4 replies to this topic

[jbjurman]

Hello,

 

I am developing a HACCP plan for soups (attached flow diagram), and currently we are still doing a lot of hand preparation of ingredients (knife chopping greens, spice portioning, chicken poaching, etc), as well as utilizing slicers and dicer equipment. 

 

Is it fine to keep the ingredient preparation step vague enough to encapsulate all soup production, considering that our hazard analysis identifies all CCPs at later steps? Every other step in the flow chart applies equally to the soups.

 

I truly want to avoid making a separate plan for every product.

 

Thank you!

 

 

 

Attached Files

•  Soup Flow Chart.drawio (1).png   61.53KB   0 downloads

[G M]

You might want to split it into two steps to separate out FM risks for different physical tasks like "portion ingredients" and "combine ingredients".  As to the idea of using a single flow diagram and plan for all of them, yes, that works.

[GMO]

I'd put in separate steps by the activity rather than the ingredient so not quite as simple as your flow but not a flow for each product either.

 

So rather than "ingredient preparation" you might have a few steps, for example:

 

Manual cutting of ingredients.

Cutting of ingredients using dicing machinery.

Slicing ingredients.

Poaching chicken.

weighing and portioning ingredients.

 

The reason I'd split them apart is your food safety risks are going to be pretty similar for a process but those different processes might have different hazards.

 

For example off the top of my head:

 

Manual cutting of ingredients.  - Introduction of metal from manual blades*.  Introduction of S. aureus.

Cutting of ingredients using dicing machinery. - introduction of metal from fixed blades*

Slicing ingredients. - Introduction of metal from blades*

Poaching chicken. - persistence of pathogens (although there is a subsequent cook step?)

weighing and portioning ingredients. - introduction of plastic or allergens.  Introduction of S. aureus.

 

*The reasons why I wouldn't lump these together is that with different manual vs. machine process you might have different control measures or inspection regimes and even between machinery that might be the case.  But it's all up to you of course.

[jfrey123]

I think your logic and flow chart are both defendable, and I've used sub-labeling before in a Hazard Analysis to call out different hazards for different types of handling that step.  For example:

 

3.  Ingredient Preparation - a. manual knife chopping (then list out the B, C, P hazards you've discovered for your process)

3.  Ingredient Preparation - b. mechanical slicing/dicing (then list out the B, C, P hazards, noting that you'll need to justify whether the different machines are similar enough under what you've analyzed).

3.  Ingredient Preparation - c. spice portioning (then list out the B, C, P hazards)

3.  Ingredient Preparation - d. chicken poaching

 

You're already doing that with your Receiving and Storage steps, so 3a/3b/3c/3d might need their own boxes on the flow chart as well to follow your format, but they don't need their own separate plan.  I do think each of them is separate enough that they need their own box on your HA as well, it doesn't feel accurate to compare chopping leavy greens to poaching chicken.

 

Without knowing your full process, just casually observing this flow, I have a couple thoughts:

• Mechanical slicing/dicing equipment usually brings a significant hazard for FM, and I'm not seeing a CCP that would address metal contamination.
• I'm curious how you can label after you cook but before you bag?  I almost feel like labeling should remain a step outside of the primary flow until it feeds into bagging.  The CCP2 controlled bags are fed from the cook step.  This is probably more nitpicky than anything, but my auditors would want me to explain how that works.

[jbjurman]

These are helpful responses, thank you all very much. I was unsure about leaving that step vague so I'm glad I asked. 

 

Regarding metal detection, the company relied on visual inspections before I joined (which blew my mind, how would that even work), so I'm trying to convince management that a metal detector will be necessary. Always comes back down to $ though...