In the context of HACCP, a critical control point (CCP) is a step where control can be applied and is essential to prevent, eliminate, or reduce a food safety hazard to an acceptable level. Establishing a thermal processing step with specific time and temperature parameters (Option B) directly addresses the growth of pathogenic bacteria by ensuring they are killed through controlled heat treatment. This is a specific and effective measure that directly targets the identified hazard.

Option A, while important for overall food safety, does not directly control the specific hazard of pathogenic bacterial growth in the product. Option C, routine pest control, addresses a different type of hazard (pests) and is more of a prerequisite program (PRP) rather than a CCP for this scenario. Option D, maintaining proper documentation of supplier quality certifications, ensures the quality of raw materials but does not control the identified hazard at this particular step.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.5.2.3, emphasizes the need for determining CCPs and setting critical limits, which should be monitored to ensure hazards are controlled effectively.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission’s HACCP guidelines recommend establishing critical limits that ensure each CCP effectively controls the identified hazards.

Compliance with legal and regulatory requirements is a critical component of ISO 22000. Option C highlights the importance of continuously reviewing and updating the company’s knowledge of relevant laws and regulations. This ensures that the FSMS remains compliant and up-to-date with current food safety standards, which can vary by region and change over time. Regular reviews help the company to identify any new or revised regulations that could impact their operations and make necessary adjustments to their processes and documentation.

Option A is essential for identifying potential hazards but does not specifically address regulatory compliance. Option B is valuable for promoting a food safety culture but is not directly related to legal compliance. Option D, while important for ensuring supplier quality, does not directly address the company’s compliance with regulatory requirements for their own processes and products.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 4.2, requires organizations to understand and comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements related to food safety.
The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) also emphasizes the importance of regulatory compliance as part of a comprehensive food safety management system.

In this scenario, Mr. Thompson must take immediate action to mitigate the potential food safety hazard posed by the contaminated yogurt. ISO 22000 requires organizations to have effective procedures for handling food safety emergencies, including product recalls. Option B outlines a comprehensive response that includes initiating a recall to remove the contaminated product from the market, notifying affected retailers to prevent further distribution, and investigating the source of contamination to prevent recurrence. These actions align with the requirements for emergency preparedness and response in the standard.

Option A delays critical action by waiting for instructions, which is not acceptable in an emergency situation where immediate response is required. Option C, while useful for understanding the root cause, does not address the urgent need to recall the contaminated product. Option D, although important for preventing future incidents, does not address the current contamination and the need for immediate corrective action.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.4, specifies requirements for emergency preparedness and response, including the need for procedures to handle food safety emergencies such as product recalls.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines on food safety and emergency response stress the importance of prompt action to protect consumer health.

Top management plays a critical role in the effectiveness of an FSMS. According to ISO 22000, the responsibilities of top management include establishing a food safety policy, setting objectives, and ensuring the commitment to food safety is communicated throughout the organization (Option D). This leadership and commitment are essential to create a culture of food safety and to allocate the necessary resources for the implementation and maintenance of the FSMS.

Option A, while important, is a component of the broader responsibility of top management but does not encompass the full scope of their role. Option B is incorrect because while delegation is necessary, top management cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for food safety. Option C is important for compliance, but the review should be more frequent and part of an ongoing commitment rather than just an annual task.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 5.1, outlines the role of top management in demonstrating leadership and commitment to the FSMS.
ISO 22000:2018, Clause 5.2, specifies the requirements for establishing and maintaining a food safety policy.

Good Hygienic Practices (GHP) are fundamental to preventing food contamination and ensuring food safety. Regular training on proper handwashing and sanitation techniques (Option B) is critical because it directly impacts the hygiene of personnel, which is a major factor in preventing foodborne illness and cross-contamination. Effective GHP ensure that all individuals in the facility adhere to high standards of cleanliness, which is essential for maintaining food safety.

