I seemed to perceive one matter in at least some of the questions and
that is that there is an assumption that the original processors HACCP
plan failed in some way and that the secondary processor must compensate
for that perceived failure. If that is in fact the case, wouldn't all
the product on the retail shelf come under that same assumption?
I guess my questions is this. DO we assume the HACCP plan has failed or
been sucessful. I know we can all site instances of failure, however,
for every failure (food borne illness)there are an un-countable number
of sucesses in the market place. Maybe the perception is whether one is
a regulator who might have the tendancy to assume failure, or industry
where one might have the tendance to assume success.
A second question comes to mind, if we assume HACCP plan failure, are we
back to the old style of inspection?
I would appreciate your comments.
Ron