Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

CFIA guidance document


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

#1 majoy

majoy

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 230 posts
  • 84 thanks
55
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Female

Posted 13 February 2019 - 05:56 PM

Hi everyone,

 

I need to find the equivalent of MOP Chapter 4.2 handling of meat in the current guidance document of CFIA, my search is not giving me any equivalent reference document on defrosting and thawing procedures for meat.

 

Thanks


"Whatever you do, do it well..." - Walt Disney


#2 Scampi

Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,832 posts
  • 779 thanks
344
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 14 February 2019 - 02:20 PM

You can still reference 4.2 (as any other "old" CFIA regs)  they will be accepted as sufficient 

 

I could not find any new guidance, so I would just use the old procedures

 

The purpose of the new rules is to allow you greater flexibility. So, if you want to do something else, you can, but you need to PROVE to CFIA that your different process still has a SAFE outcome


Because we always have is never an appropriate response!


#3 majoy

majoy

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 230 posts
  • 84 thanks
55
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Female

Posted 15 February 2019 - 07:00 PM

You can still reference 4.2 (as any other "old" CFIA regs)  they will be accepted as sufficient 

 

I could not find any new guidance, so I would just use the old procedures

 

The purpose of the new rules is to allow you greater flexibility. So, if you want to do something else, you can, but you need to PROVE to CFIA that your different process still has a SAFE outcome

 

See, I was so sure you're the person who will respond to me Scampi! :)

 

I thought i have great googling/ searching skills until I was searching for it in the new guidance, gave me a little headache. I figured, that's what the new regulation meant when it says outcome based, so no more of the specifics (e.g. time/temp etc.), more flexibility - in my opinion more prone to interpretation mistakes... ohh well, if you researched enough and can prove your point (scientifically at least), then you will likely get away with it type of scenarios.

 

So since SQF has specific clause for thawing, and we are SQF certified, i will make the SQF clause the primary reference now and just make 4.2 as secondary, saves me some trouble.


"Whatever you do, do it well..." - Walt Disney


#4 Scampi

Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,832 posts
  • 779 thanks
344
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 February 2019 - 07:04 PM

You can also change the process to suit yourself AS LONG AS YOU VALIDATE IT

 

I was a the food safety summit once when Tom Graham was speaking (before he retired) and he said he had been in a further processed meat plant in Florida where the room temp was 70F or greater (can't remember exactly) and he questioned the plant manger/QA manager who said they had validated the process and the room temp was ok (even though in Canada at the time the room temp had to be 50F or below to meet regs)

 

So after a while, you could change your thawing process (if you think there's a benefit) to something else, as long as the outcome is the same


Because we always have is never an appropriate response!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users