Technical barriers to Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point(HACCP)
Pedro Javier Panisello
, Peter Charles Quantick
Ashial ± Centro de Estudios Alimentarios S.L. Montcada, 7, entlo. Tortosa, Spain
Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, University of Lincolnshire & Humberside, Main Academic Building, Byford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK
Received 5 June 2000; received in revised form 28 September 2000; accepted 2 October 2000
During the last three decades, Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) has been progressively introduced and appliedfor the bene®t of the food industry. However, it should be recognised that HACCP systems have not been homogeneously im-plemented across all food industry sectors. Reasons for not implementing, maintaining and updating HACCP programmes cannotbe explained purely in terms of unwillingness by manufacturers but rather by the presence of technical barriers that may impede theapplication of the system. Technical barriers represent all those practices, attitudes and perceptions that negatively aect the un-derstanding of the HACCP concept and hence the proper and eective implementation and maintenance of the HACCP principles.This paper describes the potential barriers that may impede the correct use of HACCP before it has been implemented, during theprocess of implementation and after it has been implemented. Until barriers impeding HACCP have been resolved, HACCP systemswill not be implemented throughout the whole food chain and it will not be able to reach its full potential as prerequisite for theinternational trade of foodstus.
2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
HACCP implementation; Technical barriers
In recent years, there have been numerous advancesin our understanding of foodborne pathogens, butfoodborne disease incidents are still increasing or at leastnot diminishing world-wide (Todd, 1994; O'Brien,Rooney, Stanwell-Smith, & Handysides, 1998; Motarj-emi & K
aferstein, 1999). Similarly, there have also beennumerous developments in process/product controltechnologies aimed to produce hygienic, wholesomefood. However, it seems that our eorts have not suc-ceeded in preventing food poisoning incidents suggest-ing that control of foodborne disease is far morecomplicated than imagined. This justi®es the continua-tion of eorts by the industry, food control ocials andconsumer associations aimed to: (1) improve the appli-cation of good hygiene practices; (2) reinforce the use of food safety management systems throughout the wholefood chain; (3) apply product/process technologies toreduce the contamination of raw foodstus; and (4) in-crease the level of education and training of food han-dlers and consumers in the safe handling of foods.In the late 1960s, the Hazard Analysis Critical Con-trol Point (HACCP) concept was developed. This is asystematic approach to the identi®cation, evaluationand control of hazards (whether biological, physical orchemical) in a particular food operation (Codex Ali-mentarius, 1997). In the 1970s, except for the low-acidcanned industry and large corporations, the concept wasnot widely adopted into daily food operations. Duringthe 1980s, the concept evolved and gained acceptancethroughout the world and in the 1990s, re-emerged tobecome the primary approach to assure the safety of thefood supply (Buchanan, 1990). Since then, there havebeen considerable eorts to harmonise the use of HA-CCP from national and international institutions tomanage food safety hazards in the food industry world-wide.Despite the fact of the mandatory HACCP systems inthe regulations of many countries, it seems that is notproperly and fully implemented and/or understood by
Food Control 12 (2001) 165±173www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont
Paper presented at the First International Conference in FoodSafety in Travel and Tourism. Conference organised by NSF Inter-national, Barcelona 12±14 April 2000.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-977-44-4943; fax: +34-977-44-1886.
email@example.com (P. Javier Panisello).0956-7135/01/$ - see front matter
2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 9 5 6 - 7 1 3 5 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 3 5 - 9