What is an acceptable rate of recovery for a mock recall?

Dear Group-
What is an acceptable rate of recovery for a mock recall?
thank you

Dear Group-
What is an acceptable rate of recovery for a mock recall?
thank you

We use 99.5 - 100%, but our daily volume is about 10,000 pounds (small pouch weight production of 220,000 per day), which would equate to 50 pounds of unaccounted for in the material balance. This is the margin for error due to potential overweights of our product scales. The risk has to be assessed with process capability to account for all scrap, waste, rework, WEIGHED raw material going in (subtracting any tare weights of carriers, pallets, etc. ) vs total finished goods weight coming out. We test product throughout the day, and need to account for this product being taken out of the material balance also, which is what usually gets overlooked. With all that said, 0.5% is our goal or better.

I wouldn't think most auditors would take issue with 1% with our process, however, we try to have <1% error or unexplained loss. It depends on your process; multi component would be more difficult IMO.

Dear All,

I thought the question was primarily relating to testing the ability to trace shipped material in the event of a problem being discovered later. ??? There are existing threads here on this topic.

This will obviously include internal tracking of finished packed product and floating balances but not simply related to process recovery / losses ??

Or perhaps I hv misunderstood

Rgds / Charles.C

added much later - thks to the succeeding posts , i can now see the relevance of the mass balance. However IMEX which involves production of seafood from whole raw material, actual mass balances may involve some very variable recovery data due to quality variations, etc. Not so easy to give a narrow compliance range. One also has an interesting situation where processing to give semi-finished products to be re-worked internally are involved. Traceability can be done but certainly not simple (as our auditor discovered .)

Dear All,

I thought the question was primarily relating to testing the ability to trace shipped material in the event of a problem being discovered later. ??? There are existing threads here on this topic.

This will obviously include internal tracking of finished packed product and floating balances but not simply related to process recovery / losses ??

Or perhaps I hv misunderstood

Rgds / Charles.C

I would also say that the intrinsic nature of the product would have to be considered.
For example, in the bakery business, its very difficult to mass balance exactly. We tend to find 3% under is an average.
Having said that our last mock recall mass/balance returned a 1.25% under from yield at max scaled weight.

The expectation manual of one of the well known auditing bodies here in the US states the following:

"An effective traceability exercise is one where identified lots of ingredients or food contact packaging is traced to lots of finished product and to the first level of distribution at a 100% level, taking into account normal waste and shrinkage, within 4 hours. Failure to meet these requirements necessitates a repeat traceability exercise until the criteria are met."

The expectation manual of one of the well known auditing bodies here in the US states the following:

"An effective traceability exercise is one where identified lots of ingredients or food contact packaging is traced to lots of finished product and to the first level of distribution at a 100% level, taking into account normal waste and shrinkage, within 4 hours. Failure to meet these requirements necessitates a repeat traceability exercise until the criteria are met."

The question here is whether people are talking about recovery or trace. I agree there should be 100% trace to the first distribution level. Given a mock recall is a traceability exercise why shouldn't an organisation be able to achieve 100%?

Dear Group-
What is an acceptable rate of recovery for a mock recall?
thank you

here I attach article on food recall simulation.. hope can help you..

rgds

AS Nur

Dear EmmE,

Thks yr input.

first level of distribution at a 100% level

I can understand that this is a pragmatic inclusion since in many retail cases, lots are shipped to an arbitrary buyer's distribution point (A) (ie non-accessible database) which itself then begins randomly sub-distributing. I suppose distributor (A) is now logically responsible for the onward movement, particularly as they will take the first attacks in the event of any subsequent defect being found regardless of the original source. However, in the case where a shipment is to one's own company (ie further data is / should be readily available), I always involve their distribution also, seems logical and important in the safety sense. Also a way to meet people.

@ AS NUR. Interesting risk assessment advice but not much info on doing a mock recall ? Perhaps some pages missing ?? (I only see 1 pg)

Rgds / Charles.C

PS it's not exactly on-topic but the related links in this post may be of some interest -

http://www.ifsqn.com...dpost__p__36854

The expectation manual of one of the well known auditing bodies here in the US states the following:

"An effective traceability exercise is one where identified lots of ingredients or food contact packaging is traced to lots of finished product and to the first level of distribution at a 100% level, taking into account normal waste and shrinkage, within 4 hours. Failure to meet these requirements necessitates a repeat traceability exercise until the criteria are met."

Sorry to revive an old thread but I have the same question.

EmmE, what auditing body is this standard from?