Is there a decision tree to differentiate between CCP and PRP?

Can anybody help Pawan with this query?

Hi,

In the ISO 22004 standard a decision tree is given to differntiate between PRP, OPRP & CCP.

Biss

Decision Tree for HACCP is based on Hazards
Decision Tree for ISO 22000 is based on Control measures.
If you change the word "hazard" with "control measure" in questions of official decision tree of Codex All. Comm. and hazard assesment. you will indicade if control measures are used in HACCP or OPRP.
PRP's other than OPRP's have not CP's/CCP's, cause of the uncontrolling of hazards by its control measures
Best Regards
Vecdi Karacaoğlu
www.nevgrup.com.tr
HACCP Eğitim

Thank you vecdi, but document is about labelling. is there a decision tree or any format for oPRP and CCP definition.

Thank you vecdi, but document is about labelling. is there a decision tree or any format for oPRP and CCP definition.

Dear Firatozel,

In my place were just using the traditional DT (with 4 standard queries) to determine the CCP. And if a process step concluded as Non-CCP, it will turn out into CP, and controlled by oPRP. The reason is, a process that enclosed in DT is considered as Significant Hazard (based on the Hazard Analysis). And even if it doesnt considered as CCP, it still need Specific Control Measures to control it. So we put it on the CP. As for the CCP, it controlled by HACCP Plan.

Regards,


Arya

Dear Arya,
You will find Decision tree for control measures,
After you asses the hazards you will go one step forward to asses the control measures with "the control measure decision tree" given below
Best regards
Vecdi Karacaoğlu
HACCP Eğitim
www.nevgrup.com.tr

Dear Firatozel,

In addition to the above helpful information, you might also consider the more "quantitative" tabular procedure for oprps / ccps as per the detailed examples on this forum contributed by Bennii and Modarres (sorry don't remember the 2 threads but search by name should be quick).

added later - just noticed your already existing posts on Bennii / Modarres threads

@ Arya, I very much like the direct logic of yr above explanation however it does seem to somewhat bypass the (I think) ISO 22000 intention to force an extended examination of the various possible control options. Of course, if yr auditor will readily accept it, then one can only

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Vecdica,

Thank you for the input. I am sorry I cant understand Turkish very well, but I think its the same diagram just like the one that mentioned in PDF File below. IMO its a development from the traditional DT, but instead of make the oPRP and CCP determination is getting clear, I think it makes me more confuse.

What I mean is the clause no 7.4.4., how come a decision maker differ between oPRP and CCP just based on that point? Is there any spesific way to differ it, pointing on the clause no 7.4.4? But technically... IMVPO... My examination to define the control measure is... somehow more strict perhaps? Because based on my examination, the "No control measures needed" is concluded as oPRP....

To Charles, I havent audited yet... Hope my "direct logic" (I prefer "modification" than "bypass", Charles) would accepted by the auditor. We'll see it on the 23rd of July ... Wish me...

Regards,


Arya

Dear Arya,

I do indeed wish you luck. A nice lunch for the auditor is often a worthwhile investment also, IMEX.

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Arya,
please look at your profil page, ı send my comment.
I think so it will be useful
Your E-Mail button is not active.
Best Regards
Vecdi Karacaoğlu
HACCP Eğitim
www.nevgrup.com.tr

Dear All...

Iam using Decision tree from CODEX to decide CCP or Not CCP.. The other Decision Tree come from NACMF.. You can use Both OF DT....

And To Arya.. There is English Version OF ISO 22000 D T

Dear All
I agree with As Nur - Codex DT is very useful to determine CCPs.

Want the easy version?

The trick is to go back to the true meaning of CCP and PRP. The difference is pointed out by the "P"s: a point (CCP) is a scenario, a process step, a stage in time etc. on which you can focus. Typical characteristica are as follows: you can "spot" the occurrence of a hazard, you can control (= avoid / eliminate / reduce) the hazard "on the spot", and the whole action can be - ideally - monitored by the person responsible for the process step. A programm (PRP) has to "run": you can't focus on a spot (step) like a CCP. A typical sign for a prerequisite program is the fact that these programs control "recurrent" hazards which can occur throughout the whole production process (eg foreign bodies, pests, bad / unhygienic manufacturing practice etc.). If you can a) validate the efficiency of a PRP b) use it for a specific purpose (eg. pest control or glass policy) and c) discover that control of this program may have a synergetic effect on other control measures, it may be an oPRP.

Hope that helps...

Want the easy version?

The trick is to go back to the true meaning of CCP and PRP. The difference is pointed out by the "P"s: a point (CCP) is a scenario, a process step, a stage in time etc. on which you can focus. Typical characteristica are as follows: you can "spot" the occurrence of a hazard, you can control (= avoid / eliminate / reduce) the hazard "on the spot", and the whole action can be - ideally - monitored by the person responsible for the process step. A programm (PRP) has to "run": you can't focus on a spot (step) like a CCP. A typical sign for a prerequisite program is the fact that these programs control "recurrent" hazards which can occur throughout the whole production process (eg foreign bodies, pests, bad / unhygienic manufacturing practice etc.). If you can a) validate the efficiency of a PRP b) use it for a specific purpose (eg. pest control or glass policy) and c) discover that control of this program may have a synergetic effect on other control measures, it may be an oPRP.

Hope that helps...

It does for me Dagmar, I'm afraid I missed this at the time. Thank you for your input.

By the way I have been trying to email you, but your email address is bouncing. If you see this please send me an alternative address.

Regards,
Simon