6 replies to this topic

[NickPeris281292]

Hi,

 

In our products we have the claim 'High Protein' and 'High in Fiber' We initially validated it by sending it to the lab for a nutritional test. My doubt comes when the interpretation guideline mentions 'ongoing verification'. Do we need to constantly send our meals to the lab?

 

Our recipes are standardized.

 

Many thanks for the help.

 

 

[Scampi]

I think you should be doing an annual lab verification

 

also, you should be verifying your incoming ingredients each time/every time to ensure that the CoA meets the original as part of ongoing verification

 

Assuming your recipe never changes---then standard incoming ingredients should equate a standard (variance naturally) finished good for fibre and protein

[Evans X.]

Greetings Nick,

 

No, since your recipies are standardized you don't have to do it constantly, but you should send periodically according to a sampling plan (could be once a year) or when you change something other than the recipe, like the supplier of an ingredient so as to ensure the claim is still intact.

 

Regards!

[Charles.C]

Hi,

 

In our products we have the claim 'High Protein' and 'High in Fiber' We initially validated it by sending it to the lab for a nutritional test. My doubt comes when the interpretation guideline mentions 'ongoing verification'. Do we need to constantly send our meals to the lab?

 

Our recipes are standardized.

 

Many thanks for the help.

Hi Nick,

 

I suspect it may depend on how close yr actual data is with respect to the limiting numeric interpretation of the claimed properties.

[Tony-C]

Hi Nick,

 

It isn't a requirement in the standard but noted as a good practice in BRCGS Issue 9 Guidance:

Good practice is to ensure that a programme of ongoing verification and monitoring is in place to demonstrate that claims are consistently met.

 

So, I agree with Evans X and would be sampling annually plus when there are any changes (ingredients, suppliers, recipe, process). I would hope that you have covered off Charles' point in your validation.

 

Your BRCGS auditor may think you should be sampling more frequently but I would be confident in defending that position, you are covering off a guide not a requirement and have probably got bigger fish to fry!

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

[SHQuality]

Your BRCGS auditor may think you should be sampling more frequently but I would be confident in defending that position, you are covering off a guide not a requirement and have probably got bigger fish to fry!

 

Actually, you'd be verifying conformance with labelling legislation.

You'd be surprised how often supposedly standardized recipes do not yield the nutritional info you expected because the supplier changed something without informing you.

 

I would verify this at least 2 times a year (more likely 4).

[Tony-C]

Actually, you'd be verifying conformance with labelling legislation.

You'd be surprised how often supposedly standardized recipes do not yield the nutritional info you expected because the supplier changed something without informing you.

 

I would verify this at least 2 times a year (more likely 4).

 

I don't think I would be, my routine analysis would give an indication of any variation and if necessary I would investigate.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony