Gas Concentration Control in MAP

More questions!!

What do you think about if the Gas Concentration Control in Modified Atmopheric packaking (MAP) should be a OPRPs or a CCP?

If the concentration variation is not so high there might be too much problems respecting to the bacteria growth.

Have you have any experience respecting this subject???

Thanks

Pedro (SPAIN)

Any takers?

Dear Pedro,

You don't mention yr product or yr process (perhaps in the other post you refer which I missed?) ?

For seafood, the classic ref. below gives a list of possibilities depending on yr setup. The details surounding the gas flush are not considered ccp related but the ways to prevent any subsequent possibity of C.botulinum (if necessary) are. The link is -

http://www.cfsan.fda...m/haccp4c3.html

Hope this is of some interest.

Regarding oPRP, I better let someone using I22k directly give an opinion .

Rgds / Charles.C

added - Sorry, just found yr earlier post, well, if chicken have the same clostridium hazard as seafood, the above may help ??

Thanks Charles & Simon

The products are fresh chicken products and the process consist of quartering and packacking.

The main bacterial problems are Campylobacter, Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes.

We have thought in OPRP, but we would like to have any advices.

Regards

Pedro Pablo

Dear Pedro,

It’s a bit old (1997) and the Plan seems to be being rethought (“under development”) but the Canadian Generic Chicken HACCP Plan addresses MAP by -

#35 Packaging +/- Gas Flushing & Labelling:
- Cross-contamination by equipment or employees, growth of pathogens due to insufficient levels of CO2.
- Incorrect packing/slaughter date
>>>>>
Controlled at - Prerequisite programs (Equipment, Employee Training)

http://www.inspectio...aabpou5ae.shtml

(ie not a CCP)(Obviously this conclusion could still be modified depending on yr specific process / shelf requirements etc, plus the knowledge base may have changed in 10 yrs)

By prerequisite I guess they mean something like this (from the same site) -

The following MAP assessment criteria should be addressed by inspection protocols for MAP equipment:

1. The equipment should have good sealing capability (sealing pressure, time and temperature) to ensure the integrity of the seal.
2. The compatibility between the MAP equipment and the packing material should be assessed. In examining MAP equipment, consideration must be give to the particular packaging material used. Packaging material inspection criteria could include oxygen barrier, moisture barrier, sealability, toughness, rigidity, etc.
3. There should be good evacuation (vacuum)/gas flushing capability to ensure the proper MAP environment
4. Proper gas mixing to ensure the proper blending of gases
5. The gas should be of a quality that will prevent chemical contamination (e.g. medical grade).
6. There should be a system for warning the operator of low/no gas which could compromise the MAP environment
7. The MAP equipment should have adequate devices and accessories to monitor the above conditions.

Whether that suggests it a PRP or an oPRP, I have no idea. Depends on the risk assessment presumably or possibly easier to be manouvered into PRP like allergens.

Any chicken-people around ??

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Charles,

Picked up this interesting and comprehensive comment given by you. I just like to add that under the current demand over bio-security concerns, the gas cylinders (whatever being used) must be verified at point of receiving and protected under lock when not in use or CO2 tank / pipes with locked cap when not in use.

Whether PRP or OPRP - its actually a combination of both. Likely to be a CCP too considering there is no lethal treatment is involved.

Regards
Charles

Dear Charles,

Yr comment sadly illustrates the modern risk scenario. Bio-security used to mean things like salmonella to the uninitiated like myself.

Not sure about the lethal treatment bit, Pedro did mention fresh chicken, or do you exclude the customer step ?? (or perhaps sushi chicken for the risk adverse market )

Regards / Charles.C

Hello Pedro, Charles and Charles,

I like to do an input in this discussion.


MAP-packaging (also for vacuum packaging) is a CCP, if it lengthens the shelf life of your products.
So If the expire date on your chickenparts in a liner or in a package with just foil is for example 3 days and the expire date of the chickenparts in your MAP is 5 --> then it is a CCP.
Because the MAP prevent growth of (pathogenic) bacteria. Normal consumers will not see the difference between healthy chicken and spoiled chicken of chicken containing pathogens. We have to protect the consumers, therefore CCP.

For MAP-packed vegetables, this is an other story. Most people can tell the difference between rotten and fresh vegetables by seeing or smelling.

Oké, I come back on the first part of this message. I use the definition for CCP from "the requirements for a HACCP-based food safety system", which is a Dutch standard approved by GFSI. (In the dutch standard you have just CCP's and General measurements. The General measuerements mostly refers to the PRP)
I just look in to the ISO 22000 standard for the difference between CCP and OPRP. The only difference is that OPRP have action limits and CCP's have critical limits. That means in this case that if there is a critical limit of gas concentration (O2 or CO2), you have a CCP. So if with a higher (or lower) concentration of the gas the expire date is not guaranteed, you have a CCP.

For Cl. Botulinum prevention mostly a critical limit of < 2 % O2 is used.
In a poultry company I found a critical limit for CO2 >30 % (action limit was 33 %)
In a meat processing company I found action limits for O2 67% - 77%. The gas mixture contained O2 and CO2.
I have no information about the scientific motivation for this limits. Maybe someone else. I am interested in that information too.

Dear AD
The beautiful aspect of ISO 22000 which I feel GFSI Version 5 had missed out is that ISO 22K demands for an analytical objective of the control measure combinations through system verification and validation notwithstanding that it is not a prescriptive standard which means it is truly dynamically challenged.

As in Pedro's case since the chicken are sold chilled (i assume so), the amount of "gas" consistently injected would be difficult to monitor relative to the size of the packed chicken which varies. It may be dangerous and possible that consumers may be misled to believe that the product shelf life is indeed "extended". Furthermore, there was no mention of vacuum packing and flushing out "unwanted atmospheric gas" would be quite challenging.

However, I would be happy to accept it as a CCP step if the validations are adequately demonstrated and scientifically proven to confirm it is an effective product preservation technique or as an aid to extend product shelf life, whichever applies.

Regards / Charles