18 replies to this topic

[mesophile]

Good Day All,

Quick question: Should the gas testing of MAP packed cooked meat be a CCP? or would it be a pre-requisite? and why?

Many thanks for your help!

Kind Regards

Simon

[Madam A. D-tor]

Quick answer: dependson your process, your product and your risk assessment.
Why are you MAP packing: spoilage, food safety, colour, because the machine is able to?
How did you document the MAP in your HACCP risk assessment?

[mesophile]

Madam A. D-tor

Thank you for your reply. To answer your questions and help me along a bit:

We are MAP packing to reduce spoilage and extend product shelf life. This is a common process in most cooked sliced meat manufacturers.

We currently document MAP as a prerequisite within our HACCP.

The reason I ask is because I have had a customer question my judgement and the more I think about it the more I believe it may be a CCP?!? However MAP is not for food safety.

Many thanks,

Simon

[Madam A. D-tor]

Dear Simon,

If it is to lengthen the shelf life, I would also ask you the question, why you decided it is not a CCP.
Have challenge tests proofed that pathogens did not grow to relevant numbers before visual and sensoric observable spoilage?
I think that a lot of auditors and customers ask you this or similar questions.

You say that you handle it as a prerequisite?
Are you sure you do not handle it as a CCP?
- do you have a monitoring system?
- if yes, do you record the results?
- if yes, do you have action (and/or critical limits established?
- if yes, do you undertake action to the already produced products if the measuring is out of spec?
- would you inform the customer or inititate withdrawal or recall if you would find out today that the products delivered yesterday are all out of spec on this point?
If you answer yes to above questions, you might be handling this already as a CCP.

Furthermore I like to quote George Howlett from another thread:

From experience over the years conducting food safety audits, working in industry and providing services to clients I have come up with a new series of CCP decision questions...

1. Is your regulatory inspector insisting a specific step is a CCP? Yes - It's a CCP No - It's not a CCP
2. Is your most important customer insisting a specific step is a CCP? Yes - It's a CCP No - It's not a CCP
3. Are you fearful that a specific step might be a CCP but not really sure? Yes - It's a CCP No - It's not a CCP

and so on...

I'm not attempting to be cynical about a very important issue for food businesses but very often the decision making process is driven more by these factors rather than a full and critical assessment of the hazard and risk.

I am a little bit curious, how did you discribe the hazards of this process in your risk assessment?

[GMO]

There are two ways to look at this. MAP controlling a hazard and MAP introducing a hazard.

As the PP said, you need to think about what you're controlling and I agree with you, if it's to prevent spoilage, it screams NOT A CCP to me too. There is a question in the Codex decision tree which is along the lines of "is this process step specifically designed to eliminate or reduce the hazard to an acceptable level?" if you define the hazard as "pathogenic bacteria xxxx" then no, it's not there for that reason. (Sorry if I've miss quoted codex, this is from memory!)

We had a similar issue with baking for bread. Bread has to achieve an internal core temperature of about 90oC plus to achieve the desired quality. A customer wanted this to be a CCP, even though we would have long ago killed off vegetative bacteria at this temperature. It eventually took confirmation from Campden BRI that they agreed with us (only being bread and food safety experts and everything) that made them shut up!

That all said, if you're doing MAP with N2 / CO2 combinations, then there is a risk of C. botulinum growth which may then introduce a hazard you wouldn't have had without the MAP (doesn't make the MAP a CCP though but might make something around the salt / nitrate concentration more important.)

I've had a cheese packing process into MAP with N2 / CO2 mixes at 70 / 30 I think. It was purely to extend life. No-one ever suggested this should be a CCP from customers, EHOs etc, etc and we didn't identify it as a CCP either. That said, it was probably the most important point in the whole process for quality. Our biggest complaint was mould and it was down to poor sealing so despite it not being a CCP, we did throw resource and monitoring at this point as though it was. We also did a lot of testing and pulled failed product back.

[Charles Chew]

There are two ways to look at this. MAP controlling a hazard and MAP introducing a hazard.

As the PP said, you need to think about what you're controlling and I agree with you, if it's to prevent spoilage, it screams NOT A CCP to me too. There is a question in the Codex decision tree which is along the lines of "is this process step specifically designed to eliminate or reduce the hazard to an acceptable level?" if you define the hazard as "pathogenic bacteria xxxx" then no, it's not there for that reason. (Sorry if I've miss quoted codex, this is from memory!)

We had a similar issue with baking for bread. Bread has to achieve an internal core temperature of about 90oC plus to achieve the desired quality. A customer wanted this to be a CCP, even though we would have long ago killed off vegetative bacteria at this temperature. It eventually took confirmation from Campden BRI that they agreed with us (only being bread and food safety experts and everything) that made them shut up!

That all said, if you're doing MAP with N2 / CO2 combinations, then there is a risk of C. botulinum growth which may then introduce a hazard you wouldn't have had without the MAP (doesn't make the MAP a CCP though but might make something around the salt / nitrate concentration more important.)

I've had a cheese packing process into MAP with N2 / CO2 mixes at 70 / 30 I think. It was purely to extend life. No-one ever suggested this should be a CCP from customers, EHOs etc, etc and we didn't identify it as a CCP either. That said, it was probably the most important point in the whole process for quality. Our biggest complaint was mould and it was down to poor sealing so despite it not being a CCP, we did throw resource and monitoring at this point as though it was. We also did a lot of testing and pulled failed product back.

Dear GMO, I really enjoyed reading your technically appropriate response and the explanation to Simon's concern. MAP is indeed not a kill step but merely changes the atmospheric condition within a packed product that may limit/promote viable conditions for specific microbial species and may in fact cause more harm to product shelf life than extending it.

Edited by Charles Chew, 27 January 2012 - 03:21 PM.

[Charles.C]

Dear mesophile,

I understand that some shelf-lives may be based on max. levels of a pathogen like L.mono. Consequently MAP may slow down the pathogen growth and thereby allow increased shelf-life. Presumably this scenario could in principle yield a CCP (more likely to be a hurdle CCP in practice).

I think above not normally the case for meat items but, out of interest, what is your shelf-life based on ??

Rgds / Charles.C

[mesophile]

Good Morning,

Thank you everyone for your answers and questions regarding this topic.

When looking at MAP there are strong pro's and con's for this being a CCP, however even if not a CCP it is still handled like a CCP would be.

Shelf Life:
The shelf life of the cooked sliced meat is based upon product being stored between 0-5°C in sealed MAP packed product. When MAP is not present, product life is significantly reduced - generally through a bloom in lactic acid bacteria causing tainting in odour and flavour.

Pathogens:
MAP would reduce pathogenic growth however any pathogens tested positive regardless of MAP or not would deem a recall. The only pathogens that are allowed (within restricted levels) are e.coli and listeria mono, however as both are facultative anaerobes, irrespective of MAP or not, the bacteria can still grow. For this reason, I dont think MAP can be used for food safety.


Many thanks,

Simon

Edited by mesophile, 29 January 2012 - 07:12 PM.

[Charles.C]

Dear mesophile,

Based on yr previous post, the conclusion appears to be relatively simple.

IYO / risk assessment, the control measure is implemented solely to control a non-safety characteristic.

It is therefore external to a "typical" HACCP system. (Some standards do include non-safety related control measures in their HACCP systems).

Rgds / Charles.C

[mesophile]

Dear mesophile,

Based on yr previous post, the conclusion appears to be relatively simple.

IYO / risk assessment, the control measure is implemented solely to control a non-safety characteristic.

It is therefore external to a "typical" HACCP system. (Some standards do include non-safety related control measures in their HACCP systems).

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Charles,

Thanks for the information and help on this subject. I think when you get a retailer customer with lots of experience and knowledge behind them questioning your systems it makes you rethink why you have done what you have. Its been a good debate

Onwards to the next problem...

Regards,

Simon

[GMO]

Hi Charles,

Thanks for the information and help on this subject. I think when you get a retailer customer with lots of experience and knowledge behind them questioning your systems it makes you rethink why you have done what you have. Its been a good debate

Onwards to the next problem...

Regards,

Simon

That's what I like about it here. We get some meaty debates sometimes but it lets me test out my arguments from lots of angles!

[foodsafetyboy]

Good Day All,

Quick question: Should the gas testing of MAP packed cooked meat be a CCP? or would it be a pre-requisite? and why?

Many thanks for your help!

Kind Regards

Simon

Hello,


Are you doing the gas flushing? in which step in your process does this come in?

If you are doing the gas flushing:
In my opinion, MAP gas packaging is already a CCP since you are handling a cooked product and you are gas flushing to eliminate possible anaerobes in the product.
Gas testing is, I think, a critical limit and not a pre-requisite.


Regards,
FSB

[Urban Explorer]

I am in need of some advice on MAP.

We currently use nitrogen to gas flush snack trays that contain crackers, sliced ready to eat meat, cheese and olives.

Our critical limit is 1.0% oxygen as a recommendation from another manufacturer of similar goods. I have not been able to find a regulation that states what the maximum gas level should be. Our critical limit was 2.0% but a customer asked us to reduce it due to shelf life concerns. We have not had any issue with the trays growing out pathogens.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a regulation or validation? I have tried google and cannot find a specific statement on levels except for fruits/veg. Our MAP process is NOT currently a CCP, but I am concerned it might be questioned in our upcoming SQF audit.

Any advice will be appreciated, thank you.

[shea quay]

If I can stick my oar into an old topic...

MAP is not a CCP when you consider possible customer abuse as part of your HACCP system. Your pack could become damaged post dispatch through a myriad of reasons such as during transport, on the shop shelf or by the customer themselves. Ask the customer to provide a certificate proving their fridge is suitable to handle to handle MAP packs. That'll shut them up, and their vomiting child. If your customer / auditor is being a jerk, make it a "control point" rather than a critical control point. Then call your customer / auditor a jerk quietly behind his/ her back or in cough form.

As for your question, Destinee, there are currently only guidelines in place on this side of the pond. If your shelf life testing stands up to your limits, just dump this back in their court and ask them for the specific scientific information on which they are basing their recommendation on. There are people in areas of the food industry such as sales managers who believe that if the oxygen level is reduced by 50% there will be an increase in shelf life by 50%. When you ask, break though the deafening silence by calling them a jerk behind their back in cough form. On the other hand, if they do come back with something, let me be the first to know please!

[Marshenko]

This is my new favorite thread...

To answer Destinee's question ... you'll end up having to decide whether or not a quality step (MAP packing/monitoring) does or does not contribute to your overall risk assessment. Is there the potential for an improper gas mix to allow the unfettered growth of anaerobic pathogens? Does your monitoring of the gas concentration significantly reduce or eliminate the threat?

[Charles.C]

I am in need of some advice on MAP.

We currently use nitrogen to gas flush snack trays that contain crackers, sliced ready to eat meat, cheese and olives.

Our critical limit is 1.0% oxygen as a recommendation from another manufacturer of similar goods. I have not been able to find a regulation that states what the maximum gas level should be. Our critical limit was 2.0% but a customer asked us to reduce it due to shelf life concerns. We have not had any issue with the trays growing out pathogens.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a regulation or validation? I have tried google and cannot find a specific statement on levels except for fruits/veg. Our MAP process is NOT currently a CCP, but I am concerned it might be questioned in our upcoming SQF audit.

Any advice will be appreciated, thank you.

Dear Destinee (French spelling?),

I think there is another (old) thread here somewhere which discusses oxygen levels. Product-wise I don’t remember. Did you already try searching for “gas-flush”, oxygen, etc (unfortunately cannot search for 3-letter words like MAP).

I cannot believe there are no data available for meat in view of the USA proclivity in this direction.

@shea quay, you must have a permanently sore throat.

Rgds / Charles.C

[mesophile]

Dear Destinee,

I would say your best MAP gas mix would be 30% carbon dioxide, 70% nitrogen, <1% oxygen - however there is no written book for this. It is through a lot of shelf life testing of cooked meats using different gas levels.

There are a couple of attachments below you could look at, both are basic, however give a guide to good gas levels.

http://www.cmc-cvc.c...ngFactSheet.pdf
http://www.messergro...e_Packaging.pdf


Cheers,

Simon

[Charles.C]

I am in need of some advice on MAP.

