Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Less than 2ppm Peanut Labeling

Allergen

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

#1 QA_Spices

QA_Spices

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 13 posts
  • 1 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 01 March 2021 - 04:31 PM

Hello, I recently received results for a product that is roasted on a peanut roaster. My product results came back at <2ppm Peanut (R-Biopharm Ridascreen) an has the following legend: "IF THE ALLERGEN RESULT ON THIS CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS IS NOT PRECEDED BY A “<” (LESS THAN) SYMBOL, THE RESULT WAS PRESUMPTIVE FOR THE INDICATED ALLERGEN". To my understanding this product has no peanut proteins (or at least not detectable by that method). Should I steel label my product as a warning that it might contain peanut or has been in contact with peanut processing equipment? Thank you, 



#2 Scampi

Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,617 posts
  • 976 thanks
593
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 01 March 2021 - 04:44 PM

I think given that you're using a peanut roaster for your product, it's the prudent thing to do

 

You sent the lab a sample, going to assume it was a grab sample and not an AOQ type sample , it only means that the sample you sent is negative for peanut, it does not mean the product is

 

Err on the side of caution---------the alternative is a battle with the FDA and/or a lawsuit

 

Next batch, secure a different roaster if possible


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


Thanked by 1 Member:

#3 SQFconsultant

SQFconsultant

    SQFconsultant

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,671 posts
  • 932 thanks
808
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:American Patriot
    WWG1WGA
    Never give up, never give in - allways win!
    Melbourne, Florida USA

Posted 01 March 2021 - 05:01 PM

Itvwould be an allerhen statement or declaration that ingredient/product is processed on equipment that also processes peanuts. Or both.


Kind regards,
Glenn Oster
 
GOC BUSINESS GROUP | SQF System Development, Implementation & Certification Consultants
 

 

Serving the New Republic of the United States of America, Costa Rica, Panama & Caribbean Islands

 

 


Thanked by 1 Member:

#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,601 posts
  • 5209 thanks
1,186
Excellent

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

Posted 02 March 2021 - 06:48 AM

Hello,

 

I recently received results for a product that is roasted on a peanut roaster.

 

My product results came back at <2ppm Peanut (R-Biopharm Ridascreen) an has the following legend: "IF THE ALLERGEN RESULT ON THIS CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS IS NOT PRECEDED BY A “<” (LESS THAN) SYMBOL, THERESULT WAS PRESUMPTIVE FOR THE INDICATED ALLERGEN".

 

To my understanding this product has no peanut proteins (or at least not detectable by that method).

 

Should I steel label my product as a warning that it might contain peanut or has been in contact with peanut processing equipment?

 

Thank you, 

 

If you do" precautionary" label, you might as well have not sent a sample ?

 

There are "guidelines" for to label or to not label but it often devolves as per previous posts despite logical/ethical etc opinions. Such is the belief in preemptive strikes/insurance.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#5 moskito

moskito

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 399 posts
  • 80 thanks
18
Good

  • Germany
    Germany
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 March 2021 - 01:02 PM

I apply several principles:

1) no analysis w/o consequences

2) test selection - here: Check whether the test system applies an antibody or antibodies which are able to detect heat modified allergens
    I always ask for validation studies and background of antibodies generation (ELISA). Why? For peanut I know from own experience that a negative test result will not mean no allergenicity -> crosscheck with IgG from allergenic patient used in a test system can give a positive reaction.
3) CoA: any result statement for both the allergenic food (peanut) and the protein

4) crosscheck with vital concept (Australia)

 

Any decision for or against PAL for countries w/o legal requirements is always related to the market environment and court decisions. I personally prefer no PAL wherever possible and reasonable. 

 

Rgds

moskito



Thanked by 1 Member:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users