Option A is part of a broader food safety management system and not specific to hygiene practices. Option C is crucial for controlling pests but is considered a separate element of PRPs rather than directly related to hygiene. Option D, while important for record-keeping and incident management, does not directly address the establishment of hygienic practices.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.2.4, emphasizes the importance of training and competence in maintaining effective PRPs, including GHP.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines for hygiene practices stress the need for regular training to ensure proper personal hygiene.

In the event of a potential contamination incident, immediate and decisive action is required to protect public health and comply with ISO 22000. Initiating the recall procedure (Option C) is critical to prevent the distribution and consumption of the contaminated product. Informing affected retailers ensures they can remove the product from shelves and inform customers, thereby minimizing health risks. Additionally, launching an internal investigation helps identify the source of the contamination, allowing for corrective measures to prevent future incidents.

Option A is reactive and relies solely on external guidance without immediate internal action. Option B is important for long-term prevention but does not address the urgent need to remove contaminated products from the market. Option D, while precautionary, does not immediately address the contamination of the current shipment and could delay necessary actions to protect consumers.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.4.2, specifies the need for procedures to manage food safety emergencies, including product recalls.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines on emergency response and product recalls emphasize the importance of prompt action to ensure food safety and public health protection.

Risk assessment involves evaluating both the severity of potential hazards and the likelihood of their occurrence. A risk matrix (Option B) is a tool that helps categorize and prioritize risks based on these two factors. It provides a visual representation of risk levels, allowing organizations to focus on the most significant risks that require control measures. This approach is comprehensive and aligns with ISO 22000’s emphasis on identifying and managing food safety hazards effectively.

Option A is a reactive approach that focuses on past issues rather than proactively assessing current risks. Option C, while important for supplier quality management, does not directly address the evaluation of risks within the production process. Option D is crucial for ongoing safety but is more about monitoring than initial risk assessment.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.5.2, emphasizes the need for hazard analysis and risk assessment to determine control measures.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines recommend using systematic methods, like a risk matrix, for effective hazard analysis and risk management.

Continual improvement is a core principle of ISO 22000. Implementing a system for documenting and analyzing customer feedback and food safety incidents (Option C) is critical because it provides valuable insights into areas where the FSMS can be enhanced. This data helps identify trends, pinpoint weaknesses, and implement corrective actions to improve food safety practices and prevent future incidents.

Option A is important but focuses on periodic reviews rather than continuous improvement. Option B is valuable for keeping training current but does not directly drive systematic improvements in the FSMS. Option D ensures raw material quality but does not encompass the broader scope of FSMS improvement based on operational performance and customer feedback.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 10.2, outlines the importance of continual improvement through regular review and analysis of performance data and feedback.
The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle recommended by ISO 22000 highlights the need for continuous feedback loops to enhance system performance.

When a potential food safety issue is identified, it is crucial to perform a root cause analysis (Option A) to understand why the baking temperature was insufficient. This analysis helps identify the underlying reasons for the failure, whether it’s due to equipment malfunction, procedural issues, or human error. Implementing corrective actions based on this analysis ensures that the issue is addressed and future occurrences are prevented. This process is an essential part of validating and verifying the effectiveness of food safety measures, as required by ISO 22000.

Option B may be necessary in severe cases, but immediate corrective action within the company is typically the first step. Option C is important for ongoing compliance but does not address the specific immediate need to validate and correct the baking process. Option D is useful for reinforcing procedures but does not address the systemic issue that caused the problem.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.8, requires organizations to conduct validation and verification activities to ensure the effectiveness of control measures.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines emphasize the importance of identifying and addressing the root cause of food safety failures to improve system effectiveness.

Operational control under ISO 22000 includes ensuring that all processes are managed effectively to prevent food safety hazards. A comprehensive traceability system (Option B) is critical for tracking the movement of products through the entire supply chain, from raw materials to finished goods. This system enables rapid identification and management of food safety issues, such as contamination or recalls, by tracing affected products back to their source.

Option A, while useful for equipment management, does not directly address product traceability and safety. Option C focuses on training and culture, which are important but do not directly impact traceability and operational control. Option D is essential for ensuring supplier compliance but does not encompass the full scope of traceability and operational control within the plant itself.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.6, emphasizes the need for traceability systems to ensure effective management of food safety.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines highlight the importance of traceability for effective recall procedures and food safety management.

A strong food safety culture is built on regular, open communication (Option B) about food safety issues, achievements, and areas for improvement. This approach fosters awareness and engagement among all employees, encouraging them to take responsibility for food safety in their daily activities. It helps create an environment where food safety is a shared priority and continuous improvement is embraced.

Option A is beneficial for strategic oversight but does not directly engage all employees in food safety culture. Option C may ensure compliance but can create a punitive environment rather than one of shared responsibility and continuous improvement. Option D focuses on supplier compliance, which is important, but it does not directly contribute to the internal food safety culture of the company.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 7.4, highlights the importance of internal communication for effective food safety management.
The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) emphasizes the role of communication and employee engagement in building a strong food safety culture.

When a potential contamination incident occurs, immediate action is required to protect public health and comply with ISO 22000. Initiating a product recall (Option A) is crucial to prevent the contaminated juice from being consumed. Notifying affected retailers helps them remove the product from shelves, mitigating the risk to consumers. Conducting a thorough investigation to identify the cause of contamination ensures that corrective actions can be taken to prevent future occurrences. This comprehensive approach aligns with the emergency response requirements of ISO 22000 and demonstrates a commitment to food safety.

Option B focuses on prevention and audit frequency but does not address the immediate need to manage the current emergency. Option C is reactive and delays necessary actions within the company. Option D is important for future prevention but does not address the urgent need to recall the contaminated product and manage the current crisis.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.4, specifies the need for procedures to manage food safety emergencies, including product recalls.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines on food safety and emergency response stress the importance of immediate action to protect consumers and investigate the root cause of food safety incidents.

Setting critical limits for CCPs is essential to ensure the control of food safety hazards. According to ISO 22000, critical limits must be established based on regulatory requirements and scientific data (Option B). These limits are the maximum or minimum values to which biological, chemical, or physical parameters must be controlled to prevent, eliminate, or reduce hazards to acceptable levels. Using regulatory and scientific data ensures that the limits are both safe and compliant with food safety laws.

Option A focuses on product quality rather than safety. Option C uses historical data, which might not be as reliable or relevant as current scientific data. Option D prioritizes equipment capabilities over safety requirements, which could lead to insufficient control of hazards.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.5.2, emphasizes the need for scientifically-based critical limits at CCPs.
The Codex Alimentarius HACCP guidelines specify that critical limits must be validated and supported by scientific evidence.

The primary objective of conducting internal audits under ISO 22000 is to evaluate the effectiveness of the FSMS (Option C). This involves assessing whether the system is effectively implemented and maintained and ensuring ongoing compliance with ISO 22000 requirements. Internal audits help identify areas for improvement, ensure that procedures are followed, and confirm that the system is achieving its food safety objectives.

Option A focuses on immediate corrective actions, which are part of the audit process but not the primary objective. Option B addresses external audits, which are different from internal audits. Option D is important for training but does not capture the broader purpose of internal audits, which is to evaluate and improve the FSMS.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 9.2, outlines the requirements for internal audits, including their role in evaluating FSMS effectiveness and ensuring compliance.
The ISO 19011 guidelines provide a framework for conducting internal audits to assess management systems.

In the event of a potential contamination with Salmonella, an immediate recall of the affected products (Option A) is necessary to protect public health. Informing the retailers ensures that the contaminated products are removed from the market, preventing further distribution and consumption. Notifying regulatory authorities is required to comply with legal obligations and manage the incident transparently. Investigating the source of contamination helps identify and address the root cause to prevent recurrence.

