Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Validation of a vegan product that is cooked, sliced and then added to a gold card and vacuumed then pasteurised

Time and Temperatures

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

#1 VeganSarah30

VeganSarah30

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 3 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 26 May 2020 - 01:13 PM

Hi, 

 

i'm looking for some help in the validation area. I have a  vegan product that is cooked to core 90 for 10 minutes, sliced and then added to a gold card and vacuumed then pasteurised. Without compromising on food safety, is there legislation around time and temperature of pasteurisation? I personally feel, after a 90 for ten cook, the pasteurisation should be at a lower temperature and for a shorter period of time?The product is chilled and ready to eat with a 14 week shelf life. Preferably <80 for less than 20 minutes, but the main blocker being temperature as its degrading the quality. 

 

Any ideas?

 

 

 



#2 nlamers

nlamers

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 17 posts
  • 2 thanks
6
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 26 May 2020 - 03:17 PM

The answer here depends on a lot of factors, including the hazards you're trying to control, the pH/aW of the finished product, whether the finished product is stored under refrigeration or not, etc. There are no general prescriptive regulatory requirements around pasteurization time and temperature for specifically this reason - a time and temperature sufficient to control a hazard in one product isn't necessarily able to control the same hazard in a different product, or even in the same product made with a different formulation or in a different packaging format. Your best, safest bet here is to reach out to a food lab or university to help design a validation study specific to your product. 



#3 VeganSarah30

VeganSarah30

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 3 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 26 May 2020 - 03:28 PM

The answer here depends on a lot of factors, including the hazards you're trying to control, the pH/aW of the finished product, whether the finished product is stored under refrigeration or not, etc. There are no general prescriptive regulatory requirements around pasteurization time and temperature for specifically this reason - a time and temperature sufficient to control a hazard in one product isn't necessarily able to control the same hazard in a different product, or even in the same product made with a different formulation or in a different packaging format. Your best, safest bet here is to reach out to a food lab or university to help design a validation study specific to your product. 

 

Thanks Nlamers, the product is chilled and ready to eat. The risk is the addition of the gold card and pouch hence the pasteurisation piece. My problem is i need to make sure the product is safe and lasts 14 weeks without micro growth but also be edible in terms of quality. I was hoping there would be some sort of spectrum. 

 

I've seen various products with different times and temperatures and that including High Temperature Short Time Pasteurisation 72.2 degrees for 15 seconds although that doesn't have any product reference. I have contacted Campden in the UK who are the dogs gonads of testing, but they're response time is usually up to a week and this project need to be done urgently. 



#4 pHruit

pHruit

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,388 posts
  • 590 thanks
298
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Composing/listening to classical music, electronics, mountain biking, science, sarcasm

Posted 27 May 2020 - 08:21 AM

You could try the Campden pasteurisation guide as a starting point?
Whether it contains any data that you'd be able to demonstrate is applicable to your product is a more difficult question though, as it is understandably focussed on relatively mainstream/standard products/materials and the latest edition is from 2006, so pre-dates the rapid growth in "plant based" products.

 

Would I be correct in assuming that your product is some sort of meat substitute?

The USDA has some guidelines on meat processing that may possibly also be a useful reference point: https://www.fsis.usd...AND POULTRY.doc

 

As nlamers indicates, there is no specific time/temperature requirement for this, at least in the UK (I'm assuming you're in the UK based on the use of Campden), so your general obligation is to produce safe food.

The overall process is interesting as it's almost akin to hot-fill, but done in two steps. As such I suspect that a lower thermal treatment for the packing step could well be viable as you'll presumably have validated the initial cook for suitably addressing micro hazards in the product itself.

 

At risk of asking a stupid question - if the packaging will tolerate 80°C, would it also tolerate the extra 10°C for the cook, such that you could perhaps combine into one step and cook the product in pack, avoiding the need for the second thermal process?

 



#5 VeganSarah30

VeganSarah30

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 3 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 27 May 2020 - 08:28 AM

You could try the Campden pasteurisation guide as a starting point?
Whether it contains any data that you'd be able to demonstrate is applicable to your product is a more difficult question though, as it is understandably focussed on relatively mainstream/standard products/materials and the latest edition is from 2006, so pre-dates the rapid growth in "plant based" products.

 

Would I be correct in assuming that your product is some sort of meat substitute?

The USDA has some guidelines on meat processing that may possibly also be a useful reference point: https://www.fsis.usd...AND POULTRY.doc

 

As nlamers indicates, there is no specific time/temperature requirement for this, at least in the UK (I'm assuming you're in the UK based on the use of Campden), so your general obligation is to produce safe food.

The overall process is interesting as it's almost akin to hot-fill, but done in two steps. As such I suspect that a lower thermal treatment for the packing step could well be viable as you'll presumably have validated the initial cook for suitably addressing micro hazards in the product itself.

 

At risk of asking a stupid question - if the packaging will tolerate 80°C, would it also tolerate the extra 10°C for the cook, such that you could perhaps combine into one step and cook the product in pack, avoiding the need for the second thermal process?

 

Hi,

 

this is certainly something i'll look into, yes the product is a meat alternative.

Due to the product being sliced I cannot cook in pack, that would be a dream.

I have read somewhere that 72 for 2 minutes would be suitable. The first cook is validated and has a shelf life of 90 days, theory would tell me that provided that the product is handled with care this would mitigate a lot of questionable bacteria and that my only risk would come from the packaging and low level vegetative cells?



#6 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,385 posts
  • 4838 thanks
943
Excellent

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

Posted 27 May 2020 - 04:22 PM

Hi VeganSarah,

 

Unfortunately the Product, Location are unknown.

 

I have no idea what the "gold card" means ? I thought "pouches" normally used for sterilization ?

 

Why do you vacuum before pasteurization ?

 

Sounds like yr current 90(I presume)degC is predicated on C.botulinum for which (but maybe depending on location) cooking guidelines exist.

 

some of the data in yr Post3 sound like for milk !!!


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#7 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,385 posts
  • 4838 thanks
943
Excellent

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

Posted 28 May 2020 - 09:39 AM

Hi VeganSarah,

 

Other than the gold card aspect which is outside my knowledge domain, this looks like a typical RTE, chilled vac-pack. If so UK Regulatory shelf-life issues kick in regarding C.botulinum. Be very careful.

 

https://www.food.gov...acuum-packaging

 

PS - the typical (afaik atmospheric) pasteurization requirements for C.botulinum are well-known and available in the literature.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#8 FurFarmandFork

FurFarmandFork

    Food Safety Consultant, Production Supervisor

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,264 posts
  • 576 thanks
170
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

Posted 28 May 2020 - 03:13 PM

FSIS' time temperature tables for various cuts of meat/fat content could also be a good starting point for exploring lower temperatures with longer hold times. (starts at page 33): https://www.fsis.usd...pdf?MOD=AJPERES


Austin Bouck
Owner/Consultant at Fur, Farm, and Fork.
Consulting for companies needing effective, lean food safety systems and solutions.

Subscribe to the blog at furfarmandfork.com for food safety research, insights, and analysis.

#9 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,385 posts
  • 4838 thanks
943
Excellent

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

Posted 28 May 2020 - 03:18 PM

FSIS' time temperature tables for various cuts of meat/fat content could also be a good starting point for exploring lower temperatures with longer hold times. (starts at page 33): https://www.fsis.usd...pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Doesn't include C.botulinum. eg -

 

Attached File  C.botulinum, seafood.PNG   64.91KB   0 downloads


Edited by Charles.C, 28 May 2020 - 03:26 PM.
added

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#10 El Molino

El Molino

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 62 posts
  • 10 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 28 May 2020 - 07:38 PM

start with the ingredients and potential pathogens associated with them - kill steps will be associated with the pathogens. Standards are set to kill Salmonella at 74 deg C hence having a target of 80 deg C give a sufficient buffer.Fresh or frozen vegetable ingredients need to have COA's to establish a benchmark for the ingredients. With issues of contamination in fields and carry over during harvest  will set your standards when cooking products.



#11 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,385 posts
  • 4838 thanks
943
Excellent

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

Posted 28 May 2020 - 08:32 PM

start with the ingredients and potential pathogens associated with them - kill steps will be associated with the pathogens. Standards are set to kill Salmonella at 74 deg C hence having a target of 80 deg C give a sufficient buffer.Fresh or frozen vegetable ingredients need to have COA's to establish a benchmark for the ingredients. With issues of contamination in fields and carry over during harvest  will set your standards when cooking products.

 

Hi El Molino,

 

The UK choice of micro. target is typically oriented to the food's most difficult species to kill. UK do not concur with the typical US preference for Salmonella.

 

A key factor in UK is if item is vacuum packed for which the OP's desired shelf life is a cause for comment.. See the link in Post 7.

 

In the absence of info.  I selected the usual vacpack choice of target (appears to correlate with the cook data mentioned  in OP).


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#12 VeganSarah30

VeganSarah30

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 3 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 29 May 2020 - 08:01 AM

Hi VeganSarah,

 

Other than the gold card aspect which is outside my knowledge domain, this looks like a typical RTE, chilled vac-pack. If so UK Regulatory shelf-life issues kick in regarding C.botulinum. Be very careful.

 

https://www.food.gov...acuum-packaging

 

PS - the typical (afaik atmospheric) pasteurization requirements for C.botulinum are well-known and available in the literature.

 

Hi Charles, 

 

thank you, that literature is perfect, however. I've undertaken the botulinum kill at 90 for 10 in a chub, it is then sliced and applied onto a gold card vacuumed and then i need to pasteurise. The gold card and vacuum being similar to that of smoked salmon. 



#13 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,385 posts
  • 4838 thanks
943
Excellent

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

Posted 29 May 2020 - 09:23 AM

Hi Charles, 

 

thank you, that literature is perfect, however. I've undertaken the botulinum kill at 90 for 10 in a chub, it is then sliced and applied onto a gold card vacuumed and then i need to pasteurise. The gold card and vacuum being similar to that of smoked salmon. 

Hi Sarah,

 

Regret I have no personal knowledge of the gold card process you refer and I was unable to locate any examples in the Literature. Perhaps you could provide a link ?

 

I would guess the (6D) pasteurization will basically be a repeat of the first procedure you mention which as you say has elements of overkill but maybe no choice. I am faced with an analogous double step when (atmospheric) processing cooked shrimp which also can hit organoleptic quality.

The 14 week shelf-life you mention obviously exceeds the usual 10 day limit. The latter spec. was queried as too strict  by Industry in 2019 but I do not see reference to any subsequent changes.

 

PS - I think I have one or two references/examples of standard RTE, chilled vac-pack pasteurization procedures in my archive, Can search if you are interested.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate