Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Just wondering why Reheating (not cooking) is always included as a CCP


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

#1 AdamR

AdamR

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 16 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 11 July 2013 - 01:35 PM

Hi,

 

Just wondering why Reheating (not cooking) is always included as a CCP?

 

What is the risk of reheating a chilled ready to less than 75°C?  The pathogens would have been killed during cooking (apart from spore formers) so what is the risk? If it's safe to eat cold, where is ther hazard of heating it to less than 75°C?    I don't understand the reasoning how it's critical to food safety.



#2 Mr Meat

Mr Meat

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Scotland
    Scotland

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:31 PM

I've always had the cooking step as a CCP...........................?
I guess the logic behind the CCP status for reheating is that if you only re-heat to say 37°C, you will promote bacterial growth. I know cooking will potentially kill all bacteria, but if the food is rehandled etc you will introduce new/more bacteria to the cooked food, which if you do not re-heat properly has the potential to multiply.



#3 AdamR

AdamR

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 16 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 12 July 2013 - 12:19 PM

Ok so reheating to say 37°C will promote bacteria growth, but this will take hours.  Legally the food can stay at this temp for 2 hours.  So does that mean reheating to 75°C would be more critical for food which is to be displayed hot, rather than to be eaten straight away?

 

I know in Scotland there is legislation which says food must be reheated to 82°C which confuses me even more!


Edited by AdamR, 12 July 2013 - 12:22 PM.


#4 AdamR

AdamR

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 16 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 12 July 2013 - 12:20 PM

Sorry first line should read reheating to 37°C, not cooking.


Edited by AdamR, 12 July 2013 - 12:21 PM.


#5 waimanip

waimanip

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mauritius
    Mauritius

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:07 PM

All stages after cooking will be CCP.  If you look at the Codex decision tree at question 4, there are no subsequent step that will eliminate or reduce the hazard to an acceptable level. 



#6 AdamR

AdamR

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 16 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:35 PM

In the case that food is cooked, blast chilled and reheated, would cooking even be a CCP?  Based on the fact that a later step will eliminate the hazard - that being the reheat step to 75°C?  Could it be arued then that cooking and blast chilling are just control points?



#7 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,360 posts
  • 4834 thanks
943
Excellent

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 09:51 AM

In the case that food is cooked, blast chilled and reheated, would cooking even be a CCP?  Based on the fact that a later step will eliminate the hazard - that being the reheat step to 75°C?  Could it be arued then that cooking and blast chilling are just control points?

 

Dear AdamR,

 

I will attempt yr original post and latest variation. :smile:

 

You may need to define yr examples more precisely. I have selected one typical textbook situation below.

 

AFAIK, “reheating” is often routinely used under conditions where the risk assessment implies it is a necessary control measure, ie for a significant hazard. For example –

 

Reheating

This operational step applies only to those foods that you listed in Process #3.  If food is held at improper temperatures for enough time, pathogens have the opportunity to multiply to dangerous numbers.  Proper reheating provides an important control for eliminating some of these organisms. Remember that although proper reheating will kill most organisms of concern, it will not eliminate toxins such as those produced by Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus cereus or foodborne viruses.

 

Special consideration should be given to the time and temperature in the reheating of cooked foods.To control biological hazards, it is recommended that reheating be managed either as a CCP in your HACCP plans or as a prerequisite program and be based upon the same level of safety established by the critical limits in the Food Code

 

Attached File  reh1 - haccp manual foodservice.pdf   555.5KB   39 downloadsf

(note that use of a prerequisite is not ruled out)(other sources will differ on the crit.limits mentioned)

 

Any potential negative risk in the reheat step itself depends on the specific operational parameters, eg product time in the danger zone. I guess this is accommodated within the context of the critical limits (if a CCP).

 

Regarding 2 CCPs,  I think this is a question of  “convention”. The occurrence of a CCP both for the cooking step and reheat can be “viewed” in terms of  the potential product utilisation, eg 2 processes combined into one. For example see the text (Pg4) in this attachment,  –

Attached File  reh 2 - haccp in school foodservice.pdf   1.36MB   21 downloads

 

AFAIK, England does not have any legal limits for reheating so Scotland is "one-up". Bit like Tennis ? :smile:

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#8 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,361 posts
  • 992 thanks
263
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 14 July 2013 - 09:32 AM

Hi,

 

Just wondering why Reheating (not cooking) is always included as a CCP?

