Definitions IFS Food 6.1 Flashcards
Allergen (EU)
Food causing an adverse reaction that is mediated by an immunological response. Defined allergens are:
– Cereals containing gluten (i.e. wheat, rye, barley, oats, spelt, kamut or their hybridised strains) and products thereof
– Crustaceans and products thereof
– Eggs and products thereof
– Fish and products thereof
– Peanuts and products thereof
– Soybeans and products thereof
– Milk and products thereof (including lactose)
– Nuts i.e. Almond (Amygdalus communis L.), Hazelnut
(Corylus avellana), Walnut (Juglans regia), Cashew (Anacardium occidentale), Pecan nut (Carya illinoiesis (Wangenh.) K. Koch), Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa), Pistachio nut (Pistacia vera), Macadamia nut and Queens- land nut (Macadamia ternifolia) and products thereof
– Celery and products thereof
– Lupin and products thereof
– Molluscs and products thereof
– Mustard and products thereof
– Sesame seeds and products thereof
– Sulphur dioxide and sulphites at concentrations of
more than 10 mg/kg or 10 mg/litre expressed as SO2.
Regulation (EU) No 1169 / 2011 of the European Parlia- ment and of the council.
Assessor (for accreditation bodies)
Person assigned by an accreditation body to perform, alone or as part of an assessment team, an assessment of a Conformity Assessment Body.)
Audit
Systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled.
Audit time window
Period of time during which the unannounced audit may be performed.The date of reference for this time window is the audit due date (date of first certification audit). Within the IFS protocol, the time window is [–16 weeks; + 2 weeks] of the audit due date.
In case where initial audit will be performed directly unannounced, there will not be a specific time window.
Blackout period
The company may notify its certification body of the period of time in which the unannouned audit cannot take place (e.g. staff holidays, maintenance days, non-production days, etc.).
This includes maximum 10 operational days, plus non operating periods.
Note: the company cannot provide 10 individual days, but periods related to days when the company cannot ask the auditor to perform the audit in optimum conditions (e.g. planned customer visit, holidays of quality manager, etc.).
Calibration
Set of operations that establish, under specified conditions, the relationship between values of quantities indicated by a measuring instrument or measuring system, or values represented by a material measure or a reference material and the corresponding values realised by standards.
CCP – Critical Control Point
A step at which control can be applied and is essential to prevent or eliminate a food safety hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level.
Company
General organisation (whereas the site is a unit of the company).
Contamination
Introduction or occurrence of a contaminant in food or food environment. Contamination does include: physical, chemical, biological contamination. Contamination can also mean correlation of packages among themselves.
Corporate
Company
Correction
Action to eliminate a detected non-conformity or deviation
Corrective action
Action to eliminate the cause of a detected non-conform- ity, deviation or other undesirable situation.
CP – Control point
Identified by the hazard analysis as essential in order to control the likelihood of introducing or proliferation of food safety hazard in the product and/or the environment. A CP can be considered as an OPRP (Operational Pre- requisite Program), as defined in ISO 22000.
Customer
A customer is a business company or person to whom products are sold either as finished product or as a semi finished part of the finished product.
Deviation
Non-compliance with a requirement but there is no impact on food safety related to products and processes. In the IFS, deviations are requirements scored with a B, C or D and KO requirements scored with a B.
End-consumer
The ultimate consumer of a foodstuff who will not use the food as part of any food business operation or activity.
Factory inspection (versus Internal audits)
Factory inspection covers specific subjects and can be carried out by any appropriate person.That means regular visits in any areas, for any purposes, to check the conformity (hygiene, pest control, product control, fabri- cation, foreign material hazards, surrounding control etc.)
Flow diagram
A systematic representation of the sequence of steps or operations used in the production or manufacture of a particular food item.
Food defense (changed)
The protection of food products from intentional contam- ination or adulteration by biological, chemical, physical, or radiological agents for the purpose of causing harm.
Food fraud (changed)
The deliberate and intentional substitution, mislabelling, adulteration or counterfeiting of food, raw materials, ingredients or packaging placed upon the market for economic gain.This definition also applies to outsourced processes.
Food fraud mitigation plan
A process that defines the requirements on when, where and how to mitigate fraudulent activities, identified by a food fraud vulnerability assessment. The resulting plan will define the measures and controls that are required to be in place to effectively mitigate the identified risks.
The control measures required to be put into place may vary according to the nature of
– the food fraud (substitution, mislabelling, adulteration
or counterfeiting)
– detection methodology
– type of surveillance (inspection, audit, analytical,
product certification)
– source of the raw material, ingredient and packaging.
Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment
A systematic documented form of risk assessment to identify the risk of possible food fraud activity within the supply chain (including all raw materials, ingredients, food, packaging and outsourced processes).
The method of risk assessment may vary from company to company, however the systematic methodology for food fraud vulnerability assessment shall include as a minimum:
– The identification of potential food fraud activities, using known and reliable data sources.
– The evaluation of the level of risk; both product and supply source.
– The evaluation for the need for additional control measures.
– Use of the results of the Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment to develop and implement the Food Fraud Mitigation Plan.
– Reviewed annually, or when there is increased risk identified by change to defined risk criteria.
The criteria used to evaluate the level of risk might be: – History of food fraud incidents
– Economic factors
– Ease of fraudulent activity
– Supply chain complexity – Current control measures – Supplier confidence.