4 replies to this topic

[dzabhi]

Hi

I'm currently being challenged to see if we can operate our cook process differently and come away from the conventional "70°C for 2 minutes" that has been prescribed by Campden and enforced by BRC and local authorities throughout the food industry to achieve a 6 log reduction in listeria monocytogenes.

 

There is a lot of scientific literature that suggests that a reduced time and temperature would still be able to achieve a 6 log reduction in certain food products (e.g. seafood). However, I'm under no illusions that trying anything different may be viewed with suspicion or incredulity so I thought I would see if anyone has some experience in this.

 

I'm sure between a combination of internal cooking validation that is supported by satisfactory micro results, the cook process could be validated, however my main obstacle would be convincing a BRC auditor to accept a process other than the standard "70 for 2 mins" for products manufactured in a high risk area. The interpretation guidelines has the following statement:

 

“Cook” is a thermal process which is designed to achieve typically a 6 log reduction in Listeria Monocytogenes equivalent to 70°C for 2 minutes. Alternative cooking processes may be accepted or required where these meet recognised national guidelines and are validated by scientific data.

 

The above suggests that another cooking process may be used where they are validated by scientific data and there is some science literature that shows a 70°C for 1.5 minutes to be sufficient enough to achieve a 6 log reduction in certain seafood materials.

 

Does anyone have any ideas of how we might go about this? Do you think it will mean requesting Campden to conduct a study would a change in designation from high risk to high care be needed for BRC compliance?

 

Any ideas would be much appreciated!

Thanks

[Scampi]

https://www.campdenb...ria-control.php

Interesting reading, Campden is working on a new listeria score card

 

You will need a study done properly, but an accredited lab that is capable of replicating YOUR process--------this is the part that always get missed

 

Control of listeria for your process, may not be the same for mine, even when processing the same finished goods....the blanket statement is for safety +++, but may not be best for you

 

So in order for it to be equivalent, you need a study that proves beyond a shadow, that your time/temp/pressure etc are still capable of meeting a 6 log reduction

 

NOTE: a study of this magnitude will not be A) cheap or B) quick

 

Standard shelf life studies alone run about $1500/sku Canadian, and they are really straight forward

 

In order to have an alternate, you need to prove REPEATEDLY that your shorter/lower process will ALWAYS produce a 6 log reduction

 

The scientific research you have will be SUPPORTING documentation for your findings, but alone are not nearly enough

 

 

Why is operations trying to change/challenge this??? Money or time or both?

[Charles.C]

Hi

I'm currently being challenged to see if we can operate our cook process differently and come away from the conventional "70°C for 2 minutes" that has been prescribed by Campden and enforced by BRC and local authorities throughout the food industry to achieve a 6 log reduction in listeria monocytogenes.

 

There is a lot of scientific literature that suggests that a reduced time and temperature would still be able to achieve a 6 log reduction in certain food products (e.g. seafood). However, I'm under no illusions that trying anything different may be viewed with suspicion or incredulity so I thought I would see if anyone has some experience in this.

 

I'm sure between a combination of internal cooking validation that is supported by satisfactory micro results, the cook process could be validated, however my main obstacle would be convincing a BRC auditor to accept a process other than the standard "70 for 2 mins" for products manufactured in a high risk area. The interpretation guidelines has the following statement:

 

“Cook” is a thermal process which is designed to achieve typically a 6 log reduction in Listeria Monocytogenes equivalent to 70°C for 2 minutes. Alternative cooking processes may be accepted or required where these meet recognised national guidelines and are validated by scientific data.

 

The above suggests that another cooking process may be used where they are validated by scientific data and there is some science literature that shows a 70°C for 1.5 minutes to be sufficient enough to achieve a 6 log reduction in certain seafood materials.

 

Does anyone have any ideas of how we might go about this? Do you think it will mean requesting Campden to conduct a study would a change in designation from high risk to high care be needed for BRC compliance?

 

Any ideas would be much appreciated!

Thanks

Hi dzabhi,

 

There are several previous threads here which discuss yr kind of query.

 

IMEX one basic approach to the Validation requirement is to generate a Process/Product core time/temperature graph, calculate associated lethality and compare result to published 6D reduction tables for L.monocytogenes. Excel charts for the calculation exist on this Forum. Commercial data logging inserts are also available.

 

The practical details/options/cost will depend on your specific Process/Resources.

 

The inclusion of "National Guidelines" in your quoted BRC comment may also be relevant.

 

Verification is achievable by assessing the worst case level of L.mono in your input material and likewise for output.

 

PS - Some Logic/Excel chart for calculation Lethality/Log Reduction with some examples is in this post -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...ons/#entry89518

Edited by Charles.C, 21 December 2021 - 08:09 AM.
added

[dzabhi]

Thank you both for your responses. Even though I only have a basic understanding of the maths that accompany thermal processing, I think I could produce a validation study that shows the relevant data. However, I'm still unsure how I demonstrate that the given process (e.g. equivalent to 70°C for 1.5 minutes) does in fact deliver a 6 log reduction?

 

Thanks

[Charles.C]

Thank you both for your responses. Even though I only have a basic understanding of the maths that accompany thermal processing, I think I could produce a validation study that shows the relevant data. However, I'm still unsure how I demonstrate that the given process (e.g. equivalent to 70°C for 1.5 minutes) does in fact deliver a 6 log reduction?

 

Thanks

Hi dzabhi,

 

The excel calculates your log reduction directly.  See the examples in the Excel.

 

You can also do it manually if you are familiar with rules for calculating area under a graph such as trapezoidal, etc. For example can have a look at the (simplified) last worked example in the pdf attachment in post 3 of same thread as the link in Post 3 of current thread.

(The log reduction is calculable from the (calculated) total lethality and the (assumed) D value. [eg see LogN₀/N in the equation in 1st pdf of post linked in post3 of this thread]).

 

Basically, you have to provide T,t data (Process) and D,z (literature). The Excel does the rest.

 

PS - just as an illustration the table below shows a range of paired temperatures/times which would all theoretically provide a sufficient lethal rate to achieve a 6 log reduction  of L.mono for the specific product illustrated, eg 69 degC / 2min 43sec

 

 lethal rates- L.monocytogenes.png   192.56KB   0 downloads