Application of ISO 22000 and comparison with HACCP on ... · PDF fileOriginal article Application of ISO 22000 and comparison with HACCP on industrial processing of common octopus

Original article

Application of ISO 22000 and comparison with HACCP on industrial

processing of common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) – Part I

Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis1* & Theodoros H. Varzakas2

1 Department of Agriculture, Animal Production and Aquatic Environment, School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Thessaly, Fytoko

Street, 38446 Nea Ionia Magnesias, Volos, Hellas, Greece

2 Department of Processing of Agricultural Products, School of Agricultural Sciences, Technological Educational Institute of Kalamata, Hellas,

Greece

(Received 19 April 2007; Accepted in revised form 25 July 2007)

Summary Critical control points (CCPs) were identified in the risk assessment of octopus (Octopus vulgaris) processing

and implemented in the hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) plan. In the hazard analysis

worksheet the different hazards were identified at each processing stage, whereas in the HACCP plan each

CCP is identified and accompanied with the relevant significant hazard, critical limit, monitoring of the CCP

and corrective actions. In this work comparison of ISO 22000 analysis with HACCP is carried out over

octopus processing and packaging. ISO 22000 Analysis Worksheet was employed for determination of some

prerequisite programmes (PrPs). Comparison between the two systems has been carried out using the hazard

analysis worksheet. The PrPs are the main difference between the two systems. The incorporation of PrPs in

the ISO 22000 made the system more flexible as a smaller number of CCPs was introduced.

Keywords Critical control points, good hygiene practice, Good Manufacturing or Management Practices, HACCP, ISO 22000, octopus

processing, prerequisite programmes.

Introduction

The quality, including safety, of products has tradition-ally been controlled by inspection of the final product.This is the case with food as well as with other products.Veterinary food (meat) inspection began almost150 years ago, after veterinary pathologists and parasi-tologists had found ways to identify human pathogensin food animals. Meat inspection is still a large-scalefunction of veterinary medicine (http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgph01002.pdf).(a) Current meat inspection is based on 100%

inspection of the live animals, their carcasses andorgans, antemortem and postmortem. This system hasnot changed significantly over the last 100 years. Theproblem is that 100% inspection does not mean 100%detection of human pathogens, and this has led tosearch for other ways to ensure food safety. Theinefficiency of the present inspection system is associ-ated with changes in the ways meat (food) is produced,processed, marketed, and prepared when compared

with 100 years ago (http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/report/633/al28_18e.pdf).(b) HACCP was developed in the 1960s by the US

food industry and National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA) as a ‘zero-defect’ approach tofeed astronauts. The bases of HACCP are that it is aprocess control rather than a product control and that itfocuses control on steps in the processing system thatare critical to consumer health.HACCP has won wide acceptance as a voluntary

control programme in the food industry, and is now aprescribed part of meat and poultry slaughter in the US,and is required during processing seafood and juices aswell. There is also a growing interest in using HACCP tocontrol the safety of live animal production ⁄pre-harvestfood safety. (http://www.codexalimentarius.net/down-load/report/633/al28_18e.pdf).There can hardly be HACCP without Good Manu-

facturing or Management Practices (GMP). Briefly,GMP is a description of all the steps (which shouldrepresent good practice) in a processing facility, whileHACCP is a documentation that the steps important toconsumer health are under control. Proposed GMPs forfood production are often called Good AgriculturalPractices (GAPs); at this point, GAPs are advisory,

*Correspondent: Fax: +302421093144;

e-mail: [email protected]

International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2009, 44, 58–7858

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2007.01666.x

� 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation � 2008 Institute of Food Science and Technology

rather than mandatory. Sanitation standard operatingprocedures (SSOPs) are also a needed (and oftenrequired) prerequisite to HACCP (http://www.afdo.org/afdo/upload/Sushi.pdf).

Hazard analysis and CCPs

A HACCP plan begins by defining the product,describing the consumers for whom it is intended,forming a team for planning and implementation, anddeveloping a detailed, step-by-step process diagram(http://www.afdo.org/afdo/upload/Sushi.pdf).

HACCP principles

There are seven principles that are generally accepted asthe core of HACCP. They are summarized below.(a)Principle 1: Hazard analysis (http://www.e-haccp.org.uk/

previousconference/Conference_proceedings1.pdf).

(b)Principle 2: Identify the critical control points (CCP) in

food preparation (http://www.codexalimentarius.net/

download/report/633/al28_18e.pdf).

(c)Principle 3: Establish critical limits for preventive

measures associated with each CCP (http://www.nhmrc.

gov.au/publications/_files/eh38.pdf).

(d)Principle 4: Establish procedures to monitor CCPs

(http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/report/633/

al28_18e.pdf).

(e)Principle 5: Establish corrective action to be taken when

monitoring shows that a critical limit has been exceeded

(http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/_files/eh38.pdf).

(f)Principle 6: Establish an effective record-keeping

system that documents the HACCP (http://www.

codexalimentarius.net/download/report/633/al28_18e.

pdf).

(g)Principle 7: Establish procedures to verify that the

HACCP system is working.

Comparison of ISO 22000 with HACCP

The main changes of ISO 22000 compared with HACCPare the following:1 Extension of the scope to include all the food

businesses from feed and primary production as well

as the organizations indirectly involved in the food

chain, such as suppliers of equipment, food packaging,

insecticides, veterinary drugs, detergents ⁄disinfectants,which could introduce possible dangers in the food

chain either with the supply of raw materials or their

services.

2 The hazards that require control are those managed not

only by CCPs (either with continuous monitoring or

with an adequate frequency for an immediate imple-

mentation of corrective actions), but also through

prerequisite programmes (PRPs).

3 In this news standard there is provision of crisis

management procedures in the case that external dan-

gers turn up, dangers which are not included in hazard

analysis, such as natural destruction, environmental

pollution, and outage interruption.

4 Additional requirements for external communication

exist between the food organizations and the relevant

authorities involved in food safety beyond the internal

communication requirements.

Advantages of ISO 22000

1 Optimum distribution of resources inside the food chain

organization.

2 Effective communication of suppliers, clients, authorities

and other authorities involved.

3 Focus on the PrPs, conditions and hygiene measures,

planning of preventive actions with the aim of eliminat-

ing any possible failures.

4 Better documentation.

5 Creation of trust with the prerequisite the credibility of

the management system based on the provision of the

conditions for the accomplishment of solid results, i.e.

the management processes and provision of resources

and visual operations.The new standard ISO 22000 ‘Food Safety Manage-

ment Systems – Requirements for Food Chain Organi-zations’ aims at the proper implementation worldwideof the internationally well-known principles of HACCPfrom the food chain organizations to provide safe foodto the consumers.Prerequisite programmes are written, implemented

procedures that address operational conditions andprovide the documentation to help an operation runmore smoothly to maintain a comprehensive food-safetyassurance programme. Processors should develop writ-ten prerequisite programmes for the following opera-tions: raw material receipt and storage; wash waterquality; equipment maintenance; production controlsfor grading, washing, cutting, drying and packaging;temperature and microbiological controls; chemicalcontrol; sanitary control for the facility, equipmentand employees; product coding and traceability; recallprocedure control; and finished product storage anddistribution control.ISO 22000 specifies the requirements of a Food Safety

Management System, encompassing all the range offood organizations involved in the food chain fromfarmers to catering businesses. ISO 22000 creates auniform and homogeneous platform of requirements,acceptable to all authorities worldwide. The adoption of

ISO 22000 and HACCP on octopus processing I. S. Arvanitoyannis and T. H. Varzakas 59

� 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation � 2008 Institute of Food Science and Technology International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2009

ISO 22000 was carried out in the year 2005. These foodorganizations involve the following categories:1 The directly involved organizations with the food

chain, i.e. primary production, food additive manufac-

turers, raw and auxiliary raw materials for the food

industries, food manufacturers, food services, food

distributors, pest control companies as well as distribu-

tion and warehousing companies.

2 The indirectly involved such as suppliers of raw

materials, equipment, cleaning and disinfectant solu-

tions, packaging materials and other materials that come

directly or indirectly into contact with food (Arvanito-

yannis & Tzouros, 2006).

Risk analysis

Risk analysis involves three phases – risk assessment,risk communication, and risk management. In theHACCP context, it serves to choose, among the hazardslisted for a food, those that are likely enough or severeenough to warrant preventive action. However, riskassessment is rapidly becoming a discipline unto itself, inwhich practitioners consider the levels of pathogens infoods, the quantities eaten by various groups ofconsumers, and vulnerability of the consumers to thepotential disease. Once the risk of a given combinationof food and pathogen has been assessed, the informationmay be shared with the public or with decision-makers(risk communication), and a risk management strategymay be selected (often HACCP) (http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/008/j1682e/j1682e04.htm).

Applications

Adaptations of HACCP have been proposed in suchdiverse situations as production agriculture, surgicalanaesthesia, sewage treatment and restaurant operation.There is seldom a problem identifying real hazards, butthere can be serious difficulty identifying valid criticalcontrol points. Some years ago, saying that, in additionto eliminating a hazard, mitigated the CCP criteria, aCCP could reduce or avoid a hazard. This has openedthe door for many CCPs that require full-time observa-tion and (often) intense monitoring effort, but deli-ver much less than HACCP promises (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1471-5740.2002.00038.x/pdf?cookieSet=1).

Cephalopods: Octopus vulgaris

Cephalopods are a highly nutritious raw material.Because of lack of bones, the average edible part of thecephalopods is between 80% and 85% of the total body,which is higher than that of crustaceans (40–45%),teleosts (40–75%) and cartilagineous fish (25%)

(Kreuzer, 1984). During the second half of the 20thcentury, cephalopods were considered as less conven-tional resources, and consequently the catching of thesespecies was recommended as a way of diversifying thefishing effort. Cephalopod landings have increased(FAO, 2001; Aguado-Gimenez & Garcia-Garcia, 2005;Miliou et al., 2005) and cephalopod fisheries are amongthe few still with some potential for expansion. The rangeof value-added cephalopod products is very broad andinclude chilled, frozen, dried and canned products, andrecently as components of readymade meals; the largestshare of sales is of chilled and frozen products.Common octopus (O. vulgaris) is a cephalopod eaten

mainly in Mediterranean, South American and Orientalcountries and is typically marketed fresh, frozen anddried salted. The interest for its use is traditionallyinfluenced by geographical and cultural reasons (Seixaset al., 2005). This species is has a high demand andcommands high prices through its distributional rangeand supports artisanal as well as industrial fisheries(Napoleao et al., 2005a,b). During the last few years,there has been a great progress in marketing, qualityassurance and freshness assessment of fish products, butthere have been only few studies on cephalopod quality,most of them being directed at squid (Aguado-Gimenez& Garcia-Garcia, 2005; Miliou et al., 2005). Oncecaught, cephalopods undergo very rapid protein degra-dation because of endogenous and bacterial enzymes.Such high proteolytic activity produces an increase inlevels of muscle-derived nitrogen, thus favouring prolif-eration of degenerative flora and rapid decomposition(Katsanevakis & Verriopoulos, 2005). As seafood spoils,it goes through a sequence of changes that are detectableby the human senses. Sensory evaluation is defined asthe scientific discipline used to evoke, measure, analyseand interpret reactions to characteristics of food asperceived through the senses of sight, smell, taste, touchand hearing. Sensory methods are the oldest and still themost satisfactory way of grading and assessing thefreshness of fish and fish products, and sensory evalu-ation is the most important method for freshnessevaluation in fish research.The first concern about building a sensorial table for

fish species was shown by Shewan et al. (1953), whopresented the Torry scheme; this table was mainly useduntil the 1970s by researchers and not so much by theindustry. In Europe, the most commonly used methodfor quality assessment in the inspection service and inthe fish industry is the UE Freshness Grading (or ECscheme), introduced for the first time in the CouncilRegulation no. 103 ⁄76 (for fish) and 104 ⁄76 (forcrustaceans) and updated by decision no. 2406 ⁄96 (forsome fish, some crustaceans and only one cephalopodmollusc, the cuttlefish) which includes some of theimprovements published in the meantime by Howgateet al. (1992). There are three levels in the EC scheme, E

ISO 22000 and HACCP on octopus processing I. S. Arvanitoyannis and T. H. Varzakas60

International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2009 � 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation � 2008 Institute of Food Science and Technology

(extra, the highest quality), A (good quality) and B(satisfactory quality). Below level (B) (sometimes calledUnfit or C) fish is not acceptable for human consump-tion, thus it is discarded or rejected. This kind of schemedoes not take clearly into account differences betweenspecies as it only uses general parameters for describingthe changes for iced fish (Aguado-Gimenez & Garcia-Garcia, 2005; Miliou et al., 2005). A diagram of amollusc-processing line is presented in Fig. 1.

QIM: development of a sensorial scheme for the commonoctopus

Improved freshness quality grading systems have beendeveloped. A recent scheme now coming out of itsresearch phase into commercial practice is known as thequality index method (QIM) (Vaz-Pires & Barbosa,2004). The QIM, originally developed by the TasmanianFood Research Unit, is based on the significant sensoryparameters for raw fish. The QIM is based uponobjective evaluation of certain attributes of raw fish(skin, eyes, gills, etc) using a demerit points scoringsystem (from 0 to 3). As no excessive emphasis is laid ona single attribute, a sample cannot be rejected on thebasis of a single criterion and minor differences in resultsfor any of the criterion do not unduly influence the totalQIM score (Vaz-Pires & Barbosa, 2004). The moredistinctive the changes are during spoilage, the higherthe score for a single parameter. The aim is to achieve alinear correlation between the sensory quality expressedas the sum of demerit scores and storage life on ice,which makes prediction of shelf-life possible. This is arelatively fast, non-destructive method that is basedsolely on direct observation of the properties of the fishitself and is species specific. In addition, the QIM isusable in the first part of the storage period where otherinstrumental methods are inaccurate. QIM was primar-ily used for the evaluation of whole and gutted fish;QIM schemes are currently available for several species,some developed for whole fish and others for derivedproducts (Aguado-Gimenez & Garcia-Garcia, 2005).The QIM system is expected to be the main futuresensorial method for use in laboratories, for researchpurposes, and possibly also in fish auctions and markets,for more precise inspection and clear decisions aboutfish quality in all the fish chain. Another reason for theinterest of the octopus QIM sensorial scheme is that theEC scheme for cephalopods is only applicable tocuttlefish (Sepia oficinalis and Rossia macrosoma) andis based on four criteria (skin, flesh, tentacles and smell),which allows a considerable freedom in interpretationfor the individual assessor guidelines(Vaz-Pires & Barb-osa, 2004). This means that, for octopus, a specialdedicated sensorial scheme for this species was neverdeveloped. Recent developments in the aquaculture ofthis species will add to the need for rapid and precise

methods for quality evaluation. The industrial proces-sing of small octopus growing was predicted in the late1990s, and is now being attempted and investigatedin Spain and Portugal (Aguado-Gimenez & Garcia-Garcia, 2005).

Mollusc-processing line

Reception of cephalopods

The processing facility should have a programme inplace for inspecting cephalopods on catching or arrivalat the factory. Only sound products should be acceptedfor processing.Product specifications could include:

1 Organoleptic characteristics such as appearance, odour,

texture, etc.

