15 replies to this topic

[cookinmaple]

Hi!

 

I am looking for guidance and direction as I am have trouble finding info related to CFIA or FDA/USDA micro test requirements on a syrup product.

 

I produce a syrup topping with a high Brix=77 and low aw=0.60 that's bottled and sealed at 190°F.

 

I know this is considered a low risk product and bottling temps control yeast and mold, however is there a minimum requirement when it comes to micro testing set out by CFIA or FDA/USDA? 

 

Thanks in advance!

 

[Scampi]

CFIA would consider your product low risk for listeria

 

https://www.canada.c...html#assignrisk

 

https://inspection.c...4/1528201904208

 

https://publications...67-2013-eng.pdf

 

https://www.albertah...o-eat-foods.pdf

 

You really need to dig into these links to get your answer 

[Scampi]

are you talking about maple syrup by chance?

[cookinmaple]

are you talking about maple syrup by chance?

 

Not maple syrup, its dessert topping.

[kfromNE]

For the FDA, look at Appendix 1: Potential Hazards for Foods and Processes. This will show you the risks of the item in the US.

 

Note: In the US - I've used Canadian resources when the FDA/USDA didn't have it. This is acceptable by regulatory agencies (using another country's resources when the food safety standards are comparable to the US).

[Charles.C]

Hi!

 

I am looking for guidance and direction as I am have trouble finding info related to CFIA or FDA/USDA micro test requirements on a syrup product.

 

I produce a syrup topping with a high Brix=77 and low aw=0.60 that's bottled and sealed at 190°F.

 

I know this is considered a low risk product and bottling temps control yeast and mold, however is there a minimum requirement when it comes to micro testing set out by CFIA or FDA/USDA? 

 

Thanks in advance!

Hi CIM,

 

Based on previous threads on this Forum, unless yr Product is a specifically documented FDA/USDA item, Regulatory micro.limits are usually unavailable  except for any obvious, zero-tolerant, ones like Salmonella. Some other guidance data may exist though.

 

You could look through the US/Canadian/other options in the 2 sets of micro limits compiled/linked here -

https://www.ifsqn.co...it/#entry168274

(eg files[com1,com2,ref1,ref2])

Edited by Charles.C, 03 October 2022 - 07:46 AM.
edited

[cookinmaple]

Hi CIM,

 

Based on previous threads on this Forum, unless yr Product is a specifically documented FDA/USDA item, Regulatory micro.limits are usually unavailable  except for any obvious, zero-tolerant, ones like Salmonella. Some other guidance data may exist though.

 

You could look through the US/Canadian/other options in the 2 sets of micro limits compiled/linked here -

https://www.ifsqn.co...it/#entry168274

(eg files[com1,com2,ref1,ref2])

 

Thanks Charles.

 

Scampi's post was very helpful! after reading the links & documents (like a 100 times), I now know what is recommended for testing, frequency and justification of the risk category our product is in.

[Charles.C]

Thanks Charles.

 

Scampi's post was very helpful! after reading the links & documents (like a 100 times), I now know what is recommended for testing, frequency and justification of the risk category our product is in.

Hi CIM,

 

Actually the pH is another critical parameter. See attachment.

I deduce yr product is pasteurized RTE.

For some authorities that would be an automatic High Risk. But maybe not for Canadians.

 pH in canning..pdf   640.93KB   8 downloads

Edited by Charles.C, 03 October 2022 - 01:51 PM.
added

[Scampi]

the brix level and pH combined reduces them to low risk

 

 

Besides, we all have maple syrup running through our veins so we're immune to most pathogens lol

 

The attachment Charles, doesn't take brix into account when canning fruits/veg

 

This product will be essentially glucose, dextrose and granulated sugar

[cookinmaple]

Hi CIM,

 

I deduce yr product is RTE.

For some authorities that would be an automatic High Risk. But maybe not for Canadians.

 

Yes its RTE.

As per CFIA's policy for Control of Listeria, RTE products fall into different categories (1,2, 2A & 2B) determined by if Listeria growth can or cannot happen and the rate of growth. The categories have different paraments that need to be meet to determine the Health Risk level (High, Med to low & low).

[Charles.C]

Yes its RTE.

As per CFIA's policy for Control of Listeria, RTE products fall into different categories (1,2, 2A & 2B) determined by if Listeria growth can or cannot happen and the rate of growth. The categories have different paraments that need to be meet to determine the Health Risk level (High, Med to low & low).

Hi CIM,

 

There is "Risk" and there is "Listeria Risk" , inter alia.

What is the pH ?

Is the Product shelf-stable ?

[Scampi]

The poster had asked about required micro testing in Canada

 

Listeria is the only pathogen where CFIA has dictated the requirements for RTE foods

 

(there are other requirements for other types of foods)

 

Most foods have a water activity above 0.95 and that will provide sufficient moisture to support the growth of bacteria, yeasts, and mold. The amount of available moisture can be reduced to a point which will inhibit the growth of the organisms. If the water activity of food is controlled to 0.85 or less in the finished product, it is not subject to the regulations of 21 CFR Parts 108, 113, and 114.

 

Some examples of water activity controlled low-acid canned foods, that may have an a w of greater than 0.85, are: canned cake, bread, bean paste, some chutney, salted vegetables, salted fish, guava paste, lupini beans, syrup, toppings, puddings, and some oriental specialty sauces. Water activity is usually controlled by the use of salt or sugar. There are situations where routine a w determinations need not be made during production. For example, if salt is the preservative, percent salt determinations alone may be sufficient to document control of water activity and commercial sterility. 

 

https://www.fda.gov/...tivity-aw-foods

[cookinmaple]

Hi CIM,

 

There is "Risk" and there is "Listeria Risk" , inter alia.

What is the pH ?

Is the Product shelf-stable ?

 

pH is below 4.4 and yes its shelf stable.

[Charles.C]

pH is below 4.4 and yes its shelf stable.

Should be Low Risk then assuming shelf life unlimited but maybe depending on what's in the topping.

 

Did the FDA appendix list any hazards? (JFI I noticed shelf-stable maple syrup has zero).

Edited by Charles.C, 03 October 2022 - 02:59 PM.
edited

[Charles.C]

The poster had asked about required micro testing in Canada

 

Listeria is the only pathogen where CFIA has dictated the requirements for RTE foods

 

(there are other requirements for other types of foods)

 

Most foods have a water activity above 0.95 and that will provide sufficient moisture to support the growth of bacteria, yeasts, and mold. The amount of available moisture can be reduced to a point which will inhibit the growth of the organisms. If the water activity of food is controlled to 0.85 or less in the finished product, it is not subject to the regulations of 21 CFR Parts 108, 113, and 114.

 

Some examples of water activity controlled low-acid canned foods, that may have an a w of greater than 0.85, are: canned cake, bread, bean paste, some chutney, salted vegetables, salted fish, guava paste, lupini beans, syrup, toppings, puddings, and some oriental specialty sauces. Water activity is usually controlled by the use of salt or sugar. There are situations where routine a w determinations need not be made during production. For example, if salt is the preservative, percent salt determinations alone may be sufficient to document control of water activity and commercial sterility. 

 

https://www.fda.gov/...tivity-aw-foods

Hi Scampi,

 

Peanut butter is not eaten in Canada ? So sad.

[Scampi]

Hi Scampi,

 

Peanut butter is not eaten in Canada ? So sad.

 

 

HAHAHAH  notice the reference doc is from the FDA not CFIA so Canadian peanut butter is just fine thank you and it's one of the foods we do not import very much of from the USA------------i guess the FDA didn't learn anything from the PCA disaster