The HACCP team lists all potential hazards, identifies, step by step (inputs included), where each could reasonably be expected to arise, describing it specifically together with its source (for example metal fragments from broken blades after chopping), and then evaluates which hazards are significant, that is, hazards that must be prevented, eliminated or brought down to acceptable levels. The evaluation considers, where possible: hazards known for the food type, ingredients and steps (surveys, testing, recalls, literature, epidemiology); likelihood of occurrence given prerequisite programmes; how likely and how serious the health effects would be without control; acceptable levels from regulation, intended use and science; the facility and equipment; survival or growth of pathogens; formation or persistence of toxins, chemicals (pesticides, drug residues, allergens) and physical agents; intended use and likely mishandling or known unintended use; and conditions leading to these. A simplified analysis by hazard group may be acceptable, with generic tools from industry or authorities. Significant hazards are controlled by measures that prevent, eliminate or reduce them, whether GHPs targeting a specific hazard or control measures within the process such as at CCPs, recognising that one hazard may need several measures and one measure may control several hazards.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.