2 Chemical indicators of decomposition and ⁄or contam-

ination, e.g. TVBN, heavy metals (cadmium).

3 Microbiological criteria.

4 Parasites, e.g. Anasakis foreign matter.

5 The presence of lacerations, breakages and discolour-

ation of the skin, or a yellowish tinge spreading from the

liver and digestive organs inside the mantle, which are

indicative of product deterioration.Personnel inspecting product should be trained and

experienced with the relevant species in order torecognize any defects and potential hazards (http://www.afdo.org/afdo/upload/Sushi.pdf;http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/008/j1682e/j1682e04.htm).Table 1 shows the determination of CCPs for octopus

processing according to the decision tree diagram.Table 2 presents an ISO 22000 analysis worksheet forthe determination of prerequisite programmes for octo-pus processing.Table 3 shows the hazard analysis worksheet identify-

ing the different hazards at each processing stage andTable 4 describes the HACCP plan where each CCP isidentified accompanied with the relevant significanthazard, critical limit, monitoring of the CCP, correctiveactions in the case of deviation, records kept andverification of the HACCP system. Finally, Table 5summarises the findings of the previous three tablesdisplaying the CCPs according to HACCP and ISO22000 taking into account the effect of implementation ofPrPs in the industrial processing of the common octopus.

Storage of cephalopods

Chilled storageProducts in chilled storage should be held at 4 �C. MAP(modified atmosphere packaging) product should beheld at 3 �C or below. Seafood should be properlyprotected from filth and other contaminants throughproper packaging and stored off the floor. A continuous



Brine

Water Salt

Mixing

Saturated brine

Dilution

Pumping

Heating liquidtemperature

> 60 °C(Heat exchanger)

Filling

Sealing/coding(by embossing)

Washing the cane

Washing

Eyes, beakremoved

Tentacles

Cutting/splitting(manual)

Boil andconcetrate

Washing (water,high effluent)

Frozen storageHeld in chilledcondition

Raw materialfresh/frozen

cephalopod reception

Raw material Empty containers

Receipt/storage

Unpalletingautomation

Conveyng

Packing in cans(mechanical)

Filling

Sealing/coding(by embossing)

Washing thecans

Washing/turning

Controlledthawing with

water (byimmersion)

CookingWashing (water,high effluent)

Skimming

Trimming

Cutting(mechanical)

Fillating(manual)

Grading

Casing labelling

Packaging

Packaging

Market

Storage in cans(mechanical)

Caging (in bulk)

Marketdistribution/transport

Retail

Figure 1 Flow diagram of a mollusc-processing line.



Table 1 Determination of critical control points for octopus processing

A ⁄ A Step Hazard

Q1: Do

control

measure(s)

exist

Q2: Is the step

specifically

designed to

eliminate or

reduce the likely

occurrence of a

hazard to an

acceptable level

Q3: Could

contamination

with identified

hazard(s) occur

in excess of

acceptable level(s)

or could these

increase to

acceptable levels

Q4: Will a

subsequent step

eliminate identified

hazards or reduce

likely occurrence

to an acceptable

levels CCP

1 Receiving of raw

materials – cephalopod

reception

M Yes No Yes No CCP1

C Yes No Yes No CCP1

P Yes No Yes No CCP1

2 Holding under chilling

conditions

M Yes No No – CP

C Yes No No – CP

P Yes No No – CP

3 Controlled thawing with

water

M Yes No No – CP

C Yes No No – CP

P Yes No No – CP

4 Freezing and frozen

storage


C Yes No No – CP


5 Washing with water M Yes No No – CP

C Yes No No – CP

P Yes No No – CP

6 Cutting ⁄ splitting M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – cp

7 Tentacles M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P –

8 Eyes, beak removed M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – cp

9 Washing M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – cp

10 Grading M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – cp

11 Washing with water M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – cp

12 Boiling and

concentration

M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – cp

13 Packaging M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No –

14 Skimming M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – cp

15 Trimming M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – cp

16 Cutting M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – cp

17 Filleting M Yes No No – CP



temperature recording chart for seafood storage coolersis recommended. The cooler room should have properdrainage to prevent product contamination. Ready-to-

eat items and molluscan shellfish should be keptseparate from each other and other raw food productsin chilled storage. Raw product should be stored on

Table 1 (Continued)

A ⁄ A Step Hazard

Q1: Do

control

measure(s)

exist

Q2: Is the step

specifically

designed to

eliminate or

reduce the likely

occurrence of a

hazard to an

acceptable level

Q3: Could

contamination

with identified

hazard(s) occur

in excess of

acceptable level(s)

or could these

increase to

acceptable levels

Q4: Will a

subsequent step

eliminate identified

hazards or reduce

likely occurrence

to an acceptable

levels CCP

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – CP

18 Grading M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – cp

19 Casing, labelling M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – cp

20 Packaging M Yes No No – cp

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – cp

21 Storage in cans M Yes No No – CP

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – CP

22 Caging M: Yes No No – CP

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – CP

23 Storage of raw

materials




24 Conveying M Yes No No – CP

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – CP

25 Washing ⁄ turning M Yes No No – CP

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – CP

26 Packing, filling,

sealing

M Yes No No – CP

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – CP

27 Butchering,

packaging

M Yes No No – CP

C Yes No No – cp


28 Packing M Yes No Yes No CCP5



29 Brining M Yes No No – CP

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – CP

30 Finished product

storage in cans




31 Caging ⁄ distribution ⁄retail

M Yes No No – CP

C Yes No No – cp

P Yes No No – CP



shelves below cooked product to avoid cross contami-nation from drip. A product rotation system to ensurefirst-in, first-out usage should be established (http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/_files/eh38.pdf).

Frozen storageThe product should be maintained at )18 �C or less.Regular temperature monitoring should be carried out.A recording thermometer is recommended. Seafoodproducts should not be stored directly on the floor.Products should be stacked to allow proper air circula-tion (http://www.e-haccp.org.uk/previousconference/Conference_proceedings1.pdf).

Controlled thawing

The thawing parameters should be clearly defined andinclude time and temperature. This is important to

prevent the development of pale pink discolouration.Critical limits for the thawing time and temperature of theproduct should be developed. Particular attention shouldbe paid to the volume of product being thawed in order tocontrol discolouration. If water is used as the thawingmedium then it should be of potable quality. If recircu-lated water is used then care must be taken to avoidthe build up of micro-organisms (http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/008/j1682e/j1682e04.htm).

Splitting, gutting and washing

Gutting should remove all intestinal material and thecephalopod shell if present. Any by-product of thisprocess which is intended for human consumption, e.g.tentacles, mantle should be handled in a timely andhygienic manner. Cephalopods should be washed inclean seawater or potable water immediately after

Table 2 ISO 22000 analysis worksheet for the determination of prerequisite programmes for octopus processing

Processing step

Are the technical

infrastructure and

the preventative

maintenance

program adequate?

Is it

feasible

to

evaluate

them?

Do they

contribute in the

control of

recognisable food

safety hazards?

Does the

effectiveness of

the remaining

control measures

depend on them?

Is it a

prerequisite

programme?

Receiving of raw materials – cephalopod

reception

Yes Yes No No No

Holding under chilling conditions Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Controlled thawing with water Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Freezing and frozen storage Yes Yes No No No

Washing with water Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Cutting ⁄ splitting Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Tentacles Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Eyes, beak removed Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Washing Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Grading Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Washing with water Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Boiling and concentration Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Packaging Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Skimming Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Trimming Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Cutting Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Filleting Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Grading Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Casing, labelling Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Packaging Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Storage in cans Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Caging Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Storage of raw materials Yes Yes No No No

Conveying Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Washing ⁄ turning Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Packing, filling, sealing Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Butchering, packaging Yes Yes No No No

Packing Yes Yes No No No

Brining Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Finished product storage in cans Yes Yes No No No

Caging ⁄ distribution ⁄ retail Yes Yes No Yes Yes



Table 3 Hazard Analysis Worksheet (FAO, 2001; Vaz-Pires et al., 2004; Miliou et al., 2005)

(1) Processing

step

(2) Identify potential hazards

introduced, controlled or

enhanced at this step

(3) Q1 Do

preventative

control

measures

exist?

(Yes/No)

(4) Q2 Is

the step

specifically

designed to

eliminate or

reduce the

likely

occurrence

of hazard to

an acceptable

level?

(Yes/No)

(5) Q3 Could

contamination

with identified

hazards(s) or

could this

increase to

unacceptable

levels?

(Yes/No)

(6) Q4 Will a

subsequent

step eliminate

identified

hazard(s) or

reduce likely

occurrence to

acceptable

levels?

(Yes/No)

(7) Is this

step a critical

control point?

(Yes/No)

Raw material –

cephalopod

reception

Biological: pathogens from

harvest area

Scombrotoxin formation

Natural toxins – CFP

Yes No Yes No Yes CCP1

Chemical: Heavy metals e.g.

cadmium migration from

the gut

DDT, TDE, heptachlor epoxide

(>0.3 ppm)

methyl mercury

Yes No Yes No

Physical: Damaged products,

extraneous matter

Yes No Yes No

Held in chilled

condition

Biological: Microbiological

pathogens, parasites

Yes No No – No

Physical: Decomposition

Controlled thawing

with water

(by immersion)



Yes No No – No


Freezing and frozen

storage



Yes Yes Yes No Yes CCP2

Physical: Freezer–burn,

decomposition, loss of

quality due to slow freezing

Yes No No – No

Washing (water,

high effluent)


contamination

Yes No No – No

Chemical: Heavy metals


Cutting ⁄ splitting

(manual)



– – – –


Tentacles Biological: Microbiological

contamination

Yes No No – No



Eyes, beak

removed

Biological: C. botulinum

toxin formation

microbial growth and

contamination

Yes No No – No

Washing Biological: Microbiological

contamination

Yes No No – No



Grading Biological: Microbiological

pathogens, Parasites

– – – –



Table 3 (Continued)

(1) Processing

step




(3) Q1 Do

preventative

control

measures

exist?

(Yes/No)

(4) Q2 Is

the step

specifically

designed to

eliminate or

reduce the

likely

occurrence

of hazard to

an acceptable

level?

(Yes/No)

(5) Q3 Could

contamination

with identified

hazards(s) or

could this

increase to

unacceptable

levels?

(Yes/No)

(6) Q4 Will a

subsequent

step eliminate

identified

hazard(s) or

reduce likely

occurrence to

acceptable

levels?

(Yes/No)

(7) Is this

step a critical

control point?

(Yes/No)

Washing (water,

high effluent)


contamination

Yes No No – No



Wash water Biological: Microbiological

contamination

Yes No No – No



Boil and

concentrate

Biological: Unlikely – – – –

Physical: Presence of

objectionable matter,

decomposition

Juice Biological: Microbiological

contamination

– – – –


objectionable matter

Cooking Biological: Microbiological

contamination

– – – –



decomposition

Packaging Biological: Microbiological

contamination

Yes No No – No



Market

Skimming Biological: Microbiological

contamination

Yes No No – No



Trimming Biological: Microbiological

contamination

– – – –


Cutting

(mechanical)

Biological: Parasites

scombrotoxin formation

Yes No No – No



Filleting

(manual)


contamination

Yes No No – No

Chemical: Chemical

contamination,

Grading Biological: Microbiological

contamination,

microbiological contamination

– – – –



Table 3 (Continued)

(1) Processing

step




(3) Q1 Do

preventative

control

measures

exist?

(Yes/No)

(4) Q2 Is

the step

specifically

designed to

eliminate or

reduce the

likely

occurrence

of hazard to

an acceptable

level?

(Yes/No)

(5) Q3 Could

contamination

with identified

hazards(s) or

could this

increase to

unacceptable

levels?

(Yes/No)

(6) Q4 Will a

subsequent

step eliminate

identified

hazard(s) or

reduce likely

occurrence to

acceptable

levels?

(Yes/No)

(7) Is this

step a critical

control point?

(Yes/No)

Casing, Labeling Biological: Microbiological

contamination

Yes No No – No

Physical: Incorrect labelling

Packaging Biological: Parasites


Yes No No – No

Chemical: Chemical

contamination

Physical: Presence of gut

contents, shells, ink

discolouration, physical

contamination from

packaging, cross

contamination

Storage in cans

(mechanical)


toxin formation during

finished product storage,

Biochemical development

(histamine)

Microbial growth and

contamination

Yes No No – No

Physical: loss of quality due

to pass of time

Caging (in bulk) Biological: Microbiological

contamination

Yes No No – No

Raw material

storage

Biological: Scombrotoxin

formation

Yes Yes Yes CCP3



bite damage, skin damage,

decomposition, discolouration

Yes Yes

Unpalleting

automation


contamination

Yes No No – No

Conveying Biological: Microbiological

cross-contamination

Yes No No – No

Chemical: Chemical

contamination,

Washing ⁄ Turning Biological: Microbiological

contamination

Yes No No – No


Physical: Decomposition,

discolouration

Packing in cans

(mechanical)


contamination

Yes No No – No

Chemical: Chemical

contamination,





Table 3 (Continued)

(1) Processing

step




(3) Q1 Do

preventative

control

measures

exist?

(Yes/No)

(4) Q2 Is

the step

specifically

designed to

eliminate or

reduce the

likely

occurrence

of hazard to

an acceptable

level?

(Yes/No)

(5) Q3 Could

contamination

with identified

hazards(s) or

could this

increase to

unacceptable

levels?

(Yes/No)

(6) Q4 Will a

subsequent

step eliminate

identified

hazard(s) or

reduce likely

occurrence to

acceptable

levels?

(Yes/No)

(7) Is this

step a critical

control point?

(Yes/No)

Filling Biological: C. botulinum


finished product

Yes No No – No

Chemical: Chemical

contamination,



Sealing ⁄ coding

(by embossing)

Biological: Microbial growth

and contamination

No No No – No

Washing the cans Biological: Yes No No – No


Storage in cans

(mechanical)



finished product storage,

biochemical development

(histamine)

microbial growth and

contamination

Yes No No – No


discolouration

Butchering ⁄packaging

Biological: parasites


Yes No Yes Yes No

Chemical: Chemical

contamination

Yes No Yes Yes

Physical: Presence of gut

contents, shells, ink

discolouration, physical

contamination from

packaging, cross

contamination

Yes No Yes No Yes CCP4

Packing Biological: Pathogen growth

and toxin formation

Yes Yes Yes CCP5

Chemical: Chemical

contamination,

Yes Yes

Physical: Incorrect labelling,

incorrect weight,

dehydration, cross

contamination

Yes Yes

Brining Biological: C. botulinum


finished product,

microbiological

contamination

Yes No No No


physical damage

Yes No No



Table 3 (Continued)

(1) Processing

step




(3) Q1 Do

preventative

control

measures

exist?

(Yes/No)

(4) Q2 Is

the step

specifically

designed to

eliminate or

reduce the

likely

occurrence

of hazard to

an acceptable

level?

(Yes/No)

(5) Q3 Could

contamination

with identified

hazards(s) or

could this

increase to

unacceptable

levels?

(Yes/No)

(6) Q4 Will a

subsequent

step eliminate

identified

hazard(s) or

reduce likely

occurrence to

acceptable

levels?

(Yes/No)

(7) Is this

step a critical

control point?

