) If the answer to (a) is No then apply 8.5.2.3 to determine if hazard is significant.

(d) if the answer to (c) is No, then there is no requirement for a control measure associated with an OPRP or CCP >>>STOP/Go to next process step.

(e) If the answer to (c) is Yes, the appropriate control measure will be either an OPRP or CCP as determined by 8.5.2.4

 

The process step seems to be post-reception of raw material. So unlikely to be controlled by a PRP.

 

I presume the (temperature-related) hazard in the step you refer in OP is microbial (pathogen) growth.

 

I assume the local temperature is not unusually high.

 

As per yr OP, 60secs seems unlikely to generate a significant microbial change.

 

So the hazard appears likely to be not significant.

 

So the above logic chain stops at (d).


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#3 MVPV

MVPV

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 9 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Finland
    Finland

Posted 11 September 2019 - 08:15 PM

Thanks Charles!

You guess correct it's related to ISO 22 000 and hazard is microbial growth.

 

It's a good point that hazard could be identified as not significant and there is clear explanation for that. How I explain to auditor that we have re-evaluated the significance?

 

If I want keep it significant like it was, I will explain it like this: In our decision tree question number 3 says:

a subsequent step eliminate the identified hazard or hazards or reduce the likely occurrence to an acceptable level? If answer is no, then this step is a OPRP/CCP. But when subsequent step (raw material temperature, OPRP) is 60 seconds after, then answer is yes and step is PRP. So there was clear mistake how we have read our decision tree before and if we read it now correctly answer is yes and temperature measurement at this point should be PRP.

 

How you like this explanation and which way is better to explain change from OPRP to PRP?



#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 15,711 posts
  • 4319 thanks
705
Excellent

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

Posted 12 September 2019 - 03:23 AM

Thanks Charles!

You guess correct it's related to ISO 22 000 and hazard is microbial growth.

 

It's a good point that hazard could be identified as not significant and there is clear explanation for that. How I explain to auditor that we have re-evaluated the significance?

 

If I want keep it significant like it was, I will explain it like this: In our decision tree question number 3 says:

a subsequent step eliminate the identified hazard or hazards or reduce the likely occurrence to an acceptable level? If answer is no, then this step is a OPRP/CCP. But when subsequent step (raw material temperature, OPRP) is 60 seconds after, then answer is yes and step is PRP. So there was clear mistake how we have read our decision tree before and if we read it now correctly answer is yes and temperature measurement at this point should be PRP.

 

How you like this explanation and which way is better to explain change from OPRP to PRP?

 

Hi MVPV,

 

TBH the general topic of determining OPRPs/CCPs in iso22000 has generated an Encyclopedia of threads on this Forum.

 

A method for determining "significant hazards" is spelled out in the Standard. Version 2018 has increased the focus on this aspect compared to 2005 version.

The way I did it for 2005 version is illustrated in the "model" excel here -

http://www.ifsqn.com...ge-7#entry50651

 

How I explain to auditor that we have re-evaluated the significance?

It's easy, can just issue a "revision".

 

Sorry but I find yr PRP analysis confusing.  I doubt that an auditor will consider this step to cause a significant microbial hazard. (metal contamination, maybe yes :smile: )

 

I don't know the details of yr decision tree (there are many,many acceptable variations) so difficult to comment much.

 

I suggest you have a look at the Coca-Cola decision tree (+ my caveat [ii]) in this post -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...18/#entry138212


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate