Using the preliminary information, the food safety team carries out a hazard analysis to decide which hazards must be controlled and to what degree to keep food safe, applying combinations of control measures where suitable. The organization identifies and documents every food safety hazard that can reasonably be expected for the type of product, process and environment, drawing on the preliminary information, experience, internal and external information (for example epidemiological, scientific and historical data), information coming from the food chain about hazards relevant to the safety of end products, intermediates and food at the time of consumption, and statutory, regulatory and customer requirements, in enough detail to allow control measures to be assessed and selected. It identifies the step or steps where each hazard may be introduced, be present, persist or increase, taking into account the stages before and after in the food chain, every step in the flow diagram, and equipment, utilities, the environment and people. Wherever possible it sets the acceptable level of each hazard in the end product, having regard to statutory, regulatory and customer requirements, the intended use and other relevant information, and documents those levels and why they were chosen. For every hazard it assesses how likely it is to occur in the end product before control and how severe its health effects could be given the intended use, identifies which hazards are significant, and documents the method and results. On the strength of that assessment it chooses control measures or combinations that can prevent significant hazards or bring them down to acceptable levels, and categorises each as an OPRP or a CCP through a systematic approach that considers how likely the measure is to fail and how severe the consequences would be (its effect on significant hazards, where it sits relative to other measures, whether it was set up specifically to reduce the hazard, and whether it acts alone or in combination), and whether it is feasible to set measurable critical limits or measurable or observable action criteria, to monitor so that failure is detected, and to correct promptly; it documents the decision process and outcome, along with the external requirements that influence which control measures are chosen and how strict they are.
This control maps to 8 controls across 5 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 8 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.