Week 29 Critical Control Points - We've Got SALSA Sussed

Week 29 Critical Control Points

Hello Again!

I’d love to get some feedback on how you found the Hazard Analysis last week. Please feel free to get in touch and let me know, or ask any questions you want!

Next stop CCP’s. CCP stands for Critical Control Point. A point in the process which is critical to ensuring the product becomes safe.

We need to decide if we have any CCP’s from the hazard analysis we carried out last week.

From the significant hazards, there will be some without specific Prerequisite Procedures. This is usually due to the process steps being very specific to your products processing methods. Every food production is very different.

We need to decide if they are CCP’s or if the hazard would fit within one of the Prerequisite Procedures.

We are going to use the information we found last week to help us decide.

Step No                                                                                                Blog No

1. Assemble the HACCP Team                                                      (Week 25)

2. Describe the product                                                                  (Week 26)

3. Identify the intended use and users                                           (Week 26)

4. Construct a flow diagram                                                           (Week 27)

5. Validate the flow diagram                                                           (Week 27)

6. Conduct a hazard analysis and consider controls                     (Week 28)

7. Determine Critical Control Points (CCPs)                                  (Week 29)

8. Establish critical limits for each CCP

9. Establish monitoring procedures for each CCP

10.Establish corrective actions

11.Establish verification procedures

12.Establish documentation and record keeping

 

What’s coming next…

Week 30 CCP Summary with Critical Limits, Monitoring Procedures & Corrective Actions

 

 

Critical Control Points - what do you need to show your SALSA auditor?

CCP Decision Tree and how you have determined each one.

 

We are going to complete the CCP Decision Tree section, which is the final section of the hazard analysis table highlighted in red below.

 

 

We have to answer the questions for the CCP Decision Tree, but only if the hazard has been deemed Significant.

 

All of the hazards below have been deemed significant, so we need to answer the CCP decision tree for each one.

 

Process Step & Ref	Hazards	Risk Rating			Significant Hazard to Proceed? (Y/N)	Pre-requisite Topic	CCP Decision Tree
		Severity (H/M/L)	Likelihood (H/M/L)	Control Measures			Q1	Q2	Q1	Q4	Q5	CCP Y / N
Frozen Ingredient Intake A1	Growth of pathogens in the finished product due to temperature abuse during transit.	H	M	Temperature checks on arrival Goods in procedures Reputable suppliers used	Yes	Control of Raw Materials
	Presence of pathogenic, physical, allergenic or chemical contamination due to damages throughout transportation.	H	M	Packaging damages checks on arrival Rejection of damaged loads / products Goods in procedures	Yes	Control of Raw Materials
	Introduction of pathogens such as Weill’s disease in the finished product due to pest contamination on the delivery vehicle	H	M	Vehicle checks on arrival for cleanliness and signs of pests Goods in procedures Rejection of pest infested vehicles / signs of pests Reputable suppliers used	Yes	Control of Raw Materials

 

On the CCP Decision Tree columns, we have Questions 1 to 5 listed. But what are the questions….?!

 

Let’s get an example of the Decision Tree and work though all of the questions it asks.

 

There are some different versions of CCP Decision Trees available. However, I find the one below the clearest and it fits perfectly with the design of the Hazard Analysis table I have used.

 

It is a good idea to have your CCP Decision Tree documented within your HACCP Study, to show your auditor or inspector how you decide upon your CCP’s and the logic and method used.

CCP Decision Tree

All of the Hazards below have Control Measures in place, and we have stated that the Control Measures are detailed within a specific Prerequisite Procedure.

Process Step & Ref	Hazards	Risk Rating			Significant Hazard to Proceed? (Y/N)	Pre-requisite Topic	CCP Decision Tree
		Severity (H/M/L)	Likelihood (H/M/L)	Control Measures			Q1	Q2	Q1	Q4	Q5	CCP Y / N
Frozen Ingredient Intake A1	Growth of pathogens in the finished product due to temperature abuse during transit.	H	M	Temperature checks on arrival Goods in procedures Reputable suppliers used	Yes	Control of Raw Materials	Y					No
	Presence of pathogenic, physical, allergenic or chemical contamination due to damages throughout transportation.	H	M	Packaging damages checks on arrival Rejection of damaged loads / products Goods in procedures	Yes	Control of Raw Materials	Y					No
	Introduction of pathogens such as Weill’s disease in the finished product due to pest contamination on the delivery vehicle	H	M	Vehicle checks on arrival for cleanliness and signs of pests Goods in procedures Rejection of pest infested vehicles / signs of pests Reputable suppliers used	Yes	Control of Raw Materials	Y	NA	NA	NA	NA	No

 

The first question on the CCP Decision Tree is: ’Is the hazard controlled by the Prerequisite Programmes?’

 

The answer being Yes for them all, so immediately, we go to the, Not a CCP. This is what we want!

 

Q1 Is the hazard controlled by the Prerequisite Programmes?	Yes
Q2 Is there a Control Measure in place for the Hazard?	NA
Q3 Is the process step specifically designed to eliminate or reduce the Hazard to a safe level?	NA
Q4 Could contamination with the Hazard occur to unacceptable levels?	NA
Q5 Would a subsequent Process Step eliminate or reduce the Hazard to a safe level?	NA
CCP Y/N	No

 

The below table shows where the Hazard does not need to be put through the CCP Decision Tree as it is not a significant Hazard:

 

Process Step & Ref	Hazards	Risk Rating			Significant Hazard to Proceed? (Y/N)	Pre-requisite Topic	CCP Decision Tree
		Severity (H/M/L)	Likelihood (H/M/L)	Control Measures			Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	CCP Y / N
Mixing D3	Plastic in the finished product due to the use of weighing tools such as scoops that are in poor condition.	L	L	Control of tools and equipment.	No	Premises, Equipment & Maintenance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cooking, Baking D4 & Cooling D5 have been put through the CCP Decision Tree and the following answers to the questions have determined them as CCP’s:

 

Process Step & Ref	Hazards	Risk Rating			Significant Hazard to Proceed? (Y/N)	Pre-requisite Topic	CCP Decision Tree
		Severity (H/M/L)	Likelihood (H/M/L)	Control Measures			Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	CCP Y / N
Cooking / Baking D4	Survival of pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus or Salmonella in the finished product, due to ineffective heat treatment.	H	L	Heat Treatment Baking & Cooking	Yes	NA	N	Y	Y	NA	NA	Yes CCP1 Cooking
Cooling D5	Growth of pathogens such as Bacillus Cereus in the finished product due to the product not being cooled to the set temperature within the required safe time limit.	H	L	Effective cooling Blast Chilling	Yes	NA	N	Y	Y	NA	NA	Yes CCP2 Blast Chill

 

 

Q1 Is the Hazard controlled by the Prerequisite Programmes?	No
Q2 Is there a Control Measure in place for the Hazard?	Yes, as we take the Cooking Temp & Cooling / Blast Chilling time and temperature as the control measure
Q3 Is the Process Step specifically designed to eliminate or reduce the Hazard to a safe level?	Yes We know if we cook to the right temperature for the right timescale, the hazard will be eliminated. We also know if we blast chill the food to the right temperature in the right timescale this will prevent microbial growth.
Q4 Could contamination with the Hazard occur to unacceptable levels?	NA
Q5 Would a subsequent Process Step eliminate or reduce the Hazard to a safe level?	NA
CCP Y/N	Yes

 

 

There are some other examples below where you may expect a Process Step to be a CCP. However, due to a later Process Step, it is not…. Check this one out for Sieving and Metal Detection.

 

Process Step & Ref	Hazards	Risk Rating			Significant Hazard to Proceed? (Y/N)	Pre-requisite Topic	CCP Decision Tree
		Severity (H/M/L)	Likelihood (H/M/L)	Control Measures			Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	CCP Y / N
Sieving B1	Introduction of physical metal contamination in the finished product due to the sieve being damaged	H	L	Sieve integrity checks Metal Detection at a later step	Yes	NA	N	Y	N	Y	Y	No

 

SIEVING
Q1 Is the hazard controlled by the Prerequisite Programmes	No
Q2 Is there a Control Measure in place for the Hazard	Yes, as we checking the integrity of the sieve when using it (start and end of batch)
Q3 Is the Process Step specifically designed to eliminate or reduce the Hazard to a safe level	No, the process step is sieving, which is not designed to prevent the sieve from being damaged, and we have the addition of the metal detection at a later step
Q4 Could contamination with the Hazard occur to unacceptable levels?	Yes, the metal contamination would be at an unacceptable level if metal from the sieve was in the product, or if the sieve was damaged it could let other physical contaminants through too.
Q5 Would a subsequent Process Step eliminate or reduce the hazard to a safe level?	Yes, as we have Metal Detection at a later step
CCP Y/N	The answer is No as a subsequent step is the CCP; Metal Detection which is a process step designed to reduce or eliminate the hazard to a safe level

 

Process Step & Ref	Hazards	Risk Rating			Significant Hazard to Proceed? (Y/N)	Pre-requisite Topic	CCP Decision Tree
		Severity (H/M/L)	Likelihood (H/M/L)	Control Measures			Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	CCP Y / N
Metal Detection M1	Presence of physical contamination from metal in the finished product due to metal detection failure	H	L	Metal Detection Checks	Yes	NA	N	Y	Y			Yes Metal Detection

 

METAL DETECTION
Q1 Is the hazard controlled by the Prerequisite Programmes	No
Q2 Is there a control measure in place for the hazard	Yes, Metal Detection Checks
Q3 Is the process step specifically designed to eliminate or reduce the hazard to a safe level	Yes
Q4 Could contamination with the hazard occur to unacceptable levels?	NA
Q5 Would a subsequent process step eliminate or reduce the hazard to a safe level?	NA
CCP Y/N	Yes, Direct to being a CCP from Q3

 

In this case, if Metal Detection was not in place, the Sieve Integrity check would be the CCP, as there would not be a further Process Step to reduce or eliminate to a safe level.

 

Well, I think that’s enough for this week. We will move on to CCP Summary, with Critical Limits, Monitoring Procedures & Corrective Actions next week.

 

Thanks for reading, and please feel free to feedback! It would be great to hear what you think to this information!

Have a good week folks. I got my Christmas Tree up, presents are wrapped and the present delivery doorstep challenge is starting this weekend.

Be careful and stay safe!

Ruth

Ruthshawconsultingltd@gmail.com

07732 966 836