8 replies to this topic

[lauMoH]

I want to inquire whether the following situation can be classified as product rework. 

The YAM (Yeast and mold) test conducted on a specific product indicated that it exceeded the acceptable limit. Consequently, a decision was made to subject the product to a cooking process in order to eliminate the YAM. However, only 70% of the batch was subjected to this treatment, and the rest was discarded. Subsequent tests revealed that the product now met the required standards. 

 

Personally, I consider this to be a case of rework. However, my boss believes it should be regarded as a re-process rather than a rework. His rationale is that reworking 70% of the product is an excessively high percentage, and therefore it should be referred to as re-process. I would like your thoughts regarding whether the new product should be classified as a rework.

[kingstudruler1]

Just seems like semantics too me.   What difference does it make what you call it?

 

to me both reworking and reprocessing mean to take an out of spec product and making it in spec.   

[Charles.C]

 

I want to inquire whether the following situation can be classified as product rework. 

The YAM (Yeast and mold) test conducted on a specific product indicated that it exceeded the acceptable limit. Consequently, a decision was made to subject the product to a cooking process in order to eliminate the YAM. However, only 70% of the batch was subjected to this treatment, and the rest was discarded. Subsequent tests revealed that the product now met the required standards. 

 

Personally, I consider this to be a case of rework. However, my boss believes it should be regarded as a re-process rather than a rework. His rationale is that reworking 70% of the product is an excessively high percentage, and therefore it should be referred to as re-process. I would like your thoughts regarding whether the new product should be classified as a rework.

 

Hi laumoh,

 

Try -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...ess/#entry55670

[OrRedFood]

I would agree that if you had to classify it, I'd call it reprocessed.  The product was reheated to bring it into micro specification, and as long as it meets all your food safety and quality requirements according to your HACCP plan and specifications, it's released. 

 

To me, rework is adding it to a new batch of the same product with new ingredients and lot codes as a percentage of the new batch.  If it was 70% the reheated product, and 30% new ingredients, that would be adding rework to a new batch at a rate of 70%. So, same situation, if it passes FS & Q standards & HACCP, there's nothing wrong with that, unless you have a corporate or customer policy stating you cannot rework that high of a percentage.  

[lauMoH]

I would agree that if you had to classify it, I'd call it reprocessed.  The product was reheated to bring it into micro specification, and as long as it meets all your food safety and quality requirements according to your HACCP plan and specifications, it's released. 

 

To me, rework is adding it to a new batch of the same product with new ingredients and lot codes as a percentage of the new batch.  If it was 70% the reheated product, and 30% new ingredients, that would be adding rework to a new batch at a rate of 70%. So, same situation, if it passes FS & Q standards & HACCP, there's nothing wrong with that, unless you have a corporate or customer policy stating you cannot rework that high of a percentage.  

 

We have a policy that says that only 20% of the product with more than 50% of the shelf life can be reworked. That is why my boss don't want to call it a rework and says that it was a reprocessed product.

[OrRedFood]

I see - that is different. What product are you running? Do you know what the root cause of the excessive yeast/mold count was and is it preventable in the future?  That should be your end goal.  IMO your corrective action depends on the cause of the issue and whether you are following a stated SQF/BRC or such rework policy. Do you have a corporate QA person you could bring in to help with this situation?  Regardless, you need to follow your stated procedures, and most importantly you have to ensure the end product meets food safety and quality standards as expected.  

 

If you are confident that no food safety or quality issues are even remotely present, I would use a corrective action/preventative action (CAPA) to write up a one-time process deviation, document the root cause, and stipulate that the product cannot be released until all micro results have passed your specifications, and keep it on file.  I would ask my boss to sign personally on the deviation with you and make it clear that this cannot become a regular occurrence.  It's uncomfortable and stressful in situations like this, and you don't want to end up in this situation again because "we did it before and it was fine"... But we food safety/quality people are hired to be the "gatekeeper" of all things food safety /quality, and your boss should respect you for that.  

