Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Will a LOCG suffice or do I neen a COA for every ingredient received?


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

#1 Killio234

Killio234

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 04 September 2018 - 11:14 PM

Hi All,

 

M first post on this forum so forgive me if i leave out some initial details. I work for a small bakery and I'm currently the only food safety coordinator trusted with taking us to SQF accreditation.

 

I'm working on our supplier approval program and i can't decide if i need to demand a COA for every ingredient with every shipment we receive.

 

We receive up to 20 individual ingredients a day as we're fairly high volume, we only have one CCP and that is cooling as our baking temperatures are way above the necessary time/temp combination for product safety. This is monitored and verified by myself via temperature records. 

 

If anybody who has undergone or solved this issue I would be most appreciative.

 

Thanks,

 

Killian



#2 Scampi

Scampi

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,549 posts
  • 442 thanks
93
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 05 September 2018 - 03:49 PM

Hi Killian

Welcome

 

If you have not had an issue in the past, and you are confident in your suppliers than you probably do not need a COA for each shipment, plus it would be an ungodly amount of paperwork that would need verified (and you do not need more paperwork!)

 

However, you should have a signed agreement from your vendors that stipulates parameters that WILL NOT BE out of spec, this will be a letter of guarantee that you should review and get an updated copy of yearly

 

so, let's say vanilla extract cannot have more than 35% water by weight or not more than 2.5% vanilin

 

UNLESS you know you've got an ingredient that is often fraudulent, then you should request of CoA for each shipment



#3 Killio234

Killio234

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 06 September 2018 - 04:37 PM

Hi Scampi,

 

Thank you so much for your response. 

 

I have the letters of guarantee but maybe i need to look at the wording just to cover. We only have five suppliers, all GFSI audited and no history of messing up so i think that's safe with that.

 

Thanks again.

 

Killian


Edited by Killio234, 06 September 2018 - 04:41 PM.


#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 13,959 posts
  • 3847 thanks
456
Excellent

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

Posted 06 September 2018 - 09:50 PM

2.3.2.4  Raw  and  packaging  materials  and  ingredients  shall  be  validated  to  ensure  product  safety  is  not compromised and the material is fit for its intended purpose.  Verification of raw materials and ingredients shall include certificates of conformance, or certificate of analysis, or sampling and testing.
2.3.2.5  Verification of packaging materials shall include:
i.        Certification that all packaging that comes into direct contact with food meets either regulatory acceptance or approval criteria.  Documentation shall either be in the form of a declaration of continued guarantee of compliance, a certificate of conformance, or a certificate from the applicable regulatory agency.
ii.        In  the  absence  of  a  certificate  of  conformance, certificate  of  analysis,  or letter  of  guarantee,  tests  and analyses to confirm the absence of potential chemical migration from the packaging to the food contents shall be conducted and records maintained.

 

Logic for baking as not a CCP seems slightly bizarre.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#5 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,565 posts
  • 1111 thanks
267
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 12 September 2018 - 08:57 PM

What's an LOCG?

 

:dunno:


Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#6 Killio234

Killio234

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 12 September 2018 - 10:11 PM

Hi Charles,

 

Our food safety consultant has recommended not to operate as a CCP but certainly as a control point. we monitor and record these temperatures per batch anyway.  

 

My logic is derived from the "is this step specifically designed to reduce or eliminate" question (if you use that tree) in which case you could argue for baking that it's not and it's more around flavour / quality then you could argue if the controls failed the hazard would not exist because the bread would be rejected.

 

What would be your logic arguing the opposite?  

 

Thanks,

 

Killian



#7 Brendan Triplett

Brendan Triplett

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 57 posts
  • 16 thanks
7
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Rugby, Military, Reading

Posted 12 September 2018 - 11:39 PM

Simon,

 

LOCG - Letter of Continuing Guarantee

 

Killian,

 

I have seen these work, and currently have them in effect for much of the product that we have incoming.  You mention that the companies that you are receiving product from are GFSI audited.  Keep their audit grades on file along with their LOCG and you will be in good shape.  Make sure that you do either plant inspections for the companies or random interval shipment inspections to ensure compliance.

 

Cheers!


Director of Operations and SQF Practitioner in Pennsylvania
Brendan Triplett

Thanked by 1 Member:

#8 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,565 posts
  • 1111 thanks
267
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 13 September 2018 - 07:08 AM

Thanks Brendan. :cool:


Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#9 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 13,959 posts
  • 3847 thanks
456
Excellent

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

Posted 13 September 2018 - 08:56 AM

Hi Charles,

 

Our food safety consultant has recommended not to operate as a CCP but certainly as a control point. we monitor and record these temperatures per batch anyway.  

 

My logic is derived from the "is this step specifically designed to reduce or eliminate" question (if you use that tree) in which case you could argue for baking that it's not and it's more around flavour / quality then you could argue if the controls failed the hazard would not exist because the bread would be rejected.

 

What would be your logic arguing the opposite?  

 

Thanks,

 

Killian

 

Hi Killian,

 

Can browse through this (one of many) discussion -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...ccp-validation/

 

I do think the use of a (micro) Baking-CCP conforms to the literal Codex definition of a CCP.

 

PS - this rather ingenious Kraft SOP offers either CCP or PRP depending on the Process settings.-

 

Attached File  baking CCP-PRP.pdf   484.66KB   3 downloads


Edited by Charles.C, 13 September 2018 - 10:55 AM.
expanded

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#10 Killio234

Killio234

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 13 September 2018 - 04:13 PM

Thanks a million guys, much appreciated.

 

Killian






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate