Food Protection Trends - November/December 2024 - 553

causes. Some of the differences were the categorization of
causes, how the contributing factors are identified, the logic
utilized to link the causal chain, and the existence of root
causes. Any of these methods could be used to solve food
safety problems reactively or as a complement to EAs in a
food safety investigation.
Most RCA methods have same general structure: define
the problem, then identify causal factors, and finally uncover
root causes. This general structure emphasizes the fact that
there may be fundamental causal mechanisms that are related
to contributing factors and root causes and can be identified
and studied to properly uncover the root causes. Causal
mechanisms can be related to failure mechanisms, which
explain the failure mode. Problems of higher magnitude may
not always be solved with technical solutions implemented
at the root cause. Recent recommendations include
identification of the root causes of why the detections and
the systems failed.
Some components of the various RCA methods can be
useful for improving HACCP systems. These components
can be applied to the entire management system at the
PRPs and corrective actions or specific elements of HACCP
such as the HA and the CCPs. The Ishikawa categories can
be used to organize PRPs based on a structured approach,
REFERENCES
1. Arvanitoyannis, I. S., and S. C. Savelides.
2007. Application of failure mode and
effect analysis and cause and effect analysis
and Pareto diagram in conjunction with
HACCP to a chocolate-producing industry:
a case study of tentative GMO detection
at pilot plant scale. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.
42:1265-1289.
2. Arvanitoyannis, I. S., and T. H. Varzakas.
2007. Application of failure mode and effect
analysis (FMEA), cause and effect analysis
and Pareto diagram in conjunction with
HACCP to a potato chips manufacturing
plant. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 42:1424-1442.
3. Arvanitoyannis, I. S., and T. H. Varzakas.
2007. A conjoint study of quantitative and
semi-quantitative assessment of failure in
a strudel manufacturing plant by means of
FMEA and HACCP, cause and effect and
Pareto diagram. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.
42:1156-1176.
4. Arvanitoyannis, I. S., and T. H. Varzakas.
2008. Application of ISO 22000 and failure
mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for
industrial processing of salmon: a case study.
Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 48:411-429.
5. Arvanitoyannis, I. S., and T. H. Varzakas.
2009. Application of ISO 22000 and
comparison with HACCP on industrial
processing of common octopus (Octopus
vulgaris)-part I. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.
44:58-78.
6. Arvanitoyannis, I. S., and T. H. Varzakas.
2009. Application of failure mode and
effect analysis (FMEA) and cause and effect
analysis for industrial processing of common
octopus (Octopus vulgaris)-part II. Int. J.
Food Sci. Technol. 44:79-92.
7. Arvanitoyannis, I. S., and T. H. Varzakas.
2009. Application of failure mode and
effect analysis (FMEA) and cause and effect
analysis in conjunction with ISO 22000 to a
snails (Helix aspersa) processing plant; a case
study. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 49:607-625.
8. Automotive Industry Action Group. 2018.
Effective problem solving guide, 2nd
ed. Automotive Industry Action Group,
Southfield, MI.
9. Automotive Industry Action Group, Verband
der Automobilindustrie. 2019. FMEA
handbook, 1st ed. Automotive Industry
Action Group, Southfield, MI.
10. Barach, J. T., and M. M. Hayman. 2014.
HACCP-a systematic approach to food
safety, 5th ed. Grocery Manufacturers
Association, Washington, D.C.
11. Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General system
theory-foundations, development,
applications. George Braziller, New York.
12. Bryan, F. L. 1978. Factors that contribute to
outbreaks of foodborne disease. J. Food Prot.
41:816-827.
13. Bryan, F. L., J. J. Guzewich, and E. C. D.
Todd. 1997. Surveillance of foodborne
disease II. Summary and presentation of
descriptive data and epidemiologic patterns;
their value and limitations. J. Food Prot.
60:567-578.
14. Bryan, F. L., J. J. Guzewich, and E. C. D.
Todd. 1997. Surveillance of Foodborne
Disease III. Summary and presentation of
data on vehicles and contributory factors;
their value and limitations. J. Food Prot.
60:701-714.
15. Buys, J. R., and J. L. Clark. 1995. Events and
causal factors analysis. Scientech, Technical
Research and Analysis Center, Idaho Falls, ID.
16. Canadian Patient Safety Institute. 2006.
Canadian root cause analysis framework.
Canadian Patient Safety Institute, Edmonton,
Alberta.
17. Carlson, C. S. 2012. Effective FMEAs:
achieving safe, reliable, and economical
products and processes using failure mode
and effects analysis. Wiley, New York.
18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
2014. Guidelines for foodborne disease
outbreak response. Council to Improve
Foodborne Outbreak Response, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.
19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
2023. Foodborne illness outbreak
environmental assessments-foundation
skills course. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Atlanta.
which in turn can make it easier to implement corrective
actions. Four of these categories of causes (materials, machines,
humans, and environment) have been called work
elements to ease their identification on the processing floor.
Identification of the work element at which the food safety
hazard occurs can increase the effectiveness of HA and its
controls. Several authors stated that the most important elements
of FMEA that can be used in HA are identification of
the cause and implementation of a criticality analysis. The
HA can also be strengthened by integrating the principle
of EA contributing factors. These factors have been derived
from epidemiological data and could be further improved
as information technology advances. The management of
CCPs can be improved based on the principles of FMEA
and by applying the concepts of special causes of variation
in statistical process control. These tools may be more appropriate
for CCPs than for Ishikawa diagrams. FMEAs are
specifically intended to address failures of critical functions
such as CCPs. The science of relating process variation to
causes is continually evolving.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To those interested in advancing HACCP and RCA, thank
you for your collaboration.
November/December Food Protection Trends 553
Food Protection Trends - November/December 2024

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - November/December 2024
