Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Validation Process for nuts and seeds

HACCP validation

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

#1 ChocolatesMyGame

ChocolatesMyGame

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 37 posts
  • 6 thanks
6
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female

Posted 10 January 2014 - 06:06 PM

Hi all,

We are a nut and candy manufacturer working towards SQF certification.  We currently roast many types of nuts, including peanuts and several tree nuts, and a few types of seeds in an oil roaster.  I am looking into validation of roasting as a kill step for Salmonella.  I know there is a validation study done on almonds that oil roasting for 260 F for 2 minutes achieves a 5-log reduction, but is there any one out there that roasts nuts that has used this standard for validation of a kill step on other types of nuts?  For SQF, is this scientific data and our internal data on ensuring our worst case scenarios meet this standard enough for validation?

 

Thanks!



#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,392 posts
  • 4841 thanks
944
Excellent

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

Posted 11 January 2014 - 11:08 AM

Hi all,

We are a nut and candy manufacturer working towards SQF certification.  We currently roast many types of nuts, including peanuts and several tree nuts, and a few types of seeds in an oil roaster.  I am looking into validation of roasting as a kill step for Salmonella.  I know there is a validation study done on almonds that oil roasting for 260 F for 2 minutes achieves a 5-log reduction, but is there any one out there that roasts nuts that has used this standard for validation of a kill step on other types of nuts?  For SQF, is this scientific data and our internal data on ensuring our worst case scenarios meet this standard enough for validation?

 

Thanks!

Dear sarahm,

 

Interesting post.

 

Not my product area so I cannot offer an industry norm. but the following document (eg pgs 25-27)  indicates that the (2009) FDA answer  (for peanuts/pistachios) to yr penultimate sentence was sort of yes (5D), but might by now be otherwise. Note that a practical temperature targetted above the minimum for (xD) is also recommended (common practice in other areas IMEX).

 

Attached File  Industry_Handbook_for_Safe_Processing_of_Nuts 2010.pdf   1.56MB   182 downloads

 

This link also suggests that the current US situation may be in somewhat of a state of flux.

http://www.nytimes.c...ation.html?_r=0

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 2 Members:

#3 williamw

williamw

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 36 posts
  • 32 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 11 January 2014 - 04:45 PM

We have used the almond data for other nuts and not had an issue with our SQF auditors in doing so. The American Peanut Council did a study a few years ago that showed that the almond processes were applicable to peanuts but they did not publish it. There is a dire lack of published information on heat inactivation of salmonella in other nuts, as most of the work has been done by individual companies and not published. I have had discussions with some people that have worked on validations and they have told me that the almond data has been adequate for all other varieties of nuts but since the data is proprietary they cannot share it. I wrote a document explaining the basis for applying the almond data to other nut varieties and included it as part of our validation data and that has been adequate for us, but other auditors may take a different view of the situation.

From a practical standpoint I am sure that our oil roasting processes are exceeding the 5 log reduction even though I don't have the data to prove it. When I look at our validation runs, which we have done with oil temperatures in the 275 range, we see that even though we may achieve a temperature in the nut bed of at least 265 for only a little over 2 minutes at least half of that time we are seeing temperatures of 270+ which will result in a higher lethality. Unfortunately, once again, their is a lack of data even on almonds to determine the exact lethality associated with higher temperatures, but even if one assumes a very large z value the additional lethality is significant.

Frankly the whole situation with the lack of published data is frustrating. As a small processor the cost of having the kind of studies needed done on your own is significant if not prohibitive, yet it would be very nice to have them. I had suggested several years ago to the PTNPA that they should form an industry group to share the cost of developing such data but it never went anywhere, perhaps because the large members have already done their own studies. I still think it would be worthwhile for a consortium of nut processors to get together and fund some studies so that we could share the cost of doing them.



Thanked by 3 Members:

#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,392 posts
  • 4841 thanks
944
Excellent

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

Posted 12 January 2014 - 08:42 AM

Dear williamw,

 

Thanks for yr useful input.

 

I'm rather surprised that the type of data involved is not available since I remember a while ago coming across  the website of  the (something like) US  "Nut Processors" organisation which offered an impressive-looking library of accessible technical documents albeit mainly available to members only (don't remember the range of the "nuts" though :smile: ). 

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#5 williamw

williamw

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 36 posts
  • 32 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 13 January 2014 - 05:53 PM

You are probably referring to the PTNPA (peanut and tree nut processors association) which I referenced in my post. There is actually very little technical information in that library.



#6 ChocolatesMyGame

ChocolatesMyGame

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 37 posts
  • 6 thanks
6
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:10 PM

Thank you for the input- williamw this was exactly what I was looking for.  It seems to me that it should be applicable across all nuts considering it is the inactivation of Salmonella on the surface that we are looking to achieve.  Charles.C- there is a Peanut and Tree Nut Processors group, however their annual fees are in the $1000's and for a small company like us it is not feasible or practical to have this access.  It is also very costly to do the inoculation studies and because we roast 10+ types of nuts and seeds the costs associated with inoculation studies is rather cost prohibitive.



#7 zepoltwins

zepoltwins

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 15 January 2014 - 12:24 AM

check with Deibel labs in Jacksonville, FL. there is a Process Authority there that has done oil roasted nuts.



#8 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,392 posts
  • 4841 thanks
944
Excellent

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

Posted 16 January 2014 - 06:08 AM

Dear williamw,

 

It’s an interesting topic so I have extended a bit.

 

A recent bit of  ingenious archival digging by Snookie (see thread linked below) reminded me of the existence of some earlier, ca.2010, posts / threads on this overall topic. Notably that SQF (and FDA?) apparently had (have?) somewhat ambivalent views on the risk aspect of peanuts (and other roasted nuts.?).

 

I found this info. rather amazing considering  the then recent disasters whose effects appear to still reverberate today, eg

http://en.wikipedia....(peanut_butter)

http://topics.nytime...2009/index.html

 

If the views remain unchanged, this may further explain the result in yr previous post  #3 which, without any additional validation, I found an extremely questionable  viewpoint as far as SQF’s apparent involvement is concerned.

 

Regarding the lack of action mentioned in yr last paragraph, I located a sort of “manifesto” issued post-disaster by PTNPA [not 100% sure since on another PC] which detailed  the initiation of an  investigation related to the type of points you mention. Haven’t had time yet to seek further info released in period 2009-present or read up on any  of FDA’s previously referenced (ongoing?) research.. I daresay you are far more informed on this than I.

 

Earlier (2010) threads mentioned above are here (there may be others) –

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...isk/#entry37568

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...009/#entry35792

 

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

PS - i noted the comments (eg post #6) on cost / processor organisations but I would anticipate that any (?) subsequent FDA -derived knowledge would be in the public domain.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 2 Members:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate