10 months since published: how is ISO 22000 doing?

ISO 22000 was published in November 2005 and has now had a good few months (10) to begin to establish itself as a credible standard. I know there are many members on the forums who are involved with ISO 22000, especially Certification Bodies, Consultants and Auditors and I thought it would be interesting at this point to review how the new standard is doing in various countries and sectors of the food industy.

Is the standard doing better or worse than expected and for what reasons, anything especially interesting or exciting or problem areas? What's your prognosis? Please comment.

Cheers,
Simon

Dear Simon,

No doubt I22k using professionals will shortly drop in however if I may illustrate the worldwide appreciation of this standard, I just saw this genuine interchange on a top site elsewhere -

Q - Help me to distingush PRPs and operational PRPs? How to establish PRPs in my factory?

A - Are you refering to your Progressive Rework Program or Performance Related Pay?

Rgds / Charles.C

No doubt I22k using professionals will shortly drop in...

Well I hope so Charles, but in the meantime.

however if I may illustrate the worldwide appreciation of this standard. I just saw this genuine interchange on a top site elsewhere -

Q - Help me to distingush PRPs and operational PRPs? How to establish PRPs in my factory?

A - Are you refering to your Progressive Rework Program or Performance Related Pay?

I know exactly where you mean. That's what happens when you go to the wrong place - slightly off quack:

A duck walks into a grocery store and asks the man at the counter if they have any grapes. The man replies with a no. The next day the duck walks into the same grocery store and asks the same man the same question. "NO! And if you ask me again I'll staple your feet to the floor", he answered. So the next day the duck walks into the same grocery store and walks up to the man and asks, 'Do you have any staples?" The man replied no. "Well in that case, you got any grapes?"

Dear Simon,



You've given me the excuse. I found a couple of nice hygiene jokes yesterday however one was very slightly risque so I backed off posting the pair however I can now add the other one.

ONE day while living in Sheffield, England, I walked my dog Sheba to the local fish-and-chips shop to buy dinner. I noticed a sign outside the shop saying NO DOGS ALLOWED. As I was tying Sheba to a nearby post the saleswoman shouted that it was all right to bring my dog inside. I pointed to the sign, and she answered, "That's all right, love, that's just for dogs on their own!"

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear All,

Felt a bit guilty over demeaning an important thread so although not a user of I22k, I borrowed a closing line from Charlorne's post in a parallel thread, namely -

'Cheers .. as you likely noticed .. I like to keep it "Simple"'

Not quite sure if this was ironic however I totally agree regarding the objective of keeping it 'Simple'.

It's slightly off-topic but I would add that it would also IMO be nice to see demonstrated that an implemented FS system has actually achieved safer food. (I accept there is a value in conceptual things, eg HACCP has driven people away fron end testing and codified ways of thinking about FS but where are the operational numbers ?)

For many people I believe 'simple' translates to 'content presented in an easily understood way'. The 'easily validatable > implementable > monitorable > verifiable etc' are a necessary postquel.
IMO HACCP, with a very few exceptions, has not yet passed the 'simple' requirement and I haven't seen anything specific about the second item above (the current US project on meat processing will possibly be one example).

Getting back onto 'simple', I browsed through some ISO22k threads and picked some examples -

'I agree with you, I was trying to give a simple example, I guess nothing is simple with Food safety. (JG)

Thats probably the reason why we find dealing with food safety so exciting because of its dynamic nature. Different angle of opinions can prevail and really, there is no single correct answer to every thing in FSMS. All that is really needed is proof of control evidence.............and that, means everyone may be corect in their own rights! (CC)

ISO22000 = the 8 principles of qms + the 12 steps of codex (HACCP) + PRPs + OPRPs + customer requirements + regulatory requirements + religious requirements (if this applied) + data validation + data verification + system review + re-validation + improvement + updating + ++ etc etc. (WA)

My approach to ISO 22000 is Quality Management Achievement + Process Achievement + Product Achievement + Facility Design Achievment + Data Verification + Data Validation + Input Review + System Upgrade Review / Updating ++++ = Composite Food Safety Management System.
The above is a composition of many combined FS resources and measures but are not shown in details however each core FS component has its own FS sub-components which will often work in unison. (CC)

Maybe you know, I wrote a booklet about 22K. there we have a statement from a german auditor who is leading in training and decision groups in germany. He said it will be very much easier to audit instead of IFS or BRC because 22K looks for the effects of all measures together and it is not important whether you define a measure PRP OPRP or something else. The most important is validation! If you can show effectiveness, I think you will not have a problem! (WI)

Simply implementing a new standard like ISO22k does not make products safer, only people can make safer products.
I choose to stay with a standard that is fully understood by my people and educate them in adding new elements to the management system. These elements can come from new standards like ISO22k, legislation, experiences elsewhere, or anything else. (OK)

PRP - related to the infrastructure (inculding human resources) and maintenance programes.

oPRP - Implemented to specifically control and monitor the potential biological, chemical and physical hazards (personnel hygiene, sanitation, disinfection). (JG)

The PRP's are not selected for the purpose of controlling a specific identified hazard, but for the purpose of maintaining a general hygienic production, processing and handling environment and may still have an effect on the end product safety if not included in the food safety system.