 

What is the risk of reheating a chilled ready to less than 75°C?  The pathogens would have been killed during cooking (apart from spore formers) so what is the risk? If it's safe to eat cold, where is ther hazard of heating it to less than 75°C?    I don't understand the reasoning how it's critical to food safety.

 

Hi Adam,

 

This would depend on the operation.

 

For an operation where food is cooked and served hot, cooking would be the CCP.

 

For an operation where food is cooked then blast chilled and reheated later reheating would be a CCP and perhaps even chilling.

 

The hazard is in post cooking contamination and spores that have survived the cooking process such as B.cereus that could germinate and produce toxins if the food was just 'warmed' and held at a temperature conducive to bacterial growth.

 

Regards,

 

Tony



#9 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,360 posts
  • 4834 thanks
943
Excellent

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

Posted 14 July 2013 - 11:49 AM

Dear AdamR,

 

This bar graph of relative contributions of food handling errors to "incident creation" is a bit old (1988) so things may have changed somewhat but still looks intereresting IMO? The data comes from a highly respected source.

 

Attached File  top ten food handling practices that cause food poisoning.png   129.61KB   9 downloads

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#10 AdamR

AdamR

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 16 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 16 July 2013 - 10:43 AM

Thanks for all the helpful info!



#11 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,361 posts
  • 992 thanks
263
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 16 July 2013 - 06:13 PM

Dear AdamR,

 

This bar graph of relative contributions of food handling errors to "incident creation" is a bit old (1988) so things may have changed somewhat but still looks intereresting IMO? The data comes from a highly respected source.

 

attachicon.giftop ten food handling practices that cause food poisoning.png

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

Nice graph Charles

 

Is there more information on the products this applies to?

 

For me lack of control of cooling then reheating is likely to be the main source - My bet - making fried rice is the No. 1 cause.

 

Regards,

 

Tony



#12 cazyncymru

cazyncymru

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • Banned
  • 1,604 posts
  • 337 thanks
125
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:19 PM

Ok so reheating to say 37°C will promote bacteria growth, but this will take hours.  Legally the food can stay at this temp for 2 hours.  So does that mean reheating to 75°C would be more critical for food which is to be displayed hot, rather than to be eaten straight away?

 

I know in Scotland there is legislation which says food must be reheated to 82°C which confuses me even more!

 

 

MM I think that you mean >63C for 2 hours!

 

I agree with Tony, maybe blast chilling and reheating are your CCP's, although difficult to monitor if a consumer is reheating in the home.

 

Cazx



#13 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,360 posts
  • 4834 thanks
943
Excellent

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

Posted 17 July 2013 - 08:15 PM

Nice graph Charles

 

Is there more information on the products this applies to?

 

For me lack of control of cooling then reheating is likely to be the main source - My bet - making fried rice is the No. 1 cause.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

 

Hi Tony,

 

Sorry, no info. on products was given in the non-primary source I found. Should also be noted that, as stated under graph,  the results  refer to food-service incidents.

 

After some netting, I have included details on the original (more extensive scope) data in the word.document attached. It appears to me that “improper cleaning of equipment / utensils” was omitted from the food-service, top-10 graph for some reason.

 

Attached File  Re top ten,1.2.doc   152.5KB   4 downloads

 

The 2 pdfs mentioned in word document are attached below –

 

Attached File  fs1 - causes of foodborne disease ,Snyder,2005.pdf   141.71KB   17 downloads

Attached File  fs2 - Food Managers Certification Course Material.pdf   2.25MB   9 downloads

 

Rgds / Charles


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#14 BarrieT

BarrieT

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 41 posts
  • 4 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helston, Cornwall
  • Interests:Brass/Military Banding

Posted 07 August 2013 - 03:56 PM

Caz, I think AdamR (not actually MM) was correct - he was referring to the max 2 hour exemption from hot holding >63OC (so max 2 hours <63OC).

 

It all depends on the circumstances, as Tony remarked:

 

  1. If food is designed to be reheated (ie, not RTE) then providing the reheating takes place on the same premises (eg a catering establishment), I guess you could regard the cooling time and the reheating time/temp as the CCPs.
  2. If the food is RTE but may be reheated if preferred, then the cooking time/temp is the CCP.
  3. I think if eg a manufacturer is doing the cooking, and the customer is being instructed to do the reheating of non-RTE food, then the manufacturer would be very wise to regard the cooking time/temp as a CCP, even though HACCP guidance usually considers what the customer does as a 'step' in the HACCP.

Why is life so confusing.....!!??


Edited by BarrieT, 07 August 2013 - 03:57 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate