32 replies to this topic

[SHQuality]

I'm sorry but I hate this reasoning.

This reasoning leads to retesting and a negative result. What do you do with that? You then mistrust the original positive, why?

 

I was talking about a presumptive result and wondered whether the result had been confirmed. Sorry for not being more clear about that.

 

I would never suggest retesting a sample that tested positive for salmonella. Positive is positive unless you can prove -- with evidence -- that the test was performed incorrectly or that the sample was contaminated after it was taken. Generally, that is not going to happen.

[GMO]

I was talking about a presumptive result and wondered whether the result had been confirmed. Sorry for not being more clear about that.

 

I would never suggest retesting a sample that tested positive for salmonella. Positive is positive unless you can prove -- with evidence -- that the test was performed incorrectly or that the sample was contaminated after it was taken. Generally, that is not going to happen.

 

I didn't assume that was what you meant because I've had some senior people adopt that exact approach recently "we had a positive and retested but got a negative, so obviously the positive was a lab error."

[SHQuality]

I didn't assume that was what you meant because I've had some senior people adopt that exact approach recently "we had a positive and retested but got a negative, so obviously the positive was a lab error."

Fair enough.

 

Retesting until you get a negative result is just wishful thinking. It doesn't actually deal with the problem, so it's a bit worrying that some senior people would argue that point.

[LostInTheWoods]

Fair enough.

 

Retesting until you get a negative result is just wishful thinking. It doesn't actually deal with the problem, so it's a bit worrying that some senior people would argue that point.

 

Does this attitude change if the test in question is a quality risk instead of a food safety risk? Our customer's FSQ is willing to consent to resampling for shelf life micro (their idea, not ours). I actually painstakingly went through the risks that they were accepting, and they were good with it.

[SHQuality]

It depends on the details, LostInTheWoods.

If a customer insists on an action that does not involve a food safety risk, I would make them sign a document so they won't complain afterward, and be done, but not meeting shelf life can be a food safety risk itself.

[LostInTheWoods]

It depends on the details, LostInTheWoods.

If a customer insists on an action that does not involve a food safety risk, I would make them sign a document so they won't complain afterward, and be done, but not meeting shelf life can be a food safety risk itself.

Yes, they've updated their spec to include resampling, and sub-lot sampling for quality micro. Pathogens still scrap the whole lot.

[GMO]

For me it's not a very scientific approach to accept resampling whether it's a quality or pathogen issue. A single sample is not a very good representation of a lot. That's why a single sample should only really be verification.

[LostInTheWoods]

For me it's not a very scientific approach to accept resampling whether it's a quality or pathogen issue. A single sample is not a very good representation of a lot. That's why a single sample should only really be verification.

I agree, that's why I was shocked when it was suggested.

 

Our APC/Y/M specs are very tight. Ours is a novel product, and I'm not sure that the customer knows enough about it to relax it.