Option B addresses sanitation but does not handle the immediate need to recall the contaminated products. Option C is important for managing liabilities but does not address the urgent food safety response. Option D is a preventive measure for the future but does not resolve the current emergency.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.4.2, specifies the need for emergency preparedness and response procedures, including product recalls.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines emphasize the importance of prompt action and communication in managing food safety emergencies.

An effective PRP for pest control (Option B) involves establishing a routine inspection schedule to monitor for signs of pest activity. Regular inspections help identify and address potential pest issues early, preventing them from escalating and posing a threat to food safety. This proactive approach aligns with ISO 22000 requirements for maintaining a hygienic environment and controlling potential hazards that could compromise food safety.

Option A, while environmentally conscious, does not address the comprehensive need for regular monitoring and control. Option C is important for hygiene but is related to general sanitation practices rather than specific pest control measures. Option D focuses on preventing contamination through proper handling, which is important but not specific to pest control.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.2, outlines the need for PRPs, including pest control, to prevent contamination and maintain food safety.
The Codex Alimentarius general principles of food hygiene emphasize regular monitoring and control measures as part of a robust pest control program.

The primary purpose of conducting a risk assessment in an ISO 22000-compliant food safety management system is to evaluate the severity and likelihood of food safety hazards (Option B). This process helps identify critical points where hazards could occur and establishes appropriate control measures to mitigate these risks. By doing so, the organization ensures the safety of its food products and compliance with food safety regulations.

Option A focuses on business risks, which are outside the scope of food safety. Option C pertains to marketing, which is not relevant to food safety risk assessment. Option D addresses compliance with safety policies, which, while important, does not encompass the comprehensive evaluation of food safety hazards.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.5.2, details the need for hazard analysis and risk assessment to establish control measures for food safety.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines recommend systematic risk assessment to identify and manage food safety hazards effectively.

In the event of potential chemical contamination of food products, the immediate action required is to initiate a recall of the affected shipment (Option A). This action helps to remove potentially harmful products from the market, protecting public health. Notifying the supermarkets ensures that they can stop selling the contaminated products, and informing health authorities ensures compliance with regulatory requirements. Conducting a root cause analysis is crucial to identify the source of contamination and prevent future occurrences.

Option B focuses on a review of procedures but does not address the immediate need to recall the contaminated products. Option C addresses future prevention but does not resolve the current emergency. Option D is necessary for managing public relations and liabilities but does not directly deal with the food safety issue at hand.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.4, specifies the need for emergency preparedness and response, including product recalls.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines emphasize prompt action and investigation in response to food safety emergencies to protect consumers and ensure compliance with food safety regulations.

Effective documentation and record-keeping (Option C) are crucial for maintaining a food safety management system (FSMS) under ISO 22000. Regularly reviewing and updating documents ensures they accurately reflect current practices, changes in processes, and regulatory updates. This practice helps maintain compliance with food safety standards and supports continuous improvement in the FSMS.

Option A is beneficial for document management but does not address the need for periodic updates. Option B suggests retaining records for a fixed period regardless of relevance, which may lead to unnecessary storage of outdated information. Option D focuses on departmental segregation, which can hinder a holistic approach to document management in the FSMS.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 7.5, outlines the requirements for documented information, including maintaining, reviewing, and updating records.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines emphasize the need for up-to-date documentation to support effective food safety management.

Ensuring compliance with food safety regulations (Option B) requires conducting regular reviews of changes in both local and international regulations and integrating these updates into the company’s food safety management system. This approach helps maintain compliance, supports continuous improvement, and prevents potential legal issues related to food safety.

Option A involves employing a legal advisor, which is helpful but does not guarantee systematic compliance integration. Option C is valuable for staying informed but does not include active integration of changes. Option D focuses on reporting non-compliances, which is reactive rather than proactive in ensuring compliance.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 6.1, highlights the need for the organization to stay current with applicable statutory and regulatory food safety requirements.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines recommend continuous monitoring of regulatory changes to ensure food safety compliance.

