5 replies to this topic

[Mária]

All risk analyzes reported in the IFS Food Standard must also be documented? There are 30 of them ... :-( On-site assessment and use of common sense, or experience e.g. for the decision where the washbasin should be located or whether the disinfection should be a boot - it is not recognized? Some auditors strongly argue that all risk analysis must also be documented .... but IF Food really states that only about 2-3 analyzes must be documented ... IFS food mentions the possibility of the existence of undocumented procedures, as well as the possibility of undocumented information ... so I do not understand why some auditors do not accept it ..? I have been working in the field of quality and safety for 40 years, but I get the feeling that with this approach the IFS standard becomes an unmanageable bureaucratic colossus that requires the quality manager to just sit on documents and devise and adjust risk analyzes to suit auditors and real problems in the company associated with the solution of quality and safety of products no longer has time ... resp. the more analysis the better the quality and safety of the products? unfortunately - I'm not convinced ....

[Charles.C]

All risk analyzes reported in the IFS Food Standard must also be documented? There are 30 of them ... :-( On-site assessment and use of common sense, or experience e.g. for the decision where the washbasin should be located or whether the disinfection should be a boot - it is not recognized? Some auditors strongly argue that all risk analysis must also be documented .... but IF Food really states that only about 2-3 analyzes must be documented ... IFS food mentions the possibility of the existence of undocumented procedures, as well as the possibility of undocumented information ... so I do not understand why some auditors do not accept it ..? I have been working in the field of quality and safety for 40 years, but I get the feeling that with this approach the IFS standard becomes an unmanageable bureaucratic colossus that requires the quality manager to just sit on documents and devise and adjust risk analyzes to suit auditors and real problems in the company associated with the solution of quality and safety of products no longer has time ... resp. the more analysis the better the quality and safety of the products? unfortunately - I'm not convinced ....

Hi Maria,

 

By assuming the encyclopedia of hygienic activities et al are within a grand GMP of PRPs and demonstrating their effectiveness, one may claim the related risks  are negligible. Thanks to ISO and friends.

[Mária]

But unfortunately several auditors do not want to recognize such sentences as analysis, I also use it ..

But it is not enough for them ... they want a complete analysis of the type: probability of occurrence of hazard  x severity of  hazard = risk , e.g. 3 x 3 = 9 high level of  risk, etc. ...:-(

[Charles.C]

But unfortunately several auditors do not want to recognize such sentences as analysis, I also use it ..

But it is not enough for them ... they want a complete analysis of the type: probability of occurrence of hazard  x severity of  hazard = risk , e.g. 3 x 3 = 9 high level of  risk, etc. ...:-(

Hi Maria,

 

I suggest to give the "difficult" auditors a reference to John Lydgate -

 

<<< You can please some of the people all of the time ........... >>>>

 

At the same time this Bayesian-type, Risk Matrix Procedure should be applicable to any hygiene-related activity and many others -

 

 Generic hygienic risk assessment.pdf   25.11KB   88 downloads

[YanislavValev]

Hi Maria,

 

Bellow is the deffinition of "Risk assessment" from the IFS Food v. 7 standard (page 131, ANNEX 12: Glossary)

 

Risk assessment = The documented information of the process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation to determine control measures.

 

As you can see, by definition risk assessments have to be documented.

I agree some topics are quite obvious and documented risk assessment may seem a bit too far, however these are the rules.

 

Also, as an active IFS auditor, I can tell you that during the IFS trainings we participate in every 2 years, there are many examples when deviations and critical non-conformities are raised by the IFS Integrity auditors for risk assessments not being availbale (for both compnaies - for seen issues, and auditors - for not picking up missing documented infromation).

With version 7 of the standard there are many more compulsory fields to be completed in the report that specifically require name, version and date of seen documented risk assessments.

 

That's why some auditors are "difficult" on this matter. 

I know this is frustraiting but it is what it is.

[Charles.C]

 

Hi Maria,

 

Bellow is the deffinition of "Risk assessment" from the IFS Food v. 7 standard (page 131, ANNEX 12: Glossary)

 

Risk assessment = The documented information of the process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation to determine control measures.

 

As you can see, by definition risk assessments have to be documented.

I agree some topics are quite obvious and documented risk assessment may seem a bit too far, however these are the rules.

 

Also, as an active IFS auditor, I can tell you that during the IFS trainings we participate in every 2 years, there are many examples when deviations and critical non-conformities are raised by the IFS Integrity auditors for risk assessments not being availbale (for both compnaies - for seen issues, and auditors - for not picking up missing documented infromation).

With version 7 of the standard there are many more compulsory fields to be completed in the report that specifically require name, version and date of seen documented risk assessments.

 

That's why some auditors are "difficult" on this matter. 

I know this is frustraiting but it is what it is.

 

Hi Yanislav,

 

Thks your input.

 

IFS not my area of expertise but I deduced that Maria was commenting more on the extent of IFS auditors' expected details  (eg Likelihood x Severity = R) associated with the "documentation" as much as the Principle itself.

 

afaik, BRC initiated/promoted the tendency among GFSI-recognised FS Schemes to link GMP Control Measures with a (documented) Risk Assessment (RA) but without stipulating the method to be used for the RA. The latter was soon evidenced auditorially as being interpreted in a  widely "flexible" manner.

 

IF the IFS Standard specifies individual LS-type documentations even down to PRP-levels (?) that would be simply overkill IMO and contrary to basic HACCP Principles, ie GMP Prerequisites need to be implemented prior to HACCP Hazard Analyses (by definition ?).

(I am equally critical of BRC's IMO overblown fascination with RAs, eg Validation of PRPs, which is very much their own HACCP invention afaik).

 

PS - As I recall ISO9000 fell into a "documentation trap" where the Quality of the submitted Operational Manual was  assessable  by its Weight.