We currently use nitrogen to gas flush snack trays that contain crackers, sliced ready to eat meat, cheese and olives.

Our critical limit is 1.0% oxygen as a recommendation from another manufacturer of similar goods. I have not been able to find a regulation that states what the maximum gas level should be. Our critical limit was 2.0% but a customer asked us to reduce it due to shelf life concerns. We have not had any issue with the trays growing out pathogens.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a regulation or validation? I have tried google and cannot find a specific statement on levels except for fruits/veg. Our MAP process is NOT currently a CCP, but I am concerned it might be questioned in our upcoming SQF audit.

Any advice will be appreciated, thank you.

Dear Destinee,

I didn’t quite understand why yr O2 level is a “critical limit” if yr MAP aspect is not a CCP. Maybe you meant “target” ??

Your main question was regarding a maximum O2 level in the case of gas-flushed nitrogen. I have not found any official regulations on this as predicted by Mesophile . I hv seen a variety of opinions on “targets” ranging from zero to 2%, particularly depending on the product (and including variations within the ones you mentioned). See (1-5 below)

In addition I hv noticed some opinions (see 7-8) on operational equipment limitations which made me re-think a little regarding the "exactness" of the quoted target values in this post. You will probably be better able to assess these “comments” than I.

IMO the MAP / BC interactions can be quite complex. Hv posted some extracts for clarity.

(1) General Objective (Not Restricted to Nitrogen)
Oxygen (O2 )
Food deteriorates due to physical, chemical and microbiological factors. Oxygen is probably the most important gas in this context being used metabolically by both aerobic spoilage mic ro organisms and plant tissues and taking part in some enzymic reactions in food including the compounds such as vitamins and flavours. For these reasons, in modified atmosphere packaging, oxygen is either excluded or the levels set as low as possible. The exceptions occur where oxygen is needed for fruit and vegetable respiration, colour retention as in the case of red meat or to avoid anaerobic conditions in white fish (Parry, 1993). In MAP, oxygen levels are normally set as low as possible to reduce oxidative deterioration of foods. Oxygen will generally stimulate the growth of aerobic bacteria and can inhibit the growth of strictly anaerobic bacteria, although there is a very wide variation in the sensitivity of anaerobes to oxygen. One of the major functions of O2 in MAP meats is to maintain myoglobin in its oxygenated form, oxymyoglobin. This is the form responsible for the bright red colour, which most consumers associate with fresh red meat (Farber, 1991).
 g01 - MODIFIEDATMOSPACKAGING.5-1.pdf   31.54KB   177 downloads
(pg4)

(1a) General (Not Restricted to Nitrogen)
Generally, the share of residual oxygen in each package should be less than 1–2 %. In the case of higher oxygen values, MAP cannot be used to its best advantage as far as oxidation protection is concerned. Exceptions to this rule are special MAP atmospheres, e.g. for fresh meat, which work with high concentrations of oxygen. If carbon dioxide, in a concentration which allows it to unfold its bacteriostatic effect, is part of the modified atmosphere, the minimum concentration of this gas should be 20 %.
 g01a - MAPAX brochure17-4683-1.pdf   3.9MB   125 downloads
(pg 11)

(2) deli meat – absolutely zero (!)
 g02 - Deli-Tech-lo-1.pdf   5.11MB   108 downloads
(pg 4)

(3) Nuts - <1%
See g01 - (pg4)

(4) Cheddar Cheeese - <0.5% (mould related)
 g04 - 01chapter1.pdf   4.1MB   90 downloads
(pg2)

(5) Cured meats - <0.5%
(Sebranek, 2006)

