About this Video

• Video Title: Análisis de Riesgos según IFS food versión 8 - Episodio nº 5
• Channel: Marife Montes Luna
• Speakers: Marife Montes
• Duration: 00:36:29

Introduction

This podcast episode discusses risk analysis according to IFS Food version 8. The speaker explains the importance of correctly evaluating risks to determine how to implement requirements, focusing on identifying, evaluating, and managing risks to food safety. Several examples of requirements from the IFS Food standard are provided, showing how to apply a risk-based approach to their implementation.

Key Takeaways

• Risk-Based Approach: The IFS Food version 8 standard emphasizes a risk-based approach, requiring implementation based on risk level. This is mentioned numerous times throughout the standard.
• Four Steps to Risk Analysis: The podcast outlines a four-step process: 1) identify hazards; 2) evaluate risks (probability and impact); 3) control risks (implement effective measures); and 4) document and review.
• Examples of Risk-Based Implementation: Specific examples are given for various requirements, such as infrastructure improvements, hygiene checks, lavatory placement, water and air quality sampling, metal detector testing, pest control, internal audits, and the review of analytical results. Each example details how risk assessment dictates implementation frequency and procedures.
• Documentation is Crucial: Maintaining detailed documentation to support all implemented requirements is stressed as essential for demonstrating compliance.
• Continuous Improvement: The importance of ongoing review and improvement of the risk assessment and control measures to maintain high levels of food safety is highlighted.

Here are the answers to your four questions, based on the provided Marife Montes Luna podcast transcript:

1. How many times does the IFS Food version 8 standard mention the requirement for implementation based on risk? (The transcript states it's between 24 and 27 times.)

The transcript explicitly states that the requirement to implement based on risk appears between 24 and 27 times in the IFS Food version 8 standard. The exact number isn't specified within the transcript itself.

1. What are the four steps outlined in the podcast for performing a risk analysis according to IFS Food version 8?

The four steps for risk analysis outlined in the podcast are:

1. **Identify Hazards:** Identify all potential hazards that could affect food safety throughout the process or product.  This includes biological, chemical, and physical hazards, as well as process inefficiencies and external factors.

2. **Evaluate Risks:** Assess the probability of occurrence and the potential impact of each identified hazard on food safety. This helps to prioritize risks based on their significance.

3. **Control Risks:** Establish fully effective control measures to minimize or eliminate the identified risks. These measures may include good practices, quality controls, staff training, and constant monitoring.

4. **Document and Review:** Document all implemented requirements and their supporting evidence. Regularly review and update risk assessments and control measures to ensure continued effectiveness and continuous improvement.

3. What are some examples of requirements in the IFS Food standard that necessitate a risk-based approach to implementation? (Several are detailed, such as infrastructure, hygiene, etc.)

The podcast details several requirements where a risk-based approach is necessary for implementation. Examples include:

* **Planning of improvement opportunities:**  Investments in infrastructure improvements should be planned based on the risk of deficient infrastructure negatively affecting the process or product.
* **Frequency of hygiene checks:**  The frequency of hygiene checks should be determined based on a risk assessment, with a maximum interval of three months.
* **Lavatory placement:**  While lavatories are mandatory in high-risk areas, their placement in other areas should be determined based on the identified risk.
* **Water and air quality sampling:**  Sampling plans should be defined based on the source of water or air, its use, and relevant legislation.
* **Metal detector testing:** The frequency of testing should be based on the risk of contamination.
* **Pest control:**  The measures for pest control should be detailed and justified, tailored to the specific risks of the facility.
* **Internal audits:** The frequency of internal audits should be justified based on the number and severity of deviations found.
* **Review of analytical results:**  The frequency of review and the actions taken should be based on the identified trends and impact on products.  

4. What criteria are suggested for evaluating the risk associated with the frequency of internal audits? (Number of deviations, severity, client requirements, etc.)

The podcast suggests several criteria for evaluating the risk associated with internal audit frequency:

* **Number of deviations and nonconformities:** A high number of deviations indicates a higher risk and may necessitate more frequent audits.
* **Severity of deviations:** The gravity of the nonconformities found (e.g., impacting product safety versus minor procedural issues) influences the required audit frequency.
* **Complexity of the process:**  More complex processes may require more frequent auditing.
* **Client requirements:**  If clients mandate specific audit frequencies, these must be considered.
* **Customer complaints:** A high number of customer complaints suggests a higher risk and the need for more frequent audits.

Based on Marife Montes' podcast, the recommendations are as follows, keeping in mind that the podcast emphasizes a risk-based approach and that specific frequencies are determined by individual risk assessments rather than fixed rules:

Frequency Recommendations (always based on individual risk assessment):

• Hygiene inspections: While the standard suggests a maximum interval of three months, the frequency should be determined by the risk assessment. This could mean more frequent inspections (e.g., weekly or bi-weekly) if high-risk areas are identified or less frequent if the assessment shows lower risk.
• Internal Audits: The podcast doesn't give a specific frequency but highlights that the frequency should be based on the risk assessment. Factors like the number and severity of nonconformities, complexity of the processes, and client requirements play a role in deciding how often to conduct internal audits. It could be more frequent than the standard 12 months, or less frequent if risk is low.
• Metal Detector Testing: Daily checks before production are recommended, along with additional tests during each shift, based on the assessed risk of contamination. The nature of the product, production process, and environment all influence this frequency.
• Review of Analytical Results: While the podcast doesn't suggest specific timelines for reviewing analytical results, the emphasis is on actively reviewing all results, identifying trends, and taking corrective actions. Frequency depends on the type of product, analysis performed, and observed trends.

General Recommendations:

• Documentation: Meticulous documentation of all risk assessments, control measures, and their justification is crucial. This documentation is essential for demonstrating compliance to auditors.
• Continuous Improvement: The risk assessment and control measures are not static and must be regularly reviewed and updated to ensure ongoing effectiveness. Data analysis is critical to identify areas for improvement.
• Tailored Approach: The podcast stresses that the approach to risk assessment and implementation should be tailored to the specific circumstances and context of each company. A "one-size-fits-all" approach is discouraged.
• Justification: Any deviation from suggested practices should be clearly justified through a robust risk assessment. Simply adhering to standard intervals without explanation isn't sufficient.

Marife Montes repeatedly emphasizes that these are recommendations based on her interpretation and experience, and companies should adapt them to their specific situations and always justify their choices through a comprehensive risk assessment.

Marife Montes' concluding remarks in the podcast emphasize several key points:

• Risk-Based Approach is Paramount: The overarching message is the absolute necessity of a risk-based approach to implementing IFS Food version 8 requirements. No blanket statements or fixed frequencies apply; every decision must be justified by a thorough risk assessment specific to the company's situation.

• Documentation is Non-Negotiable: Everything must be documented. Undocumented actions are considered non-existent in terms of compliance. Thorough documentation protects the company from deviations and potential certification issues.

• Continuous Improvement is Essential: The food safety system is dynamic and requires ongoing monitoring, analysis, and improvement. Data from various sources (audits, inspections, analytical results, customer complaints) should continuously inform adjustments to risk assessments and control measures.

• Tailored Solutions are Key: A "one-size-fits-all" approach is ineffective and potentially risky. Companies must conduct their own risk assessments and implement solutions perfectly aligned with their unique circumstances and processes.

• Justification is Critical: Simply stating adherence to a specific frequency without a clear risk-based justification is insufficient. Every decision regarding implementation frequency and methods must be clearly documented and justified.

• Potential Consequences of Non-Compliance: Failure to properly implement a risk-based system and maintain appropriate documentation can lead to deviations, lower certification scores, and even loss of certification.

In essence, Marife Montes' concluding message urges listeners to adopt a proactive, data-driven, and thoroughly documented approach to food safety, emphasizing the continuous improvement cycle and the vital role of risk assessment in shaping every decision.