Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Monitoring Record for Control of Vacuum Packing

Share this

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

Skye

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 45 posts
  • 16 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Birmingham U.K.

Posted 03 June 2011 - 11:56 AM

I need to develope a monitoring record to control vacuum packing of chicken. I would appreciate any suggestions on what should be recorded as this process is identified as a CCP.



Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 647 posts
  • 230 thanks
53
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 06 June 2011 - 11:45 AM

Hello Skye,

How do you monitor?
What is exactly your CCP?

I have a customer (also involved in meat packing) who monitor leakages of vacuum packages during packing. All leakages are recorded per our (stripe). If there are more then X leakages per hour, corrective actions are taken to the process.
Because all the pleakage packings were corrected (repacked), it turned out to be no CCP.
Packing is done by hand.


Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor

Thanked by 1 Member:

fusarian

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Egypt
    Egypt

Posted 07 June 2011 - 08:51 PM

Madam A.D.tor i think that i'm not agree with you, i worked on vacuumed and gas Flushed packaging in poultry processing plant (CFS machinery) and we was counting that point as a CCP, put it on the decision tree and you shall find it's leak detector unit will be a CCP for Biological Hazard.

@ skye, have a leak detector?



Thanked by 1 Member:

Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 647 posts
  • 230 thanks
53
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 08 June 2011 - 05:25 AM

Madam A.D.tor i think that i'm not agree with you, i worked on vacuumed and gas Flushed packaging in poultry processing plant (CFS machinery) and we was counting that point as a CCP, put it on the decision tree and you shall find it's leak detector unit will be a CCP for Biological Hazard.

@ skye, have a leak detector?


Dear Fusarian,

Will you please explain your process?
Do you have an inline leak detector? If the leak detector is a verification (check # packaging during X time) it will not go to the decision tree, because it is no process step.

But in the process I am referring to the steps are:
[...]
packing and vacuum products by robots
or
by automatic vacuum machine
transport belt
packing vacuum packed products in boxes by hand
[...]

During putting the vacuum bags in boxes (crates etc), the staff worker conducts a visual check om correct vacuum. This was pointed as the CCP. The worker marked each non-conformity on the registration form. The non-conforming packing is opened and repacked. Because 100% of the deviations is corrected, it was no CCP. Indeed if you put this to a decision tree, it might be, and that is why this had been a CCP for this company for years. Products are sold to butchers and any leaking packages will not be used by this customer target group and is send back.
I think it is more like a verification of your process control system.
But feel free to have another opinion.

For MAP packing, it is surely a CCP. The hazards are quite the same. MAP packed products are mostly sold to consumers and micro leakages are not always visible. Also mixture of gasses can be wrong or the flusher did not work correctly. You can not visible detect which gas is inside (O2, CO2, N2). Seal control, leakage checks and gas concentrate will be CCPs in such a process.

Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor

Thanked by 1 Member:


Share this

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users