Hazard Assessment Methodology as per ISO 22000:2018

Hi,

Anyone having Hazard Assessment Methodology as per ISO 22000:2018?

Please share.

There is a free course available on that, I hope it will be helpfull

https://www.ifsqn.co...-220002018-r215

Hi,

Anyone having Hazard Assessment Methodology as per ISO 22000:2018?

Please share.

Can you clarify what you are seeking ?

Do you mean hazard assessment as required for clause 8.5.2.3 ?

If so this is typically a risk assessment based on a risk matrix for which there are probably hundreds of examples on this Forum.

Or are you referring to the selection of OPRP/CCP ?

Or ?

Yes, the selection of OPRP/CCP. Previously we were selecting CCP/OPRP on below 7 questions.

            - Effect on identified food safety hazard (A)

            - Feasibility   / Frequency of Monitoring (B)

            - Place within the system ©

            - Likelihood of failure (D)

            - Severity in case of failure (E) 

            - Is measure specifically designed? (F)

            - Synergistic effects (G)

Now, do we need to change the approach as per ISO 22000:2018 version?

Yes, the selection of OPRP/CCP. Previously we were selecting CCP/OPRP on below 7 questions.

 

            - Effect on identified food safety hazard (A)

            - Feasibility   / Frequency of Monitoring (B)

            - Place within the system ©

            - Likelihood of failure (D)

            - Severity in case of failure (E) 

            - Is measure specifically designed? (F)

            - Synergistic effects (G)

 

Now, do we need to change the approach as per ISO 22000:2018 version?

Yes inasmuch as some of the questions have changed.

One approach here -

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

Also see Post 24 same thread.

Please criticize my approach for categorizing CCP and OPRP.  

Please criticize my approach for categorizing CCP and OPRP.  

Hi Hitaishee,

I deduce you have attempted to simplify the Table linked in Post 5.

A few comments IMO  - 

(1) 2 options as used conceptually/quantitatively sometimes inadequate, eg scoring can become too compressed / option is not black/white.

(2) "Satisfactory" is sometimes a debatable word choice.

(3) "Justification" is redundant. The scoring /  final decision is unarguably subjective. An earlier iso comment is that the specific number of CCPs/OPRPs is not important as long as the hazard is satisfactorily "controlled".

(4) PRP "scoring" is redundant. Prerequisite is a self-defining terminology.

A possibly less subjective approach would be to finalize the suggestions in post 24 (see post 5 above) since the "base" methodology is already well established.

Note that above are just my opinions, auditors may not agree / have no criticisms at all. :smile: