Food Safety Management Systems to Utilize with Increase in Regulations

Identify CCPs: If a hazard analysis determines that there is a significant risk that is not controlled by either a PRP or a certificate of analysis from a vendor, a CCP may be needed. If so, the organization must ask a series of specific questions to decide whether or not the process warrants a CCP. Use of a risk-based decision tree analysis and control plan/failure mode and effects analysis walks the user through the process of determining if a hazard is a CCP and provides a revision-controlled environment to establish the conditions for CCPs.

Establish Monitoring Procedures: Monitoring procedures allow staff to determine whether all CCPs are under control, provide a verification record for future use, and ensure an organization’s compliance with the HACCP plan. They enable organizations to set up test plans, which record the results of the monitoring process and notify users exceeding limits. Should the CCP result in a failure, an automated FSMS will automatically generate a nonconformance, look for deviations, and recommend action based on data given. This automation aids in the decision-making process, streamlines time to react, and provides a level of risk mitigation manual systems cannot provide.

Establish Corrective Actions: If a nonconformance is generated as a result of exceeding CCP critical limits, a corrective action will need to be established to bring the process back to a controlled state. A corrective and preventive action (CAPA) module routes through review, root cause, corrective action taken, and verification stages, and generates reports automatically, providing an effective method for tracking the source and cost of all problems. Furthermore, CAPAs can incorporate quantitative risk assessment to determine the level of impact on the business and allow stakeholders to prioritize CAPAs based on the risk and resulting business impact.

See Figure 2 (p. 36), for a detailed depiction of how HACCP and traditional quality management system functions can create a holistic FSMS.

Automating ISO 22000 Compliance

A good FSMS will automate the processes required by ISO 22000, while an automated FSMS with a robust set of modules will streamline business processes, thus reducing compliance costs and risk, while providing a robust framework for ISO 22000 compliance. The automated FSMS results in effective mitigation of the cost and compliance risk associated with manual systems. Examples of the FSMS’s ability to automate ISO 22000 requirements include:

Demonstrate a commitment to food safety and document food safety procedures: A document control system automates procedures by managing the creation, approval, distribution, revision, and archiving of all controlled documents.

Provide competent food safety personnel: An easy-to-use employee training system manages identification, authorities, responsibilities, training, and certification requirements for all employees.

Specify acceptable food hazard levels: Quantitative risk assessment and decision tree analysis tools provide quantitative methods for identifying potential hazards in order to determine the best method for control. Monitoring and inspection tools allow for the coordination and implementation of test plans to test and record the results of the control process and notify appropriate resources of deviations.

Given considerable increases in regulations, the food and beverage industry must adjust its processes accordingly to keep an edge on the competition. Through the implementation of automated HACCP, ISO 22000, and SQF processes, food chain stakeholders can ensure the creation of a safe, high quality product.

Percy is the product marketing analyst for EtQ Inc. Reach her at [email protected].

References

1. AMR Research. Enterprise quality management in food and beverage. Boston: AMR Research; February 12, 2009.
2. Safe Quality Food Institute. The SQF program: a basic guide. SQF Institute. Available at: www.sqfi.com/SQF_Brief_Guide.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2009.
3. Cecere L, Jacobson S, Draper L. How safe is your food supply chain? Boston: AMR Research; September 13, 2008.