(Yes/No)

Salt Biological: Microbiological

contamination

Yes No No – No

Water Biological: Microbiological

contamination

Yes No No – No

Chemical: Chemical

contamination, heavy metals

Physical: Cross contamination

Mixing Biological: Cross contamination Yes No No – No

Chemical: Chemical

contamination

Physical: Cross contamination

Saturated brine Biological: C. botulinum toxin

formation during finished

product,

Yes No No – No

Chemical: Chemical

contamination


Dilution Biological: Cross contamination Yes No No – No

Chemical: Chemical

contamination


Pumping Biological: Yes No No – No


Heating liquid

temperature >60 �C(heat exchanger)


Filling Biological: No No – No



Sealing ⁄ coding

(by embossing)

Washing the cans – – – –

Chemical: chemical

contamination, Heavy metals

Finished product

storage ⁄ storage

in cans

(mechanical)

Biological: C. botulinum toxin

formation during finished

product storage, Biochemical

development (histamine).

Microbial growth and

contamination

Yes No No

Chemical: Chemical

contamination

Yes No No

Physical: Damaged products Yes No Yes No Yes CCP6

Caging (in bulk) Biological: Cross contamination – – – –

Market distribution ⁄transport

Retail Physical: Damaged products



Tab

le4HACCPPlan(FAO,2001;Vaz-Pires

etal.,2004;Miliouet

al.,2005)

Cri

tical

co

ntr

ol

po

int

(CC

P)

Sig

nifi

can

t

hazard

(s)

Cri

tical

lim

its

for

each

pre

ven

tive

measu

re

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Co

rrecti

ve

acti

on

(s)

Reco

rds

Veri

ficati

on

Wh

at

Ho

wFre

qu

en

cy

Wh

o

Cep

halo

po

d

rece

pti

on

Path

og

en

sfr

om

harv

est

are

a

Natu

ral

toxin

s–

CFP

Sco

mb

roto

xin

form

ati

on

Hep

tach

lor

ep

oxid

e

En

vir

on

men

tal

chem

ical

con

tam

inan

ts

an

dp

est

icid

es

No

mo

reth

an

2.5

%d

eco

mp

osi

tio

n

(pers

iste

nt

an

d

read

ily

perc

ep

tib

le)

inth

ein

com

ing

lot

>0.3

pp

m

Iden

tify

harv

est

are

a

Harv

est

vess

el

reco

rds

Ask

fish

erm

en

for

the

harv

est

loca

tio

n

Sen

sory

exam

inati

on

(118

cep

halo

po

d

per

lot;

or

all

cep

halo

po

din

the

lot

if<

118

cep

halo

po

d)

Every

lot

Rece

ivin

g

em

plo

yee

Qu

ali

ty

con

tro

l

staff

Pro

du

ctio

n

sup

erv

iso

r

Reje

ctlo

t

Dis

con

tin

ue

use

of

sup

pli

er

un

til

evid

en

ceis

ob

tain

ed

that

harv

est

ing

pra

ctic

es

have

chan

ged

Rece

ivin

g

reco

rd

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

an

d

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n

Rece

ivin

g–

lab

els

Path

og

en

sfr

om

harv

est

are

a

All

Cep

halo

po

dla

bels

mu

stco

nta

inth

e

raw

con

sum

pti

on

warn

ing

Tag

sfo

r

fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

Cep

halo

po

d

Vis

ual

Th

ree

tag

sfr

om

each

lot

of

tag

s

Rece

ivin

g

em

plo

yee

Reje

ctta

gs

Rece

ivin

g

reco

rd

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

an

d

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n

Fre

ezi

ng

Para

site

sFre

ezi

ng

at

)35

�Co

r

belo

wu

nti

lso

lid

an

dh

old

at

)20

�Co

rb

elo

wfo

r24

h

Tem

pera

ture

of

bla

stfr

eeze

r

an

dst

ora

ge

freeze

rLen

gth

of

tim

eh

eld

fro

zen

Vis

ual

check

of

wh

en

firs

t

Cep

halo

po

dis

soli

dfr

oze

nan

d

at

en

do

f

freezi

ng

cycl

e.

Reco

rd

tem

pera

ture

s

Co

nti

nu

ou

s,w

ith

vis

ual

check

at

en

do

feach

freezi

ng

cycl

e.

Wh

en

cep

halo

po

dis

soli

dfr

oze

nan

d

at

en

do

feach

freezi

ng

cycl

e

Fre

eze

r

op

era

tor

Fre

eze

r

op

era

tor

Ad

just

freeze

r

Refr

eeze

pro

du

ct

Sam

e

Reco

rder

chart

wit

hn

ota

tio

ns

for

soli

dfr

oze

n

an

den

do

feach

cycl

e

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

,

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

an

dveri

fica

tio

n

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n

Ch

eck

the

acc

ura

cyo

fth

e

tem

pera

ture

reco

rdin

g

devic

es

dail

y

Raw

mate

rial

sto

rag

e

Sco

mb

roto

xin

form

ati

on

Pro

du

ctco

mp

lete

ly

covere

din

ice

thro

ug

ho

ut

sto

rag

e

Ad

eq

uacy

of

ice

surr

ou

nd

ing

pro

du

ct

Vis

ual

exam

inati

on

Every

lot

at

tim

e

of

rem

oval

fro

m

raw

mate

rial

sto

rag

eco

ole

r

an

dat

least

twic

ea

day

for

lots

no

tre

mo

ved

Pro

du

ctio

n

sup

erv

iso

r

Ad

dic

eP

roce

ssin

g

reco

rd

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

an

d

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n



Tab

le4(C

ontinued)

Cri

tical

co

ntr

ol

po

int

(CC

P)

Sig

nifi

can

t

hazard

(s)

Cri

tical

lim

its

for

each

pre

ven

tive

measu

re

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Co

rrecti

ve

acti

on

(s)

Reco

rds

Veri

ficati

on

Wh

at

Ho

wFre

qu

en

cy

Wh

o

Bu

tch

eri

ng

⁄p

ack

ag

ing

Sco

mb

roto

xin

form

ati

on

Pro

du

ctis

no

t

exp

ose

dto

tem

pera

ture

s

ab

ove

4�C

for

mo

re

than

4h

cum

ula

tively

ifan

y

of

that

tim

eis

ab

ove

21

�C,

or

ab

ove

4�C

for

mo

reth

an

8h

as

lon

gas

no

po

rtio

no

f

that

tim

eis

ab

ove

21

�Ch

cum

ula

tively

.

Tim

eo

f

pro

du

ct

exp

osu

re

mo

llu

sc

refr

igera

ted

con

dit

ion

s

du

rin

g

bu

tch

eri

ng

⁄p

ack

ag

ing

Vis

ual

track

ing

of

tim

efo

rm

ark

ed

pro

du

ctto

mo

ve

thro

ug

h

bu

tch

eri

ng

⁄p

ack

ag

ing

.

Every

batc

ho

f

mo

llu

scm

ark

ed

wh

en

rem

oved

fro

mra

w

mate

rial

sto

rag

e.