To improve food safety culture and compliance (Option A), implementing a mandatory retraining program is crucial. This program should emphasize the importance of hygiene practices and ensure that all employees understand and follow these protocols. Regular follow-up assessments help reinforce these practices and identify any ongoing issues, fostering a culture of continuous improvement in food safety.

Option B focuses on penalties and oversight, which may create a punitive environment rather than fostering a positive food safety culture. Option C’s reward system can encourage good practices but may not address the underlying issues causing lapses. Option D’s root cause analysis is valuable for understanding issues but does not directly address the need for immediate training to rectify hygiene lapses.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 7.3, emphasizes the need for competence and training to ensure effective implementation of food safety practices.
The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) highlights the importance of training and continuous assessment to build and maintain a strong food safety culture.

A critical aspect of an effective emergency response plan (Option B) is establishing clear communication protocols with stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, and regulatory authorities. This ensures timely and accurate information flow during an emergency, facilitating effective response and minimizing the impact on public health and safety. Communication protocols help coordinate actions, provide updates, and manage the crisis efficiently.

Option A centralizes responsibility, which can be risky as it may limit the ability to respond quickly and effectively. Option C focuses on preventive maintenance, which is important but does not cover the full scope of emergency preparedness. Option D restricts planning to high-risk scenarios only, which can leave the organization unprepared for unexpected emergencies.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.4, emphasizes the need for comprehensive emergency preparedness and response plans, including communication protocols.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines recommend clear communication channels as part of an effective food safety emergency plan.

The primary purpose of conducting regular internal audits (Option B) in an ISO 22000-compliant FSMS is to assess the effectiveness of the system, identify areas for improvement, and ensure ongoing compliance with ISO 22000 standards. Internal audits help organizations maintain and enhance their food safety management practices by systematically evaluating processes, identifying non-conformities, and implementing corrective actions.

Option A focuses on financial performance, which is not the main objective of internal audits within the FSMS. Option C relates to marketing, which is not relevant to the purpose of internal audits in a food safety context. Option D addresses employee performance, which, while important, does not capture the comprehensive scope of FSMS internal audits.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 9.2, outlines the requirements for internal audits, including evaluating the FSMS’s effectiveness and compliance.
The ISO 19011 guidelines provide a framework for conducting effective internal audits within management systems.

In the event of a potential underpasteurization, the immediate actions required (Option D) include recalling the affected batch to prevent the distribution of potentially unsafe products. Notifying distributors and regulatory bodies ensures compliance with legal requirements and protects public health. Investigating the cause of the temperature failure helps identify the root cause and implement corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

Option B addresses future preventive measures but does not deal with the immediate issue. Option C focuses on equipment repair and cleaning, which is necessary but secondary to recalling the unsafe product. Option A involves additional testing, which may not be sufficient to guarantee the safety of the batch that has already been distributed.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.5.2, specifies the need for control measures, including recalls, when deviations in critical limits occur.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines highlight the importance of timely recalls and investigations in ensuring food safety.

Establishing critical limits in a HACCP plan (Option B) should be based on scientific research, regulatory requirements, and food safety standards. Critical limits define the boundaries at which a food safety hazard is controlled, and they must be derived from reliable sources to ensure they are effective in mitigating risks. This ensures compliance with food safety regulations and maintains the integrity of the food safety management system.

Option A suggests setting limits based on equipment recommendations, which may not address specific food safety risks. Option C’s flexibility can undermine the effectiveness of critical limits in controlling hazards. Option D’s historical data may provide insights but should not be the sole basis for setting critical limits, as they may not reflect current food safety standards or emerging hazards.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.5.2, highlights the need for scientifically validated critical limits to control food safety hazards effectively.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines recommend using scientific evidence and regulatory requirements to establish critical limits in a HACCP plan.

