Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

HACCP Plan, how many do we need?

Share this

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

hacksalot

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 21 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 09 December 2015 - 06:15 PM

I'm making a HACCP Plan for our business.  We make fruit and vegetable coatings and have numerous formulas.  I was told by someone in the business that because we have so many different formulas using many different ingredients and processing variables that we would need a different HACCP Plan for most, if not all.  Another employee said we could probably narrow it down to 5 or 6 general types of formulas.  My opinion is that we could have 2 based on if there is a heating step (CCP) or not in the formula.  Which is correct?  Is there a correct answer for this?   

 

Any input is greatly appreciated.



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 09 December 2015 - 06:52 PM

I'm making a HACCP Plan for our business.  We make fruit and vegetable coatings and have numerous formulas.  I was told by someone in the business that because we have so many different formulas using many different ingredients and processing variables that we would need a different HACCP Plan for most, if not all.  Another employee said we could probably narrow it down to 5 or 6 general types of formulas.  My opinion is that we could have 2 based on if there is a heating step (CCP) or not in the formula.  Which is correct?  Is there a correct answer for this?   

 

Any input is greatly appreciated.

 

Hi hacksalot,

 

it typically depends on the process and CCPs.

 

For example can try this thread -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...hotel-industry/


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Chris DeV

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 13 posts
  • 6 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 10 December 2015 - 09:20 PM

Hello Hacksalot,

 

Agreed with Charles on this one. Start from the beginning with your flow diagrams of your processes. If products share the same equipment, or they generally flow the same way from raw receiving to shipping, chances are you can group them by process. If your products have similar characteristics that end up prompting the same CCPs, then they can be grouped that way. 

 

Best,

Chris



hacksalot

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 21 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 10 December 2015 - 09:42 PM

Charles and Chris,

 

Thanks for your input.  We mostly make poly and carnauba emulsions and shellac dispersions. Almost everything we produce are basically made the same way in that they're put into a kettle, mixed, and/or sheared, and cooked for a certain amount of time.  The temperature they are cooked at is anywhere from 145-2300F.   Our CCP (If we can call it that.  Not sure our products would support microbial growth even if they were not cooked) would be the cook step.  We have a couple things we don't cook.  So thinking I could group according to if we cook or not.

 

Gary aka hacksalot



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 10 December 2015 - 10:30 PM

Hi Gary,

 

Interestingly exotic ingredient area.

 

haccp related material seems rather elusive.

 

I noticed a brief, fairly logical, hazard related comment (carnauba/shellac) in this document -

 

Attached File  HazardDataBaseEnglish2008.pdf   1.15MB   139 downloads

 

There are also a variety of books on the coating category but not very haccp-oriented afai could see.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 2 Members:

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 11 December 2015 - 04:28 AM

Hi Gary,

 

I had a few more thoughts on yr coatings. I am slightly unclear in one aspect, as i understand, the process you run only makes the coating materials, not the final coated product.?

 

haccp is basically a FS system derived from risk assessment (RA) /management etc as I'm sure you know.

 

IMEX the haccp aspect for ingredients is usually evaluated in relation to the (BCPA) risk associated with their input to a food process. In this case the coating operation would presumably be the "process".

 

Generically, the typical (ingredient) RA questions are usually related to whether the ingredient introduces any significant hazard, either intrinsically or via contamination, into the food process. This analysis is often done by a preliminary decision tree approach although direct RA is equally possible.

 

It seems to me that initially yr requirement is to generate a specification for yr "ingredients" which would enable them to be classified as food grade. This essentially quantifies their status as being (haccp) acceptable for food use. Essentially, if Food Grade (FG), the ingredient is what you might call haccp-neutral.

 

The next requirement is whether yr manufacturing process achieves such a FG specification.

 

Do you already have (BCPA) specifications for the coatings you are referring to ? Are they classifiable as Food Grade ?

 

I recall previous threads here on food supplements and the like which were also attracted to similar grouping opportunities. In respect to specifications, a name change was potentially the only requirement in many cases. However the commercial, organizational, conclusion seemed to be that producing individual ingredient specifications was in practice unavoidable. I wonder if you have a similar constraint.

 

If I have misunderstood yr initial posts (sorry !) and the "cooking" procedure is in fact the total coated product process my apologies. i wonder what the "cooking" step is actually for ? As before, the opportunities for grouping will depend on the flowchart similarities and the CCP (if any).


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

hacksalot

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 21 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 11 December 2015 - 04:35 PM

Charles,

 

To answer your questions;

 

I am slightly unclear in one aspect, as i understand, the process you run only makes the coating materials, not the final coated product.?  We make final coatings which are later applied to fruits and vegetables. 

 

In this case the coating operation would presumably be the "process".  The process would be the mixing and cooking of raw materials to produce a finished coating.

 

Do you already have (BCPA) specifications for the coatings you are referring to ? Are they classifiable as Food Grade ?  They are classified as food grade.  I'm not sure how to answer the first part of your question.  If I understand it correctly, I would have to answer no.

 

However the commercial, organizational, conclusion seemed to be that producing individual ingredient specifications was in practice unavoidable. I wonder if you have a similar constraint.  We do perform regulatory reviews on all ingredients we source, if that answers your question.

 

i wonder what the "cooking" step is actually for ?  The cooking step is essential to create the emulsion/dispersion and is a QA parameter.  If there were any bacterial contamination, it would probably be eliminated at this step. 



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 11 December 2015 - 06:56 PM

Hi Gary,

 

Thks for reply. I understand that the process for which you intend to generate a haccp plan is the manufacture of food coating.

 

I have to say that i would have thought it unlikely to be able to validate any finished item as "food grade" without a product specification (= BCPA).

 

IMEX a complete haccp plan will usually necessitate producing a finished product specification for each individually named item (excluding equivalent packing variations, product sizes, etc). And similarly for the process inputs. However these details may depend on who is going to approve yr haccp plan.

 

I have attached a haccp plan for pepper / seasonings to act as a natural product ingredient analogy and illustrate some typical haccp requirements.

 

Some of the risk analysis logic shown is a bit shaky IMO but was nonetheless presumably found acceptable. Net result is one CCPmetal detector.

 

I would imagine the possible variations using the same basic flow chart are, probably like in yr case, enormous.

 

One practical limitation is the necessity to be able to use the same flowchart for multiple products although one or two dotted alternative paths are acceptable IMEX within the same main flow path, as long as  the result is intelligible and no effect on the CCP. If too many deviations the subsequent hazard analysis will become "garbled".

 

Hope that clarifies yr options. It's difficult to be more specific without seeing process flowcharts/variations/inputs etc.

 

Attached File  haccp guide spices-seasonings, 2006.pdf   498.56KB   111 downloads


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


hacksalot

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 21 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 11 December 2015 - 07:49 PM

Charles,

 

Just to be clear, BCPA refers to Bacteriological, Chemical, Physical analysis? 

 

Gary



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 11 December 2015 - 08:05 PM

Charles,

 

Just to be clear, BCPA refers to Bacteriological, Chemical, Physical analysis? 

 

Gary

 

Hi Gary,

 

Close.

Biological, Chemical, Physical, Allergenic

(allergenic is debated B or C but often separated for hazard analysis convenience)(similarly to labelling)


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


hacksalot

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 21 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 11 December 2015 - 11:29 PM

Charles,

 

Our process flow chart is pretty simple in that the vast majority of our coatings are made in the same vessel and are mixed and cooked.  The variations are the time/temperature and raw material differences.  Writing a HACCP plan for each formula would be a huge undertaking.  I think I can whittle it down to HACCP plans for formulas that share many of the same raw materials and time/temperature characteristics.  That would give us 4-5 plans.  I'm thinking that just having 2 plans, one for cooked (at temperatures above 1450F for at least 1 hour) and one for uncooked would not fly with an auditor due to the vast differences in raw materials and cook times and temperatures.  Do you think that's a fair assessment?

 

Thanks for the HACCP reference.

 

Gary



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 12 December 2015 - 01:42 AM

Hi Gary,

 

I suspect that any method you use is going to involve a substantial project. You might benefit time-wise from a consultant's input if money is readily available.

 

The attachment below is a detailed example of one (process) approach to a grouping system. This is based on the micro. aspect. It sort of assumes no CCPs for "P,C" factors. It also does not discuss "A".

(also note that the basis of this methodology is described in some detail in the attachment in my post4 in the thread linked in post 2 above of this current thread)

 

The grouping criteria for this approach are spelled out on pgs 13-14. The grouped examples start on Pg 59.

The method groups a variety of raw materials having the same primary process steps + having CCPs associated with the same step / control measure although maybe having different critical limits.

 

I don't know if this method is applicable to yr setup or not because it will depend on the nature and justification for your own CCP/CCPs  and their  critical limits + how this "CCP chunk" would be adjustable within yr overall hazard analysis. (In my own haccp plans I have a preliminary page which lists the hazards intrinsic to raw materials used so that the group is referrable as a block with the exception of that species for which the critical limit is based (eg L.monocytgenes within a set of micro.pathogens)).

 

Note that the "foods" may be a composite, ie a mix. This works here since all components in a given mix can be fitted to one critical limit for the same control measure.

 

If the above approach does not match yr set-up, yr own suggestion may work. Difficult to comment much without actual data. :smile:

 

Attached File  USDA haccp process approach.pdf   1.42MB   136 downloads


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


yu123

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 05 April 2021 - 02:41 PM

Hi Charles, 

 

Thanks so much for sharing! This is very helpful!!!

 

Hi Gary,

 

Interestingly exotic ingredient area.

 

haccp related material seems rather elusive.

 

I noticed a brief, fairly logical, hazard related comment (carnauba/shellac) in this document -

 

attachicon.gif HazardDataBaseEnglish2008.pdf

 

There are also a variety of books on the coating category but not very haccp-oriented afai could see.





Share this

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users