Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

High likelihood of failure of antibiotic rapid test kit as control measure

Share this

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

Mazid1989

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 9 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands

Posted 26 January 2023 - 05:28 PM

Hi, I got a technical question after checking someones hazard risk assessment and control measure determination. The person identified antibiotic residue in milk as a chemical hazard, his control measure is, checking the antibiotic residue in milk using rapid test kit for screening. While calculating the score for determining CCP/OPRP, he showed that there is high probability of failure of control measure (Score 3). Cumulatively, it made the total score above the threshold value to determine the CCP

 

Now my question is, in this case, high likelihood of failure means the failure of the test kit to determine the presence of antibiotic residue (Please correct me if I am wrong). Then, how is this CCP being controlled? Does it make any sence really? To me, if his test kit is not reliable enough, how he is controlling that CCP

Honestly, I am bit confused with the term likelihood of failure. Which failure it actually means? I would be happy for the clarification. 



AgaN

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 26 January 2023 - 08:04 PM

Hi, in my opinion, high likelihood of failure relates to controls at the farms not their testing equipment, the testing equipment is there to prevent or minimise the risk of the hazard getting undetected. It looks like their must have had a high number of antibiotics failures within their milk suppliers and therefore concluded the milk intake step(antibiotics testing) a ccp to minimise the risk.



Mazid1989

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 9 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands

Posted 26 January 2023 - 08:28 PM

Hi, in my opinion, high likelihood of failure relates to controls at the farms not their testing equipment, the testing equipment is there to prevent or minimise the risk of the hazard getting undetected. It looks like their must have had a high number of antibiotics failures within their milk suppliers and therefore concluded the milk intake step(antibiotics testing) a ccp to minimise the risk.

Hi AgaN

Thanks for your answer. But, I don't think so, because, the likelihood of occurrence (L) due to failure in farm level is already covered during significance (S x L) determination. Later, the likelihood of failure should relate to the control measure that is in place, and it is required to determine the categorization of control measure (CCP/OPRP). For example, the milk pasteurization is a control measure to kill the pathogenic bacteria and is considered as CCP. In this case, there is possibility of the failure of pasteurization process and it can be determined by monitoring the temperature and time. However, this logic does not go with the above mentioned example of antibiotic residue determination. 



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

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

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

Posted 26 January 2023 - 08:55 PM

Hi AgaN

Thanks for your answer. But, I don't think so, because, the likelihood of occurrence (L) due to failure in farm level is already covered during significance (S x L) determination. Later, the likelihood of failure should relate to the control measure that is in place, and it is required to determine the categorization of control measure (CCP/OPRP). For example, the milk pasteurization is a control measure to kill the pathogenic bacteria and is considered as CCP. In this case, there is possibility of the failure of pasteurization process and it can be determined by monitoring the temperature and time. However, this logic does not go with the above mentioned example of antibiotic residue determination. 

Hi Mazid,

 

Scoring/decision system is not given but do you appreciate that if the control measure has a high probability of failure, this increases the likelihood of control measure being associated with a CCP ?. It's a kind of inverse logic.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 5,444 posts
  • 1507 thanks
1,524
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 26 January 2023 - 08:55 PM

I'd be reaching out to the department who overseas dairy production to fully understand what the controls are

 

No, a rapid test isn't sufficient to measure residue 

 

Here, each lot of incoming milk is sampled at the dairy, in the lab (not rapid tests) before the milk truck empties into the silos. If the lot doesn't pass, it doesn't go to the silo.  

 

Sounds to me like whomever wrote the CCP controls, didn't do the research into the controls that exists ahead of the diary plant

https://www.nzo.nl/w...antibiotics.pdf


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

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

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

Posted 26 January 2023 - 09:03 PM

I'd be reaching out to the department who overseas dairy production to fully understand what the controls are

 

No, a rapid test isn't sufficient to measure residue 

 

Here, each lot of incoming milk is sampled at the dairy, in the lab (not rapid tests) before the milk truck empties into the silos. If the lot doesn't pass, it doesn't go to the silo.  

 

Sounds to me like whomever wrote the CCP controls, didn't do the research into the controls that exists ahead of the diary plant

https://www.nzo.nl/w...antibiotics.pdf

Hi Scampi,

 

I'm sure your procedure is viable however you can also find the OP's  screening routine/control measure (assuming rapid test is in lab) at reception in some textbooks and haccp plans. It's debatable for ISO22000 whether to make it a CCP or PRP though. I'm not sure how fast is "rapid" though. :smile:


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 5,444 posts
  • 1507 thanks
1,524
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 26 January 2023 - 09:08 PM

If the Netherlands have truly reduced the antibiotic use in dairy in the last 10 years, than the likelihood should reflect that----that's where you can get into disputes using historical data alone

 

The antibiotics are not to be on animals that are healthy, and most progressive milking systems would automatically dump the milk from a cow that is currently medicated.  I'm questioning the rationale in the hazard analysis, not the process


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

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

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

Posted 26 January 2023 - 09:16 PM

If the Netherlands have truly reduced the antibiotic use in dairy in the last 10 years, than the likelihood should reflect that----that's where you can get into disputes using historical data alone

 

The antibiotics are not to be on animals that are healthy, and most progressive milking systems would automatically dump the milk from a cow that is currently medicated.  I'm questioning the rationale in the hazard analysis, not the process

Hi Scampi,

 

Maybe it's Regulatory in the  Netherlands. (No idea).


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Mazid1989

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 9 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands

Posted 26 January 2023 - 09:23 PM

Hi Mazid,

 

Scoring/decision system is not given but do you appreciate that if the control measure has a high probability of failure, this increases the likelihood of control measure being associated with a CCP ?. It's a kind of inverse logic.

Hi Charles, thanks for your reply. This is exactly my point. Some people made calculation to categorize the control measure as CCP/OPRP using numbering/scoring system of the criteria that are mentioned in ISO 22000 clause 8.5.2.4.1 a & b. Here, high likelihood of failure of the control measure is considered as score 3 and multiplying it increases the value to account the control measure as CCP. I am posting here the spreadsheet 

https://www.ifsqn.co...&attach_id=3189


Edited by Mazid1989, 26 January 2023 - 09:33 PM.


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

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

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

Posted 26 January 2023 - 09:48 PM

Hi Charles, thanks for your reply. This is exactly my point. Some people made calculation to categorize the control measure as CCP/OPRP using numbering/scoring system of the criteria that are mentioned in ISO 22000 clause 8.5.2.4.1 a & b. Here, high likelihood of failure of the control measure is considered as score 3 and multiplying it increases the value to account the control measure as CCP. I am posting here the spreadsheet 

https://www.ifsqn.co...&attach_id=3189

Hi Mazid,

 

This is the method I previously posted for iso22000-2005.

 

I developed similar scoring system for iso22000-2018 here -

 

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

 

You can see high probability of failure maximises chance of CCP in both excels ??

 

I agree with you that initially the logic seems opposite to commonsense. The idea is that since the control may fail it becomes even more important (aka "critical") to monitor etc as closely as possible which justifies a CCP relative to OPRP, (ie if it never failed, would hardly ever need monitoring or to be designated as a CCP.) (One might argue why would there still be a significant hazard but that's another story).


Edited by Charles.C, 26 January 2023 - 10:13 PM.
edited

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

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

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

Posted 26 January 2023 - 11:54 PM

Hi Mazid,

 

If you prefer a (maybe) simpler option can have a look at the decision table in sheet 2 of the excel in this post -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...ls/#entry192739

 

Above involves less mental stress since it by-passes some of the minutiae of the iso22000 standard however it closely follows a decision tree (Coca-Cola) which afaik was well-recognised for the original iso22000-2005. (Effective differences in this topic in 2018 version are quite marginal except notably the necessity for measurable critical limit/action criteria for OPRP).


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C




Share this

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users