7 replies to this topic

[Cherrypie68]

Hi

I have read many of the posts regarding risk assessment for products and suppliers - but I am looking for a simple scoring system with the justifcation/description of the risk and liklihood for suppliers and products similar to the 1 = unlikely, 2 = likely etc.... 1 = no health impact, 2 = minor health impact. I can't seem to  find anything relating to this and wondered if such a table exists. I have the list of risks to be consisdered such as the below but need the associated scoring system. I'm also getting confused with the overlap as well bewteen VACCP/TACCP and this supplier RA or is it the same?

• Allergen contamination
• Foreign-body contamination
• Microbiological contamination
• Chemical contamination
• Radiological contamination
• Variety or species cross-contamination
• Legal requirements
• Customer requirements
• Geographical origins
• Integrity and claims
• Accuracy of printed packaging

Can anyone help

Thanks in advanced

 

[PQAManager]

I've attached one for CCP Decision.  It might help you.  Matrix.xlsx   11.56KB   54 downloads

[Charles.C]

Hi

I have read many of the posts regarding risk assessment for products and suppliers - but I am looking for a simple scoring system with the justifcation/description of the risk and liklihood for suppliers and products similar to the 1 = unlikely, 2 = likely etc.... 1 = no health impact, 2 = minor health impact. I can't seem to  find anything relating to this and wondered if such a table exists. I have the list of risks to be consisdered such as the below but need the associated scoring system. I'm also getting confused with the overlap as well bewteen VACCP/TACCP and this supplier RA or is it the same?

• Allergen contamination
• Foreign-body contamination
• Microbiological contamination
• Chemical contamination
• Radiological contamination
• Variety or species cross-contamination
• Legal requirements
• Customer requirements
• Geographical origins
• Integrity and claims
• Accuracy of printed packaging

Can anyone help

Thanks in advanced

Hi charlotte,

 

I deduce/assume you are working towards BRC Standard and their, IMO, "dubious" hazard analysis presentation of Codex HACCP. ?

 

I anticipate you are well familiar with matrix examples such as in Post 2. Personally I would not classify the general  implementation of such matrices in hazard analysis as simple.

 

Perhaps you need to rephrase yr OP, eg is there a simple way of performing a hazard analysis so as to be compliant with BRC ?

 

Based on existing threads in this Forum I suggest the general answer is NO although some Products/Processes may involve risk assessments which are a  lot more "simpler" than others.

 

Regardless, if anyone has derived a simple, intelligible, integrated response to cover the list in yr OP to BRC's satisfaction, it would definitley be interesting to see an example.

[M D]

Hi Charlotte,

As I am going through exactly same, thought can share something

For likelihood 

1- near impossible  2 - unlikely 3 - likely ; 4 very likely ; 5 certain - some people like to use % risk, or references to past experience,

 

Severity

1 - Insignificant; 2 - minor 3 - significant 4 - major 5 - lethal  - could include descriptions as vomiting & diarrheal, hospitalization, anaphylaxis etc.  

 

 

I would only use the above for the firs five risks and for the rest define different criteria, for example

 

special legal, customer requirements, claims, branded : non - 0 ; otherwise - 5

 

geographical origins - 1 - direct UK supplier; 2 - EU direct - UK EU through A&B 4 - Direct worldwide 5 - A&B worldwide 

 

for VACCP i'd slide in another section called Food Fraud/vulnerability etc and if you define clearly what it includes, that will be fine.

Not sure about taccp, could be a separate doc, but you could capture outcome in you RA.

[Charles.C]

Hi Charlotte,

As I am going through exactly same, thought can share something

For likelihood 

1- near impossible  2 - unlikely 3 - likely ; 4 very likely ; 5 certain - some people like to use % risk, or references to past experience,

 

Severity

1 - Insignificant; 2 - minor 3 - significant 4 - major 5 - lethal  - could include descriptions as vomiting & diarrheal, hospitalization, anaphylaxis etc.  

 

 

I would only use the above for the firs five risks and for the rest define different criteria, for example

 

special legal, customer requirements, claims, branded : non - 0 ; otherwise - 5

 

geographical origins - 1 - direct UK supplier; 2 - EU direct - UK EU through A&B 4 - Direct worldwide 5 - A&B worldwide 

 

for VACCP i'd slide in another section called Food Fraud/vulnerability etc and if you define clearly what it includes, that will be fine.

Not sure about taccp, could be a separate doc, but you could capture outcome in you RA.

Hi MD,

 

Here is one, IMO, non-simple, half solution -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...al/#entry100194

[M D]

Thanks Charles.

 

side note from me, what I started to force myself(!) to do recently, is to also have the risk detail verbalized somewhere within the RA, otherwise it is just table with numbers and when you ask people why they decide to score it one way or another they often fail to come up with something on the spot, and it helps with decision making how to score it. IMHO

[Charles.C]

Thanks Charles.

 

side note from me, what I started to force myself(!) to do recently, is to also have the risk detail verbalized somewhere within the RA, otherwise it is just table with numbers and when you ask people why they decide to score it one way or another they often fail to come up with something on the spot, and it helps with decision making how to score it. IMHO

Hi MD,

 

Yes, I agree.

One common problem for myself in many haccp-designated risk matrices, eg the one in Post2, is the inclusion of Severity elements such as Product Recall, Customer Complaint. These events can sometimes be totally non-safety related so ambiguous unless the Scope is simultaneously defined which, IMEX, it never is. I would personally avoid such matrices for HACCP purposes although, IIRC, SQF disagree with this viewpoint.

[Cherrypie68]

Thanks all!