Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

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

Share this

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

Killio234

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 6 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



Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 5,444 posts
  • 1507 thanks
1,524
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


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


Killio234

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 6 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.


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

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


Simon

    IFSQN...it's My Life

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 12,826 posts
  • 1363 thanks
880
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Married to Michelle, Father of three boys (Oliver, Jacob and Louis). I enjoy cycling, walking and travelling, watching sport, especially football and Manchester United. Oh and I love food and beer and wine.

Posted 12 September 2018 - 08:57 PM

What's an LOCG?

 

:dunno:


Get FREE bitesize education with IFSQN webinar recordings.
 
Download this handy excel for desktop access to over 180 Food Safety Friday's webinar recordings.
https://www.ifsqn.com/fsf/Free%20Food%20Safety%20Videos.xlsx

 
Check out IFSQN’s extensive library of FREE food safety videos
https://www.ifsqn.com/food_safety_videos.html


Killio234

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 6 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



Brendan Triplett

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 511 posts
  • 131 thanks
106
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Rugby, Military History, 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!


Vice President and SQF Practitioner in Pennsylvania
Brendan Triplett


Thanked by 1 Member:

Simon

    IFSQN...it's My Life

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 12,826 posts
  • 1363 thanks
880
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Married to Michelle, Father of three boys (Oliver, Jacob and Louis). I enjoy cycling, walking and travelling, watching sport, especially football and Manchester United. Oh and I love food and beer and wine.

Posted 13 September 2018 - 07:08 AM

Thanks Brendan. :cool:


Get FREE bitesize education with IFSQN webinar recordings.
 
Download this handy excel for desktop access to over 180 Food Safety Friday's webinar recordings.
https://www.ifsqn.com/fsf/Free%20Food%20Safety%20Videos.xlsx

 
Check out IFSQN’s extensive library of FREE food safety videos
https://www.ifsqn.com/food_safety_videos.html


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
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   205 downloads


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

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 2 Members:

Killio234

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 6 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 13 September 2018 - 04:13 PM

Thanks a million guys, much appreciated.

 

Killian





Share this

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users