Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Risk and hazard analysis


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

Tom M

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 17 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Belgium
    Belgium

Posted 07 February 2008 - 06:15 PM

Am working on the risk and hazard analysis. My experience is however in food. So would love to see a piece of someone HACCP or an example to have a reference.

Also the chance - effect table. How have others graded the chances.
By example: 1 = less then once a year / 2= up to 3 times a year / 3=up to once a month / 4 frequently

Then the effect, how would one grade effect in packaging for defects?

One example i have is the following: we produce packaging for a customer who packs high risk food like meat, sometimes packed under protected atmosphere, but also a bottom with a lid in one piece wich can be folded and it closes.
When during production a small part of the edge is bended, closing the packaging at the customer is difficult or it could even spring back open. It happens, when i check the frequency more then once a month. So that would result in a 4. Since it is clearly a defect that has an impact on performance (maybe am wrong and it is a defect that could cause harm to the customer). But taking performance and would grade the effect at the moment on 3.
Anyway, I end up going through the decision three and at the bottom either can have a CCP to guard or end up putting it in a general control measurement, making it an operational GMP.

Any ideas on how to decide upon this?

Regards,

Tom


Edited by Tom M, 07 February 2008 - 06:16 PM.


Gaskit

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 106 posts
  • 11 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Jamaica
    Jamaica
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greater Manchester

Posted 08 February 2008 - 09:15 AM

Dear Tom,

This issue is deffinately a Quality matter and not a CCP, concentrate on producing the packaging and let the customer concentrate on packing the product, you may need to alter your spec so that the lid closes effectively. If a box does not close it does not harm the consumer at the box prodcution stage.

If when the meat is being packaged and the box does not close to effectively protect the meat thereby allowing the meat to be contaminated and thereby harming the consumer is a matter for the packer of meat and not the producer of the box when considering HACCP.

Kind regards,

Steve


I know God will not give me anything I cann't handle, I just wish that he didn't trust me so much.

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,886 posts
  • 5259 thanks
1,233
Excellent

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

Posted 08 February 2008 - 12:19 PM

Dear Tom,

Don't know too much about boxes but if you are looking for examples of risk matrices, try this thread -

http://www.ifsqn.com...?showtopic=8157

There is also a free dwlable packaging haccp plan on this forum (in doc.exchange section) although I don't think it addresses yr specific query


Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Tom M

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 17 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Belgium
    Belgium

Posted 08 February 2008 - 03:32 PM

File links are broken, have been to that thread.

However, what would be considered:
-a defect in functional integrity?
-a defect in performance?
-a defect critical to consumer safety?

Any examples on that would be great.



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,886 posts
  • 5259 thanks
1,233
Excellent

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

Posted 08 February 2008 - 08:48 PM

Dear Tom.

Sorry about the broken links. I hv repeated the lost ones in the (currently) last post in the thread.

I will let the box experts consider yr other queries. :whistle:

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,886 posts
  • 5259 thanks
1,233
Excellent

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

Posted 09 February 2008 - 06:16 AM

Dear Tom,

An addendum to previous post.

You asked for examples. I hope the semi-monolog below is not too off-topic while wait for any packaging manufacturers’ comments.

One example i have is the following: we produce packaging for a customer who packs high risk food like meat


Actually, as you probably know, meat is not intrinsically a high risk product, although, for example, RTE presentations probably will be. The usage situation may also influence the consequence of yr example from a HACCP point of view, eg if the meat is packed in an inner plastic bag and so protected from direct contamination or not. If not, I personally hv some agreement to yr comments.

I can give 2 analogous operational examples for consideration from my own experience primarily as a packaging user –

1. Defective plastic bags
Plastic used to enclose deep-frozen meat has to accept temps of <-30degC. Inferior raw plastic material may eventually go brittle and crack, maybe after 1day or 1month thereby exposing the contents to “some” degree of contamination risk.. IMO, this (and other potentially similar defects) should require the original “receiving plastic ingredient step” to be an automatic CCP for the bag manufacturer. Such was the case in early traditional HACCP. The consequence was that many CCPs prevailed in HACCP plans prompting the use of (pseudo-generic) pre-requisite stages which incorporated such preliminary steps (similar manouevrings occurred to GMP sanitation factors).

It is obviously debatable at what level an implanted routine prerequisite function should change into a full CCP due to personal bad experiences. The original proposers stressed that every HACCP plan was inevitably unique to the implementer and that pre-requisites could only be guidelines. Regardless the officially published formats immediately became natural “validations”. Codex stopped issuing “generics” several years ago due to such issues. I hv had many lengthy arguments with auditors over such questions because I don’t like pre-requisites very much since I feel they tend to dilute the HACCP power. However I accept they effectively minimise the text volume and if used properly help to focus the plan on the most significant parameters.

2. Defective retail boxes
Some types of cardboard boxes may hv coatings. The coating is not applied to end flaps due possible interference with the efficiency of final glueing / closure leading to boxes springing open within cold storage and again leading to risk of contamination. Nonetheless, box suppliers sometimes do lose control over the positioning of such coating. The rest of the story mirrors example No.1

Obviously, immediate steps are taken to correct such packaging failures but re-occurrences may still occur. The advantage of using pre-requisites is that solving such issues is potentially isolated to the preliminary stages. This is not necessarily wrong if one allocates due importance to the pre-requisites however the tendency for Plan users is to be somewhat “blasé” over the pre-requisite areas. It is possible there should be some rule that a repetition of more than X incidents of a pre-requisite failure automatically leads to changes in the main HACCP plan text regardless of the perceived risk status ??

A third example of more current interest popularity is regarding allergen warnings on printed packaging. Not a packaging defect per se but certainly consumer safety related. Maybe you saw the thread already including the packaging HACCP example plan –

http://www.ifsqn.com...wtopic=7233&hl=

(main link still seems working)

There is also a lot of vaguely relevant input from packaging posters in this thread

http://www.ifsqn.com...wtopic=1135&hl=

(laura’s link is broken, I can replace it [somewhere] if u are interested)
(added - now added the links in above quoted original thread, see my post ca.09022008, hopefully correct)

(@Simon, begins to look sadly like there are not so few losses over this bug)

Hope the above not too meandering compared to yr superby minimalist posted query. :biggrin:

Rgds / Charles.C

added - although I hv remarked above on the well-known fact that every HACCP plan is personalised, it is important to remember that the classification of "significance" in hazards is inevitably biased towards existing statistical/epidemiological data since this is validatory. This means that yr inclusion of CCPs whatever based on personal bad experiences/opinions without having additional xreferences to similar occurences tends to be automatically picked up by auditors IMEX who are naturally hoping for a minimum of argumentative CCPs to have to scrutinise within their limited working day. Ironically, omission of favourite auditor CCPs, eg metal detectors, may produce a similar negative response. :biggrin:

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


BBrandDesign

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • Banned
  • 26 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Australia
    Australia

Posted 29 June 2011 - 10:20 AM

As we are aware that having a packaged material is free from all risk. So it is very much essential to have so that it is free from all kind of risks and hazard.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users