13 replies to this topic

[792404]

I have pieces of gum going on a conveyor in single file going under an inspection camera. The camera system picks out the rejects by sending a blast of air to knock the reject gum off the conveyor into a box. is this a CCP for me? I believe the potential for a chemical hazard is dirty air, but not sure it makes for a CCP?

Mike

 

 

 

[Tony-C]

Hi Mike,

 

Presumably you filter the air, it should be filtered as close to the application as possible and you should monitor the air quality.

 

Filtration should remove particles, oil, water and microbes.

 

With adequate filtration as a prerequisite it is difficult to see how it could be a CCP. Presumably it is rejecting misshapes or something like that but quality related.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[Charles.C]

Hi Mr/Ms 792404,

 

afaik the scenario of compressed air impacting directly on a food product was previously, popularly, associated with a contamination CCP, especially by the manufacturers of filtration equipment. This viewpoint has now changed somewhat towards Tony’s post. Specific industries may still regard it as a CCP, gum no idea unfortunately.

 

Theoretically it’s a question of Risk Assessment but Prerequisite Programs have been donated an increased scope in “modern” haccp.

 

Can try these documents –

 

 Compressed-Air-in-the-Food-and-Beverage-Industry.pdf   3.82MB   63 downloads

 

 Compresssed air for the Food Industry.pdf   2.02MB   46 downloads

(trying to have it both ways)

 

 Compressed-Air-for-Food-GMPs.pdf   556.32KB   45 downloads

 

http://www.kraftfood...lity/haccp.aspx

[792404]

Thanks for the replies. The air is filtered but dont monitor it. I will have to monitor it and find test kits. The air will only blast the reject gum and the reject gum is thrown away. 

Mike

[Khairul Anhar]

Dear Sir,

 

In my opinion, monitoring of filtered air is not a CCP, but it is only a prerequisite program.  The control measure needed is good maintenance of compressor and also changing of filtration system regularly. 

Verification (may conduct quarterly, semester or yearly) is needed to ensure air quality meet the requirement (in term of moisture, particle, oil, microbiology)

 

Thank you

[CMHeywood]

If you are talking about CCP as a food safety issue, then you are talking about removing contaminants from the gum.  Keeping the air clean and filtered is a prerequisite program.  You need to keep the air clean no matter the condition of the gum.  This is necessary before you even start production which by definition is a prerequisite program.

[Charles.C]

 

If you are talking about CCP as a food safety issue, then you are talking about removing contaminants from the gum.  Keeping the air clean and filtered is a prerequisite program.  You need to keep the air clean no matter the condition of the gum.  This is necessary before you even start production which by definition is a prerequisite program.

 

 

You are equally talking about transferring contamination to the gum. Preventing it is a control measure.

 

PRP was originally a process independent. control program. Life changes.

[Tony-C]

 

If you are talking about CCP as a food safety issue

 

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean but for clarification a CCP is a point where a food safety hazard is controlled.

 

You are equally talking about transferring contamination to the gum. Preventing it is a control measure.

 

PRP was originally a process independent. control program. Life changes.

 

I agree Charles but PRPs in my view are for general unspecific controls. In this case to prevent environmental contamination then possibly gum contamination, which is being rejected as far as I understand so isn't a direct way of contaminating the product.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[Charles.C]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean but for clarification a CCP is a point where a food safety hazard is controlled.

 

 

I agree Charles but PRPs in my view are for general unspecific controls. In this case to prevent environmental contamination then possibly gum contamination, which is being rejected as far as I understand so isn't a direct way of contaminating the product.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

 

Hi Tony,

 

I should probably have added "for better or worse".

 

I personally feel that the PRP scope as evidenced in ISO 22002-1 has now gone too far. OK, it simplifies the HACCP Plan and the "work", and the multitude of CCPs in earlier HACCP concepts  certainly tended to blur the genuinely significant hazards and create encyclopedias but IMO the abundance of PRPs is now generating a similar effect from a Risk Assessment POV.

The OPRP approach might have offered a middle path but I fear this concept has currently been capsized by confusion over its meaning, implementation and (ironically) scope.

[Tony-C]

Hi Charles,

 

The PRP scope as defined in ISO 22002 is a clarification on the rather obscure requirements for PRPs in ISO 22000 in each category and is progress in my opinion, perhaps there should be similarly more guidance on OPRP's but I'm quite clear on how to determine the difference between PRP's, OPRP's and CCPs and happy to discuss any confusion with members.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[Appendix G]

How would you monitor this as a CCP?  Test rejected sticks of gum for some adulterant/contamination?

 

What hazard that is significantly likely to occur are you addressing?

 

I am just curious.

[Charles.C]

How would you monitor this as a CCP?  Test rejected sticks of gum for some adulterant/contamination?

 

What hazard that is significantly likely to occur are you addressing?

 

I am just curious.

 

The hazard is contamination from the compressed air.

More specifically, 2 hazards are (1) chemical - oil from compressor, (2) microbiological which is where the topic gets a bit involved as far as species/limits are concerned.

 

The control is via a filtration  set-up whose output can be monitored for "elimination" of the hazards

[Appendix G]

Ok, makes sense.

 

Like an hourly check to see if the filter is in place.

[ahmedmourad]

Dear All:

as I understood

if this the last stage that can remove the hazard of contaminated product go through finished product so the inspection , rejection of contaminated gums will be a CCP

and as understood from  Mike words the air only go direct contact with the contaminated gum ,so  making it PRP will be sufficient .

Best Wishes

Ahmed