17.5.2 NITROGEN
Nitrogen is an inert gas that is colorless, odorless, and tasteless (Mullan and McDow-ell 2003). The gas is nonflammable, has a lower density than air, and has a low solubility in water and fat. Nitrogen can affect meat product shelf life indirectly because when nitrogen is used to completely displace oxygen, the atmosphere will not allow growth of aerobic micro-organisms. Because aerobic organisms are the fastest growing organisms normally present on fresh meat and poultry, preventing aerobic growth will improve shelf life. However, nitrogen has no direct effect on microbial growth and, consequently, has no impact on anaerobic bacteria. The low solubility of nitrogen is advantageous for use as a filler gas with carbon dioxide to prevent package collapse that can occur when carbon dioxide is absorbed by the product. Nitrogen gas, usually 100%, is most often used for flush-and-fill packages of cooked, cured meats, particularly sliced items where slice adhesion is to be prevented. In these packages, oxygen must be reduced to 0.5% or less for good cured color stability (Møller, Jensen, Olsen, Skibsted, and Bertelsen 2000). For uncured, cooked products, exclusion of oxygen is critical to suppression of rancidity and flavor losses. It is important to remember that fully cooked products, either cured or uncured, typically have low microbial numbers. For these products, prevention of flavor changes during storage is often more critical to shelf life of these products than microbial inhibition. The use of 100% nitrogen can extend shelf life of the products by preventing the chemical changes and flavor losses induced by exposure to oxygen. Carbon dioxide is seldom used for packaging these products because microbial control has been achieved by other means.


(6) Comment : the optimal oxygen level for growth (21% for aerobes, 0-2% for anaerobes)
( http://www.foodsafet...d=1955&sub=sub1 )

(7) Comment :Production of Gas-flushed packaging (ca.2001)

The gas flush technique is normally accomplished on a form fill-seal machine. The replacement of air inside a package is performed by a continuous gas stream. This gas stream dilutes the air in the atmosphere surrounding the food product. The package is then sealed. Since the replacement of air inside the package is accomplished by dilution, there is a limit on the efficiency of this unit. Typical residual oxygen levels in gas flushed packs are 2-5% O2 . Therefore, if the food item to be packaged is very oxygen sensitive, the gas flush technique is
normally not suitable. So when considering a packaging system it is important to consider the oxygen sensitivity of the food product.
See g01 - (Pg 5)

(8) Comment : (Morales-Castro, 2010) -
10.2.1.4 Residual Oxygen and Other Applications

Even with modified atmospheres of 60% N2 and 40% CO2 and vacuum packages, small amount of oxygen is left on the packages and care should be taken because residual oxygen inside the package can promote adverse reactions such as lipid oxidation. On MAP and VP, raw and cooked, beef O2 levels between 1.15% and 1.26% were detected (Smiddy et al. 2002a). Similar findings were reported for cooked chicken patties, with concentrations of 0.9%–1.1% and 0.11%–0.15% for MAP and VP, respectively, with the most oxidized samples for MAP products (Smiddy et al. 2002b). This can be explained by the fact that gaseous environment within MAP is not static since product respiration, microbial metabolism, and gas exchange act continuously to change the composition of the atmosphere. Concentrations of residual oxygen in MAP packs can be attributed to a number of factors such as oxy-gen permeability and poor sealing ability of packaging film (package leaks), food ability to trap air, and ineffective gas flushing. A study for processed cooked meats concluded that in 88% of packs oxygen was present after only 24 h of package with concentration up to 1.2% O 2 at day 1 and after 21 days of storage, which indicates that MAP is dynamic changing constantly due to the factors mentioned above with the consequent quality deterioration (Smiddy et al. 2002c).

Hope the above helps a bit.

Rgds / Charles.C

PS - My (previously) recollected old post is here –
http://www.ifsqn.com...dpost__p__17782
(anecdotal data but still interesting)

PPS I didn't notice any articles where MAP itself was a CCP although the 2009 US Food Code doesn't exactly specify that it couldn't be. The above post rather underplays the priority haccp safety issue which demands the implementation of parallel control measures / hurdles. For details, see this link -
http://www.fda.gov/F...9/ucm188201.htm

[Urban Explorer]

Big thanks for everyone who responded.

Charles, I suppose our limit is more of an "action" limit since we do not officially hold product out of spec (and it is not currently required), we go back to the last known good check and check all the packages. Our customer is also our supplier, they supply the meat slices and we package and send back. Since they are the largest meat company in the USA, we try not to tick them off :) They are the ones who gave us the 1.0% limit.

obviously we would rather not have it as a CCP and our HACCP plan does not even mention it as a control point. I'm a fairly new addition to the company and I am surprised that our plans have passed inspection so far. I just don't want to be surprised at our SQF audit!