1 reply to this topic

[tskillman]

Food Quality Monitors,


The technology now exists to enable the testing for multiple allergens from an equipment wipe sample, post sanitation. The test would provide digital quantitative results via a portable detector and do this on the production floor in 5 mins. The cost per allergen tested would be about $2 USD, however the portable instrument would represent a capital equipment cost in the $20K USD range. My estimates are that the break-even point for this system, as compared to an allergen flow-strip test, would be at about 1000 tests. At that point the saving/test would offset the cost of the instrument.

Would food producers see value in this testing capability, or is the current process of using allergen testing to validate SSOPs proving good enough? Do you think the increased emphasis on prevention from the FSMA will change the demand for allergen testing?

Thanks for any feedback on this.

Tom

[Charles.C]

Food Quality Monitors,


The technology now exists to enable the testing for multiple allergens from an equipment wipe sample, post sanitation. The test would provide digital quantitative results via a portable detector and do this on the production floor in 5 mins. The cost per allergen tested would be about $2 USD, however the portable instrument would represent a capital equipment cost in the $20K USD range. My estimates are that the break-even point for this system, as compared to an allergen flow-strip test, would be at about 1000 tests. At that point the saving/test would offset the cost of the instrument.

Would food producers see value in this testing capability, or is the current process of using allergen testing to validate SSOPs proving good enough? Do you think the increased emphasis on prevention from the FSMA will change the demand for allergen testing?

Thanks for any feedback on this.

Tom

Dear tskillman,

Interesting concept if actually a real situation (?).

I remember seeing some similar posts many years ago at the time of increasing use of metal detectors when the costs were several times greater than present. There the opportunity for, mainly, non-invasive, unattended "continuous" monitoring also applied which i guess is not available in yr case (?). A long, as yet unfinished, debate ensued.
Another analogous argument (on a lower financial level) followed the introduction of portable units for assessing (general) cleanliness. Still ongoing.

My guess the answers will probably be similar, ie cost benefit (eg safety-wise) allied with compulsory necessity, legislative or otherwise.

IMO the knee-jerk reaction to 20k$ for "average" producers will be - you must be joking. A lot of these companies probably do not even consider the current level of testing charge philosophy as realistic.

But for some (rich?) "big boys" who have a large range of sensitive /(expensive(?), integrated production lines, such cost may well be almost incidental IMobservation when weighed against safety aspects. Such is the QA delight, but usually more of a dream.

Perhaps the typical reader of these forums will shortly prove me wrong. I hope so.

Rgds / Charles.C