Dear All,
Re-histamine. An analysis could involve an interesting combination of, for example, Product, Process, Location, Risk Assessment, Scope of HACCP Plan, Standard, terminologies, COAs. You name it.
Theory
Clearly histamine is a potential hazard for some input seafood species. Does the Receiver have any control over a particular lot of incoming Raw Material, potentially with unsafe levels of histamine ? If frozen RM, yes - time would permit an accept / reject sampling/analysis. So a possible CCP.
However, many (but not all) haccp methodologies have nowadays adopted a Prerequisite approach which includes “Receiving” by definition (as against a “pure” Hygiene concept). So the control then, nominally, becomes more like a part of QA, ie excluded from CCP status. This convenience IMO was not entirely accidental. ![:smile:](https://www.ifsqn.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png)
But, just as an example, the USA (at least in their 2011 Seafood Guideline manual) seems to be a possible exception since they specify histamine CCPs for receiving frozen input.
For UK I’m unsure regarding their use of Prerequisites but, from memory, I seem to recall an FSA “official” example for some random (non-frozen?) inputs which implied COAs for Received Goods could anyway self-justify raw material had “no significant hazard” > no CCP (a semi-zigzag perhaps).
Life was not made to be easy.
Rgds / Charles.C
PS – Presumably repeated failure of a histamine PRP would justify a re-evaluation of its status. Elevation to a home-made OPRP perhaps.