Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Are all biological hazards considered castatrophic in terms of severity?

Share this

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

brerhein

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 8 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 28 June 2023 - 03:46 PM

Hello- I am updating my companies HACCP plans for fresh produce, consumed raw.

 

We recently updated our hazard matrix to include 5 severity levels:

Severity 
1. Negligible – Does not meet internal food safety and quality standards
2. Minor – Does not meet internal food safety and quality standard upper/lower thresholds
3. Moderate – Does not meet regulatory requirements, but not likely to cause adverse health consequences 
4. Major – Temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences 
5. Catastrophic – Serious adverse health consequences or death to consumer
 
 
In terms of biological hazards on our HACCP plans, examples: contamination from improper handling from an employee, contamination from irrigation water, contamination from biological plant products, etc.
 
For severity, would the results always be catastrophic when worried about ecoli, listeria, salmonella as pathogenic organisms?
 
Or could some biological hazards be classfied as major?
 
Thanks


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5665 thanks
1,546
Excellent

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

Posted 28 June 2023 - 04:16 PM

 

Hello- I am updating my companies HACCP plans for fresh produce, consumed raw.

 

We recently updated our hazard matrix to include 5 severity levels:

Severity 
1. Negligible – Does not meet internal food safety and quality standards
2. Minor – Does not meet internal food safety and quality standard upper/lower thresholds
3. Moderate – Does not meet regulatory requirements, but not likely to cause adverse health consequences 
4. Major – Temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences 
5. Catastrophic – Serious adverse health consequences or death to consumer
 
 
In terms of biological hazards on our HACCP plans, examples: contamination from improper handling from an employee, contamination from irrigation water, contamination from biological plant products, etc.
 
For severity, would the results always be catastrophic when worried about ecoli, listeria, salmonella as pathogenic organisms?
 
Or could some biological hazards be classfied as major?
 
Thanks

 

Hi brerhein,

 

Frankly, IMHO, some of your set of criteria are ambiguous / not very suitable to be used for a haccp risk matrix,. For example, haccp is safety prioritised so you might consider deleting all occurrences of "Quality".

 

Please note that -

(1) Listeria spp is not categorized as a biological hazard

(2) (generic) E.coli is not categorized as a biological hazard

(3) Salmonella spp is regarded as a biological hazard.

 

In previous times,  qualitative separations of the severity of various microbial pathogens was implemented but afaik, nowadays, their severity is typically, uniformly, regarded as "High" or perhaps Very High" depending on yr specific matrix format. IMEX the terminology "Catastrophic" is seldom used as a specific category.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


brerhein

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 8 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 28 June 2023 - 04:23 PM

Hi brerhein,

 

Frankly, IMHO, some of your set of criteria are not very suitable to be used for a haccp risk matrix,. For example, haccp is safety prioritised so you might consider deleting all occurrences of "Quality".

is

Please note that -

(1) Listeria spp is not categorized as a biological hazard

(2) (generic) E.coli is not categorized as a biological hazard

(3) Salmonella spp is regarded as a biological hazard.

 

In previous times,  qualitative separations of the severity of various microbial pathogens was implemented but afaik, nowadays, their severity is typically, uniformly, regarded as "High" or perhaps Very High" depending on yr specific matrix format

Thank you for replying! I will definitely remove the quality wording, good catch thank you!

 

Is the biological hazards listed above set from FDA?



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5665 thanks
1,546
Excellent

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

Posted 28 June 2023 - 04:38 PM

Thank you for replying! I will definitely remove the quality wording, good catch thank you!

 

Is the biological hazards listed above set from FDA?

Afaik, items (1),(3) are ubiquitously adopted in microbiological textbooks. Item (2) IIRC is defined, for example, in the Canadian regulatory Standards but in practice is often inferred by the terminology "E.coli" which is obviously ambiguous inasmuch as the relevant HACCP species are such as E.coli O157:H7, etc

 

No idea whether FDA publishes an official terminology list, sorry, For pathogens you could refer to their well-known Draft Guidance Appendix which is atttached  in numerous posts on this Forum.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


kfromNE

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,071 posts
  • 294 thanks
316
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bicycling, reading, nutrition, trivia

Posted 28 June 2023 - 05:08 PM

Thank you for replying! I will definitely remove the quality wording, good catch thank you!

 

Is the biological hazards listed above set from FDA?

 

Biological hazards are set for many ingredients. Appendix 1 of the FSMA document has different hazards associated foods. 

Also another website that may be of help to you: https://www.fda.gov/...-produce-safety



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5665 thanks
1,546
Excellent

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

Posted 28 June 2023 - 05:21 PM

JFI, FDA seem to define generic E.coli via Procedure, eg -

 

Attached File  FSMA-Ecoli-Testing-in-Agri-Water.pdf   139.69KB   6 downloads

 

This basically equates to the distinction as mentioned in (2) of Post 2.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C




Share this


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users