The primary purpose of conducting external audits (Option B) for an ISO 22000-compliant food safety management system is to ensure that the system meets the requirements of the ISO 22000 standard and to identify areas for improvement. External audits provide an objective assessment of the FSMS, helping to verify compliance with food safety standards and regulations, and supporting continuous improvement.

Option A focuses on internal policy consistency, which is typically the scope of internal audits. Option C relates to employee performance, which is not the main focus of external audits. Option D involves customer and supplier feedback, which, while valuable, is not the primary purpose of external audits for food safety management systems.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 9.2, outlines the need for external audits to verify compliance with the standard and support continual improvement.
The ISO 19011 guidelines provide a framework for conducting effective audits within management systems, including external audits.

To address the contamination issue and maintain compliance with ISO 22000 (Option A), Ms. Kim should revert to the original cleaning schedule, which is likely based on the requirements to control contamination risks effectively. Training additional staff ensures that there are enough personnel to manage cleaning duties, and regular checks help verify compliance with hygiene standards. This approach aligns with ISO 22000’s emphasis on maintaining hygiene and preventing contamination through effective Prerequisite Programs (PRPs).

Option B’s temporary measures may not be sufficient to control ongoing contamination risks. Option C may address immediate staffing shortages but does not ensure control over the quality of cleaning services. Option D focuses on increasing cleaning agents, which may not be effective without adequate cleaning frequency and monitoring.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.2, outlines the importance of maintaining effective PRPs, including cleaning and sanitation, to prevent contamination.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines emphasize the need for regular and effective cleaning schedules as part of good hygienic practices.

Conducting a risk assessment (Option C) in a food safety management system under ISO 22000 is essential to identify potential hazards that could affect food safety. The assessment includes evaluating the severity and likelihood of these hazards occurring, allowing organizations to prioritize and implement appropriate control measures. This proactive approach helps prevent food safety incidents and ensures compliance with ISO 22000 requirements.

Option A focuses on financial risks, which are not directly related to the purpose of risk assessment in food safety. Option B pertains to market risks, which are outside the scope of food safety management under ISO 22000. Option D addresses employee performance, which is not the primary focus of risk assessment in the context of food safety management systems.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 8.4, outlines the requirements for conducting risk assessments to identify, evaluate, and prioritize food safety hazards.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines emphasize the importance of risk assessment as a fundamental step in ensuring food safety.

Promoting a strong food safety culture (Option B) involves providing regular training sessions on food safety practices and their importance. Training helps employees understand their role in maintaining food safety standards, increases awareness of potential risks, and reinforces good practices. This approach encourages proactive behavior and fosters a culture where food safety is prioritized throughout the organization, aligning with ISO 22000 requirements.

Option A focuses on punitive measures, which may deter reporting of incidents and hinder a positive safety culture. Option C’s strict penalties may create fear rather than fostering a supportive environment for learning and improvement. Option D’s productivity-based rewards do not reinforce behaviors related to food safety.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018 emphasizes the importance of training and competency to ensure effective implementation of food safety practices (Clause 7.2).
The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) benchmarks stress the role of training in building a robust food safety culture across organizations.

During the management review (Option A) as per ISO 22000 requirements, Mr. Lee should prioritize evaluating the effectiveness of the company’s food safety management system and identifying opportunities for improvement. The review should assess the performance of the FSMS against its objectives, including compliance with ISO 22000 standards, customer requirements, and regulatory expectations. This process supports continual improvement and ensures that the FSMS remains effective in managing food safety risks.

Option B addresses operational responsibilities but does not specifically relate to the management review’s primary purpose. Option C focuses on production quotas, which is outside the scope of a food safety management review. Option D pertains to employee performance metrics, which are relevant but secondary to evaluating the FSMS itself.

Relevant Guidelines:

ISO 22000:2018, Clause 9.3, specifies the requirements for management review to ensure the suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of the FSMS.
The Codex Alimentarius guidelines emphasize the importance of management commitment and review in maintaining and improving food safety management systems.