9 replies to this topic

[trubertq]

Hi all,

Quick query..

Can you freeze a high care product ( raw) in the same flow freezer as a high risk ( cooked) product?

[Charles.C]

Hi all,

Quick query..

Can you freeze a high care product ( raw) in the same flow freezer as a high risk ( cooked) product?

Dear trubertq,

I assume you mean within the same time frame and the cooked following the raw (or in parallel).

Equally quick answer - Normally No. Definitely No unless you are confident that the mic.safety of raw is equal to or better than the cooked. Which is unlikely ?.

Could stop the freezer after raw finished and "decontaminate" but usually impractical.

Rgds / Charles.C

[trubertq]

Dear trubertq,

I assume you mean within the same time frame and the cooked following the raw (or in parallel).

Equally quick answer - Normally No. Definitely No unless you are confident that the mic.safety of raw is equal to or better than the cooked. Which is unlikely ?.

Could stop the freezer after raw finished and "decontaminate" but usually impractical.

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Charles,

No not in parallel, using time as a segregation, freezing the cooked first, cleaning down, and then freezing the raw, with the usual in depth daily clean afterwards.

We have 2 lines that need to use 1 flow freezer, I want to get both certified, safely and legally.

[Charles.C]

Hi Charles,

No not in parallel, using time as a segregation, freezing the cooked first, cleaning down, and then freezing the raw, with the usual in depth daily clean afterwards.

We have 2 lines that need to use 1 flow freezer, I want to get both certified, safely and legally.

Dear trubertq,

In theory i would quess it's workable but if you mean to try and get "approval" for a dual-function line in routine use, i anticipate some auditor resistance.

IMEX, dedicated/segregated lines / freezers / packing areas are the expected norm (after the cook step) where cooked products are involved. Assuming the products involved are microbiologically compatible (eg not chicken/shrimp), the raw > cooked transition(s) will obviously be the debatable phase.

Rgds / Charles.C

[trubertq]

Dear trubertq,

In theory i would quess it's workable but if you mean to try and get "approval" for a dual-function line in routine use, i anticipate some auditor resistance.

IMEX, dedicated/segregated lines / freezers / packing areas are the expected norm (after the cook step) where cooked products are involved. Assuming the products involved are microbiologically compatible (eg not chicken/shrimp), the raw > cooked transition(s) will obviously be the debatable phase.

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Charles,

Both are shellfish ( Molluscs) one is cooked and sent to customer who then can it. The other although not a RTE product because it is raw, is required to be listeria free by our customer. We are producing industrial packs ( 15kg Cartons) of IQF product.

I've been speaking to a BRC auditor, and she thinks , that if we can show that there is no carry over from the raw to the cooked and vice versa, then we can make a good argument. The problem is , that a second freezer is a huge capital expenditure.

[Charles.C]

Dear trubertq,

Hmmm, interesting scenario. Normally for BRC I would hv assumed that cooked shrimp > high risk process area after cook and up to packing stage?. But since the end-product is going to be canned (ie fully heat treated again prior consumer), maybe > low risk (LR) classification ?

If BRC consider high risk, seems unlikely they would accept that the area also "part-time" used for raw (time segregation stated not allowed for HR product as per their standard). If LR, maybe they don’t care?. Or perhaps the standard is not quite so inflexible in reality.

No doubt the auditor you spoke to should know.

Rgds / Charles.C

[RCF]

Hi Tubertq

We also sometimes faced with the same problem but we manage this was planning according.

We would run the fully cooked product first, then the raw.
No risk of cross contanimantion. Auditors were fine with this.....



Thanks

RCF

[trubertq]

Hi Tubertq

We also sometimes faced with the same problem but we manage this was planning according.

We would run the fully cooked product first, then the raw.
No risk of cross contanimantion. Auditors were fine with this.....



Thanks

RCF

Thanks RCF,

Sometimes common sense must prevail? The products will ot be using the same production equipment , just the flow freezer. I think that if we show that we are in control of the process then we should be good to go, especially if we stress that this is temporary until we have a dedicated freezer.

we will wait and see I guess

[Charles.C]

Dear trubertq,

I just noticed this was not posted in the BRC forum.

That was certainly commonsense IMO.

Might recommend you consult a few publications on processing cooked seafood products so as to validate yr intended request for certification.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Tony-C]

Hi Charles,

Both are shellfish ( Molluscs) one is cooked and sent to customer who then can it. The other although not a RTE product because it is raw, is required to be listeria free by our customer. We are producing industrial packs ( 15kg Cartons) of IQF product.

I've been speaking to a BRC auditor, and she thinks , that if we can show that there is no carry over from the raw to the cooked and vice versa, then we can make a good argument. The problem is , that a second freezer is a huge capital expenditure.

Not sure about the vice versa? Normal practice would be segregation by cooked/RTE 1st then raw then cleaning (cleaning is validated/verified).

Your case can be supported by HACCP documentation as well - Agreed product specification and intended use (Cooked for further processing -canning) as this makes segregation less of an issue.

Regards,

Tony