Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

High care and high risk according the standard


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#26 Jules

Jules

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 30 posts
  • 9 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 February 2011 - 07:20 AM

I need to post my name at the bottom, sorry about that. I am used to a site where I get an automagic signature!

Kind Regards

Julie


  • 0

#27 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,462 posts
  • 3246 thanks
347
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 24 February 2011 - 07:32 AM

Dear Jules / Julie,

I need to post my name at the bottom, sorry about that. I am used to a site where I get an automagic signature!



Actually I believe this is possible here also but maybe a minimum number of posts is required first. (Can't remember and never thought to look until now, thks :smile: )

Rgds / Charles.C

PS

Cooked to 72°C and held for 10 minutes or cooked to a specified higher temperature


Validation ? I don't recognise this one ?

And thks for yr instant suggestions :thumbup:
  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#28 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,216 posts
  • 469 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 24 February 2011 - 07:52 AM

Despite the various OT's (or perhaps because of them :smile: ) I find this thread extremely interesting ( :thumbup: ) in that it (so far) seems to demonstrate the lack of any precise, comprehensive, reference source for what one would think to be a highly critical topic.


Erm, I think the CFA document is exactly that. I've yet to work in a chilled food factory which doesn't have a copy of this document so I suspect this may be where the definitions come from. Certainly it's well used in the UK chilled food industry which is also the main user of BRC in the UK I suspect?
  • 0

#29 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,462 posts
  • 3246 thanks
347
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 24 February 2011 - 08:19 AM

Dear GMO,

Erm, I think the CFA document is exactly that. I've yet to work in a chilled food factory which doesn't have a copy of this document so I suspect this may be where the definitions come from. Certainly it's well used in the UK chilled food industry which is also the main user of BRC in the UK I suspect?


After quick look, I agree about BRC sourcing this document for their "care" (and Tesco also maybe :thumbdown: [unless they referenced it] ).

So I guess we can blame the current dis-satisfaction on CFA ? :biggrin:
Frankly i felt the "care" definitions in yr picture attachment were bit of a "cop-out" technically speaking, as maybe related to Madam ADT's original comments.

eg GMP > Minimise > Prevent ?? A little contrived perhaps ? :smile: Only my opinion of course.

Didn't see any def. for "High Risk Product" in yr attachment?? Maybe i missed it.

(I recall a lot of the basic parts of this document is freely available in a Europa chilled food publication also but can't find the link on this forum unfortunately [especially as i posted it!])

Rgds / Charles.C

PS perhaps i should hv included the word "accepted" in my opening lines of Post #24. :smile:
  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#30 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,216 posts
  • 469 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 24 February 2011 - 08:27 AM

No, they don't use the term, they use the terms ready to heat and ready to reheat but either can be made in either area depending on the ingredients.

As I said much earlier on in the thread, I don't think assigning the products is the thing, it's about high care factories not having raw meat in them IMO as the barriers are not 100% foolproof. I don't know if I made it unclear earlier on or if I got myself confused but it's not really the product which is "high care" but it could be made in a high care facility. All ready to eat or reheat products which are capable of supporting bacterial growth are "high risk" in the traditional sense, just some may be made in a high care factory (and some may be made in a non segregated canteen or shop). I think sometimes I refer to products as "high care" and that's probably not right.


  • 0

#31 Jules

Jules

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 30 posts
  • 9 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 February 2011 - 07:13 PM

Dear Jules / Julie,



Actually I believe this is possible here also but maybe a minimum number of posts is required first. (Can't remember and never thought to look until now, thks :smile: )

Rgds / Charles.C

PS

Validation ? I don't recognise this one ?

And thks for yr instant suggestions :thumbup:





Not sure if this will come out right, the 72°C took into account my manager's heebie geebie factor. Not too scientific but as good as some auditors I have experienced! n.b. I'm trying that quote thingy.


Regards Either Julie or Jules, no preference really





  • 0
Kind Regards

Julie

Measure with a micrometer, mark with a pencil, cut with an axe!


#32 Madam A. D-tor

Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 563 posts
  • 175 thanks
20
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000

Posted 24 February 2011 - 10:09 PM

Was the chart helpful Madam?

The chart is very illustrative. However I do not agree with all the points mentioned in this chart. For example I would not refer to the cooking department as high-risk area. The processes after the cooking step are critical/high risk for cross contamination. i would consider the filling department/assambling department or packing department as high-risk. The same for washing vegetable. The packing after the washing seems more contaminationous to me.



Despite the various OT's (or perhaps because of them :smile: ) I find this thread extremely interesting ( :thumbup: )


I also think this is a very interesting thread. Wat started as a simple question to inventarise ideas and definition is turning in a neverending discussion. On one hand I am enjoying it, on the other hand it is really confusing me and doubting all the things I tought I knew. I am already 3 days thinking of the definition of high risk product and the high risk areas involved. Wondering if I have audited companies, which had no high risk area where there should be.
For example today I visited a factory which produces filled bread snacks like bapaos, pitas, barras and bocadillos. Products have a filling of meat/veg/cheese/ The fillings already had a heat treatment at the supplier premises. The filling is put in the dough for the products, which are then steamed or baked and cooled down. Cooled products are packed in flow pack with MAP atmosphere (O2< 1,0%), Products have a shelf life of 14 days at < 7 degr C. I never had considered the product as high risk product, but since this thread .....
Other examples of products/processes I am now doubting:
- sandwich making in a very small company (5 persons), all processes are manual;
- producing, cutting and packing (vacuum) of cold smoked salmon. No high risk area in this company, but the department were the raw fish is received, filetted and smoked are segregated;
- producing of ready to heat meals;
- producing of cut vegetables;
- packing shrimps;
- producing and packing of fried fish;
- producing and packing of herring fillets;
- production and packing of mayonaise based salads, like tuna salad. These products are safe by using only cooked ingredients, pH around 4.2, sealed packing and storage temperature < 7 degr C;
- cut onions, to be used on sandwiches;
- fresh fruit salads;

It is al quit confusing. I even do not know anymore, what I think is hig risk.
Actually I am thinking again for 2 hours and 20 minutes on this problem.
  • 0
Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor

#33 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,462 posts
  • 3246 thanks
347
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 24 February 2011 - 10:31 PM

Dear Madam A.DTor,

I am curious as to how many of the products in yr list you assessed as High Risk ?

Quite a lot of them IMHO (although may depend on precise product/process in some cases). :smile:

@Jules -

Not sure if this will come out right, the 72°C took into account my manager's heebie geebie factor


You mean it was a guess ? :whistle: 10 mins sounds prodigious but maybe there are extenuating circumstances, eg heater kept tripping out ? :rolleyes:

Rgds / Charles.C
  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#34 Madam A. D-tor

Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 563 posts
  • 175 thanks
20
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000

Posted 25 February 2011 - 07:47 AM

Dear Madam A.DTor,
I am curious as to how many of the products in yr list you assessed as High Risk ?
Quite a lot of them IMHO (although may depend on precise product/process in some cases). :smile:


Hello Charles,
Well, That is exactly the problem.
The organisations audited did not considered these products as high risk and neither did I. :huh: Until this thraed......
  • 0
Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor

#35 Madam A. D-tor

Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 563 posts
  • 175 thanks
20
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000

Posted 25 February 2011 - 07:55 AM

:off_topic:

I need to post my name at the bottom, sorry about that. I am used to a site where I get an automagic signature!


Actually I believe this is possible here also but maybe a minimum number of posts is required first. (Can't remember and never thought to look until now, thks :smile: )


Dear Julie,

open your profile by clicking on your name in the right corner above----- click change my profile --- and there you can change/add your signature.
Or click once on your name (right cornerabove) --- click my settings in the menu --- go to tab profile

Edited by Madam A. D-tor, 25 February 2011 - 07:58 AM.

  • 0
Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor

#36 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,216 posts
  • 469 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 25 February 2011 - 08:42 AM

The chart is very illustrative. However I do not agree with all the points mentioned in this chart. For example I would not refer to the cooking department as high-risk area. The processes after the cooking step are critical/high risk for cross contamination. i would consider the filling department/assambling department or packing department as high-risk. The same for washing vegetable. The packing after the washing seems more contaminationous to me.


That's not what the chart is showing. The chart says that for a high risk area, products should be fully cooked or fully sanitised into it. The CFA would agree that it's the assembly area which is high risk. I really recommend you get the full document, it explains it. This might be a language barrier thing but you're saying exactly the same thing as the chart is.

Now high risk foods can be made in low risk environments depending on scale, otherwise there would be no restaurants.

I would say all of your examples should be made in high risk or high care areas (depending on whether raw ingredients are used) depending on the scale of the plant. Bear in mind that Tesco's now want all cheese packing to be high care...
  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#37 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,462 posts
  • 3246 thanks
347
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 25 February 2011 - 05:17 PM

Dear Madam A.Dtor,

Below is the EC document on chilled foods I failed to find earlier. From a quick look, I imagine that some of the contents are analogous to the CFA text that GMO has been referring although I expect in a considerably abbreviated form.

The presentation is based around “care” areas as already discussed by GMO and is impressively worked out.

I suppose one comment is that the content is (obviously) oriented to chilled foods although this represents a vast industry plus one of considerable potential for harm if inadequate control occurs. It’s not a scientific criticism but, solely from my own experience in other fields eg frozen and outside EC area, the “care” terminologies are not very familiar in comparison to the “risk” family. However this thread has already demonstrated the limitations of the latter classification so cause for thought.

I have also added a fascinating compendium of HACCP definitions (due CFA) which I noticed while searching (developed to clarify regarding hygiene/legal/terminology issues) . This predictably includes (high [care, risk] areas} but no analogous product “risk” references.

Attached File  ECFF_Recommendations production chilled food 2006.pdf   397.86KB   32 downloads
Attached File  HACCP related definitions, CFA, 2007.pdf   177.79KB   38 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users