Qu

ali

ty

con

tro

l

sup

erv

iso

r

Dest

roy

lot

Pro

cess

ing

reco

rd

Fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

sto

rag

e

Sco

mb

roto

xin

form

ati

on

Pro

du

ctco

mp

lete

ly

covere

din

ice

thro

ug

ho

ut

sto

rag

e

Ad

eq

uacy

of

ice

surr

ou

nd

ing

pro

du

ct

Vis

ual

exam

inati

on

Every

lot

at

tim

e

of

rem

oval

fro

m

fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

sto

rag

eco

ole

r

for

ship

men

t

Sh

ipp

ing

sup

erv

iso

r

Ad

dic

eS

hip

pin

g

reco

rd

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

an

d

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n

Back

ing

Path

og

en

gro

wth

an

dto

xin

form

ati

on

No

mo

reth

an

2h

cum

ula

tive

tim

e

du

rin

gb

ack

ing

,

pic

kin

gan

d

pack

ing

Tim

eo

f

pro

du

ct

exp

osu

reto

un

refr

igera

ted

con

dit

ion

s

Vis

ual

ob

serv

ati

on

of

mark

ed

con

tain

ers

Sta

rtm

ark

ed

con

tain

er

every

2h

du

rin

g

back

ing

Pro

du

ctio

n

sup

erv

iso

r

Imm

ed

iate

lyic

e

pro

du

cto

rm

ove

toco

ole

r

Pro

du

ctio

n

reco

rd

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

an

d

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n

Back

ed

Cep

halo

po

d

(mo

llu

sc)

coo

ler

Path

og

en

gro

wth

an

dto

xin

form

ati

on

Co

ole

rm

ain

tain

ed

at

or

belo

w4

�CC

oo

ler

tem

pera

ture

Dig

ital

tim

e⁄

tem

pera

ture

data

log

ger

Co

nti

nu

ou

sw

ith

vis

ual

check

on

cep

er

day

Pro

du

ctio

n

sup

erv

iso

r

Mo

ve

toalt

ern

ate

coo

ler

an

d⁄o

r

ad

dic

e

Data

log

ger

pri

nto

ut.

Ch

eck

acc

ura

cyo

f

data

log

ger

ag

ain

sta

stan

dard

therm

om

ete

r

on

cep

er

day

Pic

kin

gP

ath

og

en

gro

wth

an

dto

xin

form

ati

on

No

mo

reth

an

2h

cum

ula

tive

tim

e

du

rin

gb

ack

ing

,

pic

kin

g,

an

d

pack

ing

Tim

eo

f

pro

du

ct

exp

osu

reto

un

refr

igera

ted

con

dit

ion

s

Vis

ual

ob

serv

ati

on

of

mark

ed

con

tain

ers

Sta

rtm

ark

ed

con

tain

er

ap

px.

every

2h

du

rin

g

pic

kin

g

Pro

du

ctio

n

sup

erv

iso

r

Imm

ed

iate

lyic

e

pro

du

cto

rm

ove

toco

ole

r

Pro

du

ctio

n

reco

rd

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

an

d

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n

Fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

coo

ler

Path

og

en

gro

wth

an

dto

xin

form

ati

on

Co

ole

rm

ain

tain

ed

at

or

belo

w4

�CC

oo

ler

tem

pera

ture

Dig

ital

tim

e⁄

tem

pera

ture

data

log

ger

Co

nti

nu

ou

sw

ith

vis

ual

check

on

cep

er

day

Pro

du

ctio

n

em

plo

yee

Mo

ve

toalt

ern

ate

coo

ler

an

d⁄o

r

ad

dic

e

Data

log

ger

pri

nto

ut

Ch

eck

acc

ura

cyo

f

data

log

ger

ag

ain

sta

stan

dard

therm

om

ete

r

on

cep

er

day;



Tab

le4(C

ontinued)

Cri

tical

co

ntr

ol

po

int

(CC

P)

Sig

nifi

can

t

hazard

(s)

Cri

tical

lim

its

for

each

pre

ven

tive

measu

re

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Co

rrecti

ve

acti

on

(s)

Reco

rds

Veri

ficati

on

Wh

at

Ho

wFre

qu

en

cy

Wh

o

Pack

ing

Path

og

en

gro

wth

an

dto

xin

form

ati

on

No

mo

reth

an

3½

h

cum

ula

tive

tim

e

du

rin

gp

ack

ing

Tim

eo

f

pro

du

ct

exp

osu

reto

un

refr

igera

ted

con

dit

ion

s

Vis

ual

ob

serv

ati

on

of

tim

eth

at

the

last

con

tain

er

of

mo

llu

scfr

om

the

batc

his

pack

ed

on

ice

Every

batc

hP

ack

ing

roo

m

em

plo

yee

Ho

ldan

devalu

ate

base

do

nto

tal

tim

e⁄

tem

pera

ture

exp

osu

re

Pack

ing

reco

rd

Stu

dy

sho

win

g

tem

pera

ture

pro

file

of

pro

du

ctd

uri

ng

pro

cess

ing

Fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

sto

rag

e

Path

og

en

gro

wth

an

dto

xin

form

ati

on

Fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

con

tain

ers

com

ple

tely

surr

ou

nd

ed

wit

h

ice

Ad

eq

uacy

of

ice

Vis

ual

ob

serv

ati

on

Each

case

imm

ed

iate

ly

befo

resh

ipp

ing

Sh

ipp

ing

em

plo

yee

Re-i

ce

Ho

ldan

devalu

ate

base

do

nto

tal

tim

e⁄

tem

pera

ture

exp

osu

re

Sh

ipp

ing

reco

rd

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

an

d

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n

Bri

nin

gC

.b

otu

lin

um

toxin

form

ati

on

infi

nis

hed

pro

du

ct

Min

imu

mb

rin

ing

tim

e6

h

Min

imu

msa

lt

con

cen

trati

on

of

bri

ne

at

start

of

bri

nin

g60

&

sali

mete

r

Min

imu

mra

tio

of

bri

ne

mo

llu

sc:

2:1

(No

te:

To

pro

du

ce

min

imu

mw

ate

r

ph

ase

salt

level

in

the

loin

mu

scle

of

3.5

%)

Len

gth

of

bri

nin

g

pro

cess

Salt

con

cen

trati

on

of

bri

ne

Weig

ht

of

bri

ne

(as

dete

rmin

ed

by

vo

lum

e)

Weig

ht

of

mo

llu

sc

mo

llu

sc

thic

kness

Vis

ual

Sali

no

mete

r

Vis

ual

tom

ark

on

tan

k

Sca

le

Cali

per

Sta

rtan

den

do

f

bri

nin

gp

roce

ss

Sta

rto

fb

rin

ing

pro

cess

Sta

rto

fb

rin

ing

pro

cess

Each

batc

h

Each

batc

h

(10

mo

llu

scs)

Bri

ne

roo

m

em

plo

yee

Exte

nd

bri

nin

g

pro

cess

Ad

dsa

lt

Ad

db

rin

e

Rem

ove

som

e

mo

llu

scs

an

d

rew

eig

h

Ho

ldan

devalu

ate

base

do

n

fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

wate

rp

hase

salt

an

aly

sis

Pro

du

ctio

n

reco

rd

Do

cum

en

tati

on

of

bri

nin

g⁄d

ryin

g

pro

cess

est

ab

lish

men

t

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

,

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

,an

d

veri

fica

tio

n

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n

Mo

nth

ly

cali

bra

tio

no

f

scale

Qu

art

erl

yw

ate

r

ph

ase

salt

an

aly

sis

Fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

sto

rag

e

C.

bo

tuli

nu

m

toxin

form

ati

on

du

rin

gfi

nis

hed

pro

du

ctst

ora

ge

Maxim

um

coo

ler

tem

pera

ture

4�C

(base

do

ng

row

th

of

veg

eta

tive

path

og

en

s)

Co

ole

rair

tem

pera

ture

Dig

ital

data

log

ger

Co

nti

nu

ou

s,w

ith

vis

ual

on

cep

er

day

Pro

du

ctio

n

em

plo

yee

Ad

just

or

rep

air

coo

ler,

an

d

Ho

ldan

devalu

ate

base

do

n

tim

e⁄

tem

pera

ture

of

exp

osu

re

Data

log

ger

pri

nto

ut

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

,

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

,an

d

veri

fica

tio

n

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n

Dail

ych

eck

of

data

log

ger

acc

ura

cy



Tab

le4(C

ontinued)

Cri

tical

co

ntr

ol

po

int

(CC

P)

Sig

nifi

can

t

hazard

(s)

Cri

tical

lim

its

for

each

pre

ven

tive

measu

re

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Co

rrecti

ve

acti

on

(s)

Reco

rds

Veri

ficati

on

Wh

at

Ho

wFre

qu

en

cy

Wh

o

Dry

ing

(fo

rced

con

vect

ion

oven

)

Path

og

en

gro

wth

an

dto

xin

form

ati

on

Maxim

um

pro

du

ct

thic

kness

¼in

.