Operational prerequisites are those that are in place to directly manage or control measures that the hazard analysis has identified as necessary to control to acceptable levels and are not otherwise management by the HACCP plan. (CL)'

It seems to me 22k has a long way to go to get near 'simple' . It's unreasonable to expect FS evidence as yet I guess.

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear All,

Felt a bit guilty over demeaning an important thread so although not a user of I22k, I borrowed a closing line from Charlorne's post in a parallel thread, namely -

"Cheers .. as you likely noticed .. I like to keep it "Simple""

Not quite sure if this was ironic however I totally agree regarding the objective of keeping it "Simple".

It's slightly off-topic but I would add that it would also IMO be nice to see demonstrated that an implemented FS system has actually achieved safer food. (I accept there is a value in conceptual things, eg HACCP has driven people away fron end testing and codified ways of thinking about FS but where are the operational numbers ?)

For many people I believe "simple" translates to "content presented in an easily understood way". The "easily validatable > implementable > monitorable > verifiable etc" are a necessary postquel.
IMO HACCP, with a very few exceptions, has not yet passed the "simple' requirement and I haven't seen anything specific about the second item above (the current US project on meat processing will possibly be one example).

Getting back onto "simple", I browsed through some ISO22k threads and picked some examples -

"I agree with you, I was trying to give a simple example, I guess nothing is simple with Food safety. (JG)

Thats probably the reason why we find dealing with food safety so exciting because of its dynamic nature. Different angle of opinions can prevail and really, there is no single correct answer to every thing in FSMS. All that is really needed is proof of control evidence.............and that, means everyone may be corect in their own rights! (CC)

ISO22000 = the 8 principles of qms + the 12 steps of codex (HACCP) + PRPs + OPRPs + customer requirements + regulatory requirements + religious requirements (if this applied) + data validation + data verification + system review + re-validation + improvement + updating + ++ etc etc. (WA)

My approach to ISO 22000 is Quality Management Achievement + Process Achievement + Product Achievement + Facility Design Achievment + Data Verification + Data Validation + Input Review + System Upgrade Review / Updating ++++ = Composite Food Safety Management System.
The above is a composition of many combined FS resources and measures but are not shown in details however each core FS component has its own FS sub-components which will often work in unison. (CC)

Maybe you know, I wrote a booklet about 22K. there we have a statement from a german auditor who is leading in training and decision groups in germany. He said it will be very much easier to audit instead of IFS or BRC because 22K looks for the effects of all measures together and it is not important whether you define a measure PRP OPRP or something else. The most important is validation! If you can show effectiveness, I think you will not have a problem! (WI)

Simply implementing a new standard like ISO22k does not make products safer, only people can make safer products.
I choose to stay with a standard that is fully understood by my people and educate them in adding new elements to the management system. These elements can come from new standards like ISO22k, legislation, experiences elsewhere, or anything else. (OK)

PRP - related to the infrastructure (inculding human resources) and maintenance programes.

oPRP - Implemented to specifically control and monitor the potential biological, chemical and physical hazards (personnel hygiene, sanitation, disinfection). (JG)

The PRP's are not selected for the purpose of controlling a specific identified hazard, but for the purpose of maintaining a general hygienic production, processing and handling environment and may still have an effect on the end product safety if not included in the food safety system.

Operational prerequisites are those that are in place to directly manage or control measures that the hazard analysis has identified as necessary to control to acceptable levels and are not otherwise management by the HACCP plan. (CL)"

It seems to me 22k has a long way to go to get near "simple" . It's unreasonable to expect FS evidence as yet I guess.

Rgds / Charles.C

To be fair new standards take a lot of deciphering, 6 years on they're still trying to interpret ISO 9000. I have a copy of 22k and I don't understand it by a long chalk, mind you I'm not a user so I don't think I ever will. That said ISO standards are written in their own peculiar language, very technical. They make BRC Standards look like comics.

Regards,

Simon