Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Cooking CCP limits

CCP calibration cooking haccp

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

#1 pmf

pmf

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 12 September 2017 - 04:55 PM

Hi everyone,

 

We produce cooked products and the current cooking CCP limit is core temperature to be more than 75 degrees C; 

 

We have validated  the cooking process using temperature data loggers showing that the core temperature has been maintained above  75 degrees C for more than 3 minutes. 

 

We have been advised that the CCP limit should be amended to allow for deviations in the temperature probes. We calibrate the thermometers weekly allowing +/-0.5 degree deviation from a calibrated master probe. Also there is some deviation of +/- 0.3 degrees of the master unit as well.

Shall we change the CCP limit to 76oC then to compensate for these two deviations or we can avoid it having in mind that the temperature is maintained for quite long period of time. 

 

Many thanks in advance for all recommendations and opinions received.

 

 

 


  • 0

#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,578 posts
  • 3275 thanks
350
Excellent

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

Posted 12 September 2017 - 08:40 PM

Hi everyone,

 

We produce cooked products and the current cooking CCP limit is core temperature to be more than 75 degrees C; 

 

We have validated  the cooking process using temperature data loggers showing that the core temperature has been maintained above  75 degrees C for more than 3 minutes. 

 

We have been advised that the CCP limit should be amended to allow for deviations in the temperature probes. We calibrate the thermometers weekly allowing +/-0.5 degree deviation from a calibrated master probe. Also there is some deviation of +/- 0.3 degrees of the master unit as well.

Shall we change the CCP limit to 76oC then to compensate for these two deviations or we can avoid it having in mind that the temperature is maintained for quite long period of time. 

 

Many thanks in advance for all recommendations and opinions received.

 

Hi pmf,

 

As you noted this is all about use of calibration data. "Calibration" itself and the use of calibration data/tolerances can be a complex topic.

 

More than one answer to yr query is possible. An "appropriate"  answer may relate to the precise  context of yr question and involve  factors  such as yr actual operational use of yr chosen critical limit and the format of yr thermometer's calibration certificate.

 

If you are specifically referring to BRC clause 6.4.3 can see this thread which discusses a "general" case -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...ence-equipment/

 

So is there any particular context to yr query ?


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:
pmf

#3 Ryan M.

Ryan M.

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 395 posts
  • 163 thanks
28
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, California
  • Interests:Reading, crosswords, passionate discussions, laughing at US politics.

Posted 14 September 2017 - 03:42 AM

First I've heard this come up, but it is a valid point.  Actually, what you did was verify your CCP temperature for your process and product.  To validate you need to show with scientific literature, or a process study, the limit of minimum 75oC effectively eliminated your target pathogen for that specific product or product type.  There is a lot of scientific literature out there for all kinds of products so you may have already done this.

 

If I were you, I would set your CCP limit higher to account for temperature recording variability if it won't affect the process or the product.  Typically, most operations will also have a higher operating temperature anyhow in case there is a hiccup with the temperature so you have a bit of a buffer.  Hmmm...maybe that's why it has never come up for any audit I've been involved or heard of from others.  A valid point for sure.


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:
pmf




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users