Min

imu

md

ryin

g

tim

e5

h

Min

imu

mo

ven

tem

pera

ture

60

�CT

oach

ieve

afi

nal

wate

ract

ivit

yo

f

0.8

5o

rle

ss

Pro

du

ct

thic

kness

Dry

ing

tim

e

Oven

air

inp

ut

tem

pera

ture

Pre

set

slic

er

to

just

less

than

¼in

.

Dig

ital

tim

e⁄

tem

pera

ture

data

log

ger

On

cep

er

day

befo

re

op

era

tio

ns

Co

nti

nu

ou

s,w

ith

vis

ual

check

each

batc

h

Sli

cer

op

era

tor

Oven

op

era

tor

Read

just

slic

er

Co

nti

nu

ed

ryin

g

Exte

nd

dry

ing

pro

cess

Seg

reg

ate

pro

du

ctan

dh

old

for

evalu

ati

on

.

Evalu

ate

by

perf

orm

ing

wate

ract

ivit

y

an

aly

sis

on

fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct.

Re-d

ryif

mo

re

than

0.8

5

Pro

cess

ing

log

Data

log

ger

pri

nto

ut

Do

cum

en

tati

on

of

dry

ing

pro

cess

est

ab

lish

men

t

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

,

veri

fica

tio

nan

d

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n

Ch

eck

the

acc

ura

cyo

fth

e

data

log

ger

dail

y

An

aly

zefi

nis

hed

pro

du

ctsa

mp

le

on

ceevery

3m

on

ths

for

wate

ract

ivit

y

Lab

eli

ng

rece

ipt

Su

lph

itin

g

ag

en

ts

All

fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

lab

els

mu

stco

nta

in

sulp

hit

ing

ag

en

t

decl

ara

tio

n

Fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ctla

bels

for

pre

sen

ce

of

sulp

hit

ing

ag

en

t

decl

ara

tio

n

Vis

ual

On

ela

bel

fro

m

each

case

of

lab

els

at

rece

ipt

Rece

ivin

g

em

plo

yee

Seg

reg

ate

an

d

retu

rnan

yla

bels

that

do

no

t

con

tain

the

sulp

hit

ing

ag

en

t

decl

ara

tio

n

Lab

el

rece

ivin

g

reco

rd

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

an

d

corr

ect

ion

act

ion

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n

Mo

llu

scs

rece

ivin

g

Su

lph

itin

g

ag

en

ts

Inco

min

glo

tso

f

mo

llu

scm

ust

be

acc

om

pan

ied

by

asu

pp

lier’

s

cert

ifica

teth

at

sulp

hit

ing

ag

en

ts

were

no

tu

sed

on

the

lot.

Su

pp

lier’

s

lot-

by

lot

cert

ifica

te

that

no

sulp

hit

ing

ag

en

tsw

ere

use

do

nth

e

lot.

Vis

ual

Every

lot

of

inco

min

g

mo

llu

sc

Rece

ivin

g

em

plo

yee

Reje

ctan

y

inco

min

glo

to

f

mo

llu

scs

that

is

no

t

acc

om

pan

ied

by

asu

pp

lier’

s

cert

ifica

te.

Co

pie

so

f

sup

pli

er’

s

gu

ara

nte

es

Test

on

elo

tp

er

qu

art

er

for

sulp

hit

ing

ag

en

t

resi

du

e,

an

dte

st

on

elo

tfr

om

each

new

sup

pli

er

of

mo

llu

scs

for

sulfi

tin

gag

en

t

resi

du

e

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

,

corr

ect

ion

act

ion

an

dveri

fica

tio

n

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n



Tab

le4(C

ontinued)

Cri

tical

co

ntr

ol

po

int

(CC

P)

Sig

nifi

can

t

hazard

(s)

Cri

tical

lim

its

for

each

pre

ven

tive

measu

re

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Co

rrecti

ve

acti

on

(s)

Reco

rds

Veri

ficati

on

Wh

at

Ho

wFre

qu

en

cy

Wh

o

Meta

l

dete

ctio

n

Meta

l

incl

usi

on

No

dete

ctab

lem

eta

l

frag

men

tsin

fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

Pre

sen

ceo

f

dete

ctab

le

meta

l

frag

men

tsin

fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

Meta

ld

ete

cto

rE

very

fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

pack

ag

e,

wit

h

op

era

tio

nch

eck

befo

rest

art

-up

Pro

du

ctio

n

em

plo

yee

Dest

roy

an

y

pro

du

ctre

ject

ed

by

meta

l

dete

cto

r

Iden

tify

sou

rce

of

meta

lfo

un

din

g

pro

du

ctan

dfi

x

dam

ag

ed

eq

uip

men

t

Ifp

rod

uct

is

pro

cess

ed

wit

ho

ut

meta

l

dete

ctio

nh

old

for

meta

l

dete

ctio

n

Meta

l

dete

cto

r

op

era

tio

nlo

g

Test

meta

l

dete

cto

rw

ith

thre

ete

stu

nit

s

befo

re

pro

du

ctio

neach

day,

an

d

reca

lib

rate

if

need

ed

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

,

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

an

dveri

fica

tio

n

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n

X-r

ay

eq

uip

men

tG

lass

incl

usi

on

No

dete

ctab

leg

lass

frag

men

tsin

fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

Pre

sen

ceo

f

dete

ctab

le

gla

ss

frag

men

tsin

fin

ish

ed

pro

du

cts

X-r

ay

devic

eE

very

fin

ish

ed

pro

du

ct

pack

ag

e,

wit

h

op

era

tio

nch

eck

befo

rest

art

up

Pro

du

ctio

n

em

plo

yee

Dest

roy

an

y

pro

du

ctre

ject

ed

by

X-r

ay

eq

uip

men

tan

d

Sto

po

pera

tio

ns

an

did

en

tify

sou

rce

of

gla

ss

fou

nd

inp

rod

uct

an

dfi

xd

am

ag

ed

eq

uip

men

tan

d

Ifp

rod

uct

is

pro

cess

ed

wit

ho

ut

X-r

ay

eq

uip

men

t,h

old

for

dete

ctio

nb

y

off

-lin

eX

-ray

eq

uip

men

t

X-r

ay

op

era

tio

nlo

g

Test

X-r

ay

devic

e

befo

re

pro

du

ctio

neach

day,

an

d

reca

lib

rate

if

need

ed

Revie

w

mo

nit

ori

ng

,

corr

ect

ive

act

ion

an

dveri

fica

tio

n

reco

rds

wit

hin

1w

eek

of

pre

para

tio

n



gutting to remove any remaining material from the tubecavity and to reduce the level of micro-organismspresent on the product. An adequate supply of cleanseawater or potable water should be available for thewashing of whole cephalopods and cephalopod products(http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/report/633/al28_18e.pdf).

Skinning, trimming

The method of skinning should not contaminate theproduct nor should it allow the growth of micro-organisms, e.g. enzymatic skinning or hot watertechniques should have defined time ⁄ temperatureparameters to prevent the growth of micro-organisms.Care should be taken to prevent waste material fromcross contaminating the product. An adequate supplyof clean seawater or potable water should be availablefor the washing or product during and after skinning

(http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/008/j1682e/j1682e04.htm).

Grading/packing

Packaging material should be clean, be suitable for itsintended purpose and manufactured from food-gradematerials. Grading and packing operations should becarried out with minimal delay to prevent deteriorationof the cephalopod (http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgph01002.pdf).

