Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Hazard Assessment Methodology as per ISO 22000:2018

Share this

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic
* * * * * 1 votes

Hitaishee Singh

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 12 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 03 June 2020 - 08:17 AM

Hi,

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

Please share.



Lucas H

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 51 posts
  • 10 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Food safety, risk communication,food science, automatization of information flow

Posted 03 June 2020 - 06:51 PM

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

 

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



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 04 June 2020 - 12:27 AM

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 ?


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Hitaishee Singh

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 12 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 04 June 2020 - 05:05 AM

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?

 

 

 

 

 



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 04 June 2020 - 02:25 PM

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.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

Hitaishee Singh

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 12 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 05 June 2020 - 11:08 AM

Please criticize my approach for categorizing CCP and OPRP.  

Attached Files



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 05 June 2020 - 12:41 PM

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:


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C




Share this

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users