[jfrey123]

SQF definition of Rework: Food, materials, and ingredients, including work-in-progress that has left the normal product flow and requires action to be taken on it before it is acceptable for release and is suitable for reuse within the process.

 

You had non-conforming product, sounds like it left the normal flow (off to be cooked), and has now been determined as acceptable for reuse within the process.  Your SQF auditor will call that rework, imo.

 

If boss man wants to argue semantics and call it something different, "reprocessed", then do you have a HACCP flow that reflects this?  Do you outline where the product can be cooked on it's own and then used as an ingredient back in your normal process?  If not, now you have a HACCP deviation that created a product outside the scope of your certification that was then used as an ingredient.  Seems like a bigger non-conformity on paper.

 

If everything has been done and over with, the only suggestion I have is to document it with your CAPA forms as a violation of your rework policy.  Hopefully this isn't a recurring issue, otherwise you'll need to update your program to account for wanting to save material that's outside your YAM spec.  But if they haven't fully processed this product back into the main flow, and you can see a way to integrate this rework into future batches in a way that doesn't exceed shelf life but keeps you under the % your policy requires...   

[lauMoH]

I see - that is different. What product are you running? Do you know what the root cause of the excessive yeast/mold count was and is it preventable in the future?  That should be your end goal.  IMO your corrective action depends on the cause of the issue and whether you are following a stated SQF/BRC or such rework policy. Do you have a corporate QA person you could bring in to help with this situation?  Regardless, you need to follow your stated procedures, and most importantly you have to ensure the end product meets food safety and quality standards as expected.  

 

If you are confident that no food safety or quality issues are even remotely present, I would use a corrective action/preventative action (CAPA) to write up a one-time process deviation, document the root cause, and stipulate that the product cannot be released until all micro results have passed your specifications, and keep it on file.  I would ask my boss to sign personally on the deviation with you and make it clear that this cannot become a regular occurrence.  It's uncomfortable and stressful in situations like this, and you don't want to end up in this situation again because "we did it before and it was fine"... But we food safety/quality people are hired to be the "gatekeeper" of all things food safety /quality, and your boss should respect you for that.  

 

The problem was that employees didn't clean/sanitize the line pre-production (after not using equipment for more than 2 days). I already created a CAPA and the product after that day came clean. The product that was reworked/reprocessed came out clean.
My boss (QA manager) believes that is not a rework, because we didn't add anything, only added a new step (cooking) which is not a requirement for the final product. So, he says we should only say that we reprocessed but we don't have any policy or document that cover reprocessing, we only have documentation for rework. 

[lauMoH]

SQF definition of Rework: Food, materials, and ingredients, including work-in-progress that has left the normal product flow and requires action to be taken on it before it is acceptable for release and is suitable for reuse within the process.

 

You had non-conforming product, sounds like it left the normal flow (off to be cooked), and has now been determined as acceptable for reuse within the process.  Your SQF auditor will call that rework, imo.

 

If boss man wants to argue semantics and call it something different, "reprocessed", then do you have a HACCP flow that reflects this?  Do you outline where the product can be cooked on it's own and then used as an ingredient back in your normal process?  If not, now you have a HACCP deviation that created a product outside the scope of your certification that was then used as an ingredient.  Seems like a bigger non-conformity on paper.

 

If everything has been done and over with, the only suggestion I have is to document it with your CAPA forms as a violation of your rework policy.  Hopefully this isn't a recurring issue, otherwise you'll need to update your program to account for wanting to save material that's outside your YAM spec.  But if they haven't fully processed this product back into the main flow, and you can see a way to integrate this rework into future batches in a way that doesn't exceed shelf life but keeps you under the % your policy requires...   

 

The product has been reworked; we don't have any documentation where we talk about reprocessing. Our policy and HACCP plan states rework. 
I don't know why 20% rework was stated in our policy, but I am not aware of SQF suggesting a percentage. I think a CAPA for violating the policy and a risk analysis to increase the amount of rework allowed will be good enough. 
Thank you!