Freezing

Cephalopods should be frozen as rapidly as possibleto prevent deterioration of the product and a resultingreduction in shelf-life due to microbial growth andchemical reactions. The time ⁄ temperature parametersdeveloped should ensure rapid freezing of product and

Table 5 Comparative presentation of CCPs determined with HACCP and ISO 22000 analysis in conjunction with prerequisite programmes for

octopus processing

A/A Step

CCP according to

HACCP

Prerequisite

programmes

(ISO 22000)

CCPs according

to ISO 22000

1 Receiving of raw materials – cephalopod reception CCP1 No CCP1

2 Holding under chilling conditions CP Yes –

3 Controlled thawing with water CP Yes –

4 Freezing and frozen storage CCP2 Yes –

5 Washing with water CP Yes –

6 Cutting ⁄ splitting CP Yes –

7 Tentacles CP Yes –

8 Eyes, beak removed CP Yes –

9 Washing CP Yes –

10 Grading CP Yes –

11 Washing with water CP Yes –

12 Boiling and concentration CP Yes –

13 Packaging CP Yes –

14 Skimming CP Yes –

15 Trimming CP Yes –

16 Cutting CP Yes –

17 Filleting CP Yes –

18 Grading CP Yes –

19 Casing, labelling CP Yes –

20 Packaging CP Yes –

21 Storage in cans CP Yes –

22 Caging CP Yes –

23 Storage of raw materials CCP3 No –

24 Conveying CP Yes –

25 Washing ⁄ turning CP Yes –

26 Packing, filling, sealing CP Yes –

27 Butchering, packaging CCP4 No CCP2

28 Packing CCP5 No CCP3

29 Brining CP Yes –

30 Finished product storage in cans CCP6 Yes –

31 Caging ⁄ distribution ⁄ retail CP Yes –



should take into consideration the type of freezingequipment, capacity, the size and shape of theproduct, and production volume. Production shouldbe geared to the freezing capacity of the processingfacility.If freezing is used as a control point for parasites, then

the time ⁄ temperature parameters need to ensure that theparasites are no longer viable need to be established.The product temperature should be monitored regularlyto ensure the completeness of the freezing operation as itrelates to the core temperature. Adequate recordsshould be kept for all freezing and frozen storageoperations (http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/008/j1682e/j1682e04.htm).

Packaging, labelling and ingredients – reception andstorage

Consideration should be given to the potential hazardsand defects associated with packaging, labelling andingredients. Care should be taken to ensure thathandling and packaging product is conducted in accor-dance to the guidelines of PrP. Care should be taken toensure that labelling is in accordance to guidelines ofPre-requisite Programmes and Codex Labelling Stan-dards especially for known allergens. Care should betaken to ensure that product is not subjected totemperature abuse during packaging and handling. Careshould be taken to avoid cross contamination ofready-to-eat and raw shellfish, shellfish and theirproducts at the work areas or by utensils or personnel(http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/report/633/al28_18e.pdf).

Conclusions

In this work comparison of ISO 22000 analysis withHACCP was carried out over octopus processing andpackaging. ISO 22000 Analysis Worksheet has beenemployed for determination of some PrPs. Comparisonbetween the two systems has been carried out using thehazard analysis and the ISO 22000 analysis worksheet.The PrPs are the main difference between the twosystems. The incorporation of PRPs in the ISO 22000made the system more flexible since a smaller number ofCCPs was introduced.

Internet Sources

• http://www.npd-solutions.com/pdforum.html

• http://www.fmeainfocentre.com/

• http://www.fmeainfocentre.com/download/umich.pdf

• http://www.npd-solutions.com/fmea.html

• http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/uniform/gdpa_d/

methods/m-fmea.htm

• http://www.relexsoftware.com/products/fmeafmeca.asp

• http://www.ivt.ntnu.no/bat/bm/buildphys/proceedings/

68_Nielsen.pdf

• http://mot.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/mt322/Ishikawa.htm

• http://www.isixsigma.com/tt/cause_and_effect/

• http://www.saferpak.com/cause_effect.htm

• http://www.semiconfareast.com/ishikawa.htm

• http://mielsvr2.ecs.umass.edu/virtual_econ/module2/

Cause_effect.htm

• http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/resources/

Grzimek_inverts/Cephalopoda/Octopus_vulgaris.jpg/

view.html

• http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgph01002.pdf

• http://www.afdo.org/afdo/upload/Sushi.pdf

• http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/008/j1682e/

j1682e04.htm

• http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/report/

633/al28_18e.pdf

•http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fvo/act_get-

PDF.cfm?PDF_ID=4573

•http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/SeafoodRetailers-

Guide/SeafoodRetailersGuidlelines.pdf

•http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/_files/eh38.pdf

•http://www-nehc.med.navy.mil/downloads/prevmed/

MILHBK3006A.pdf

•http://www.e-haccp.org.uk/previousconference/Confer-ence_proceedings1.pdf

•http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/

j.1471-5740.2002.00038.x/pdf?cookieSet=1

References

Aguado-Gimanez, F. & Garcia-Garcia, B. (2005). Changes in somemorphometric relationships in Atlantic bluefin tuna as a result offattening process. Aquaculture, 249, 303–309.

Arvanitoyannis, I.S. & Tzouros, N.H. (2006). ISO 22000, The NewFood Quality and Safety Standard. Athens: Stamoulis S.A.

FAO. 2001. Fish and Fisheries Products. Food Outlook 1, February,vol. 11. Rome: FAO ⁄GIEWS.

Howgate, P., Johnston, A. & Whittle, A.D.J. (1992). MultilingualGuide to EC Freshness Grades for Fishery Products. Aberdeen:Tommy Research Station.

Katsanevakis, S. & Verriopoulos, G. (2005). Seasonal populationdynamics of Octopus vulgaris in the eastern Mediterranean, ICESJournal of Marine Science. In Press, Corrected Proof.

Kreuzer, R. (1984). Cephalopods: handling, processing and products.FAO Fish. Tech. Pap 254, 108 pp.

Miliou, H., Fintikaki, M., Kountouris, T. & Verriopoulos, G. (2005).Combined effects of temperature and body weight on growth andprotein utilization of the common octopus, Octopus vulgaris.Aquaculture, 249, 245–256.

Napoleao, P., Pinheiro, T. & Sousa Reis, C. (2005a). Elementalcharacterization of tissues of Octopus vulgaris along the Portuguesecoast. Science of The Total Environment, 345, 41–49.

Napoleao, P., Sousa Reis, C. & Alves, L.C. (2005b). Morphologicalcharacterization and elemental distribution of Octopus vulgariscuvier, 1797 vestigial shell. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in



Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials andAtoms, 231, 345–349.

Seixas, S., Bustamante, P. & Pierce, G.J. (2005). Interannual patternsof variation in concentrations of trace elements in arms of Octopusvulgaris. Chemosphere, 59, 1113–1124.

Shewan, J.M., Mackintoch, R.G., Tucher, C.G. & Erhenberg, A.S.C.(1953). The development of a numerical scoring system for thesensory assesment of the spoilage of wet fish stored in ice. Journal ofScience, Food and Agriculture, 6, 183–198.

Vaz-Pires, P. & Barbosa, A. (2004). Sensory, microbiological,physical and nutritional properties of iced whole common octopus(Octopus vulgaris). Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Tecnologie, 37,105–114.

Vaz-Pires, P, Seixas, P. & Barbosa, A. (2004). Aquaculture potential ofthe common octopus (Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797): a review.Aquaculture, 238, 221–238.



Documents

Application of ISO 22000 and comparison with HACCP on ... · PDF fileOriginal article Application of ISO 22000 and comparison with HACCP on industrial processing of common octopus