Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
is essential to prevent or eliminate a food safety hazard or
reduce it to an acceptable level. If a hazard has been iden-
tified at a step where control is necessary for safety, and
no control measure exists at that step or any other, then
the product or process should be modified at that step, or
at any earlier or later stage, to include a control measure.
The determination of a CCP in the HACCP system can be
facilitated using a decision tree, as shown in Fig. 6.1.
For the application of the decision tree, each process
step identified in the flow diagram should be considered
in sequence. The decision tree must be applied to each
hazard per phase that may be reasonably expected to occur
or introduced and to any control measure identified. It is
necessary to take into account the entire production process
to avoid an excessive number of CCPs (Anon, 2010a).
European Regulation 852/2004/EC prescribes the gen-
eral hygiene of foodstuffs at all stages of the production
chain to ensure hygiene and foodstuff safety. The manufac-
turer must establish detailed internal control measures and
documentation in compliance with the HACCP concept in-
troduced by the Food and Agriculture Organization-WHO
Codex Alimentarius. The HACCP concept presupposes
control of any processing steps and procedures. Corrective
action to be undertaken per step and per hazard must be
documented individually per control point, and personnel
responsibilities must be clearly defined so that hazards and
deviations from established standards may be forecast well
in advance. Therefore, one can potentially solve problems
as soon as they arise, before they can have any further ef-
fect on the safety or quality of the product involved (EMD,
2011).
It is noteworthy, however, that these rules do not address
meat production processing facilities under the US Depart-
ment of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) in the United States. On the contrary, according to
the above-mentioned rules, an informative framework for
meat processing companies is needed to establish GMPs in
production plants (UNL, 2005).
GMP and HACCP
Under this generic name, there are a wide range of programs
such as GMP, good hygiene practice (GHP), good trade
program/good transport program (GTP), good laboratory
practice (GLP), and good veterinary practice, among oth-
ers. Although GMP on its own is neither a HACCP system,
a quality assurance (QA) system, nor a total quality man-
agement program, any potential failure in GMP functioning
can easily lead to hazards related either to food safety or
food quality. The code of GMP must be considered (1) as a
minimum requirement for each company to adopt, (2) as a
cornerstone of a full QA system, and (3) as an integral part
of a food safety program (Gishen and Stockley, 1999). The
advantage of GMP is its practicality and low cost because
it can be tailored to each factory's particular needs without
requiring any redundant documentation. In essence, GMP
is focused on how things should be done and contains the
tools to design, put into practice, and control safety and
quality. Although the HACCP target is to reach zero for-
eign matter presence in the product or zero package failure,
the cost is exorbitantly high, and a full-fledged GMP sys-
tem appears to be the only viable solution. The minimal
controls required, based on GMP for food processing oper-
ations, include personnel hygiene; cleaning and sanitation;
waste management; pest management; management of for-
eign (extraneous) objects, chemicals, and micro-organisms;
and
Prerequisite programs for HACCP
Prerequisite programs (PRPs), such as GMP compliance,
are part of a quality system covering the manufacturing
and testing of foods. GMP standards are focused on both
production and quality control (Anon, 2010b). GMPs are
included in food regulations in the United States by the
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for most food
products produced. Rules and regulations established by
the FDA are published in Title 21 of the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations in Chapter 1, part 110. According to this
regulation, “the term current good manufacturing practices
is used and the criteria and definitions used apply to de-
termining whether a food is adulterated; whether the food
has been prepared, packed or held under unsanitary con-
ditions whereby it may have become contaminated with
filth; or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to
health.” The current regulations refer to human and in-
frastructure resources and production and process controls.
planned
maintenance
(Bernhardt
and
Raschke,
1998).
The service sector has been closely linked to a high
number of food-borne disease outbreaks and as such has
been targeted for improvements in flexible manufacturing
systems. Food hygiene training in conjunction with super-
vision and instruction is a legal requirement for the food
industry and part of an effective FSM system. Training can
result in food safety improvement provided that the notions
imparted affect workers' behaviors and habits. Although
information regarding the effect of training is limited, a
link has been established between improved hygiene on
the premises and the presence of trained staff (Seamana
and Eves, 2006).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search