Dear all,
Thank you for all the information, response and discussion.
'Basically', I believe (try to believe) that retorting the sealed tuna can
is the final stage of killing all the bacteria and de-activate all
enzymatic processes. We have heat penetration (HP) and temperature
distribution (TD) tools to verify the adequacy of the retort process,
usually recommended by a lab or consultant which is recognized by US FDA.
Provided that all other things (raw material histamine level is
acceptable, water chlorination is satisfactorily, seamer is perfect, no
recontamination, etc.)
and we concentrate on the retorting process,
Sometimes buyers have their own specifications which may include raw
material histamine content, raw material sampling size, can size, medium
including additional ingredient like VB, flesh cut/style, flesh layering,
flesh size and weight (for loin and chunk), retort time duration and
temperature.
I think the flesh cut/style/composition/layering/VB/ etc. will likely to
affect the retorting process adequacy/integrity. Any comment?
Sometimes it's dilemmatic since each processor has its own processing
tools which are adapted exactly to the HP and TD tests performed at the
establishment. One potential buyer claimed that our process condition is
probably not suitable at least from sensory analysis "I think this product
is scorched ....". And I guess it is quite costly to call a
consultant/laborant with their equipments every time new buyer or existing
buyer request a new product spec., with all economic aspect incorporated.
There are three options left then:
1. Deal without any process modification since the buyer finally 'be
convinced' that the process is safe and ensures acceptable quality
2. Deal with several compromies between processor and buyer which may
include some minor adjustments and/or adjustable process parameter (to
processor's perspective)
3. No contract.
I think in the real world there are many cases of points 1 and 2 took place.
Now the questions related to point are:
"Is the process now safe?"
"Is the retort process adequate to destroy all the bacteria (and stop all
enzymatic activities
Ko, Iwan Setiyono said:
> Hi again,
>
> Thanks for the information but do you mind to share with me about these
> points:
>
> 1. Has anybody observed/analyzed the histamine level of the same can code,
> lot, same product of canned tuna products at, at least, TWO different time
> stamps?
>
> Say product SJOC (Skipjack Chunk in sunflower oil) can code SUSUMU
>
> First grading in the lab
> The above product was graded on July 17, 2000 (after incubation - for
> example: 7 days after production date) and the histamine content is 15
> ppm.
>
> Second grading in the lab
> The same product graded on July 17, 2003 (i.e. 3 years after the 1st
> grading). Is the histamine content higher than that of the 1st one? For
> example, it is now become 23 ppm? If it is not always higher, can we say
> that older can age TENDS to have HIGHER histamine level?
>
> or in other words,
> 2. Older can age (3, 4 or even 5 years after production date - considering
> that, in general, canned tuna product designed to have 5-year shelf-life)
> tend to have higher histamine levels?
>
> 3. Can you explain why after retorting, people are so concern about
> recontamination of the product when they are still hot out of retort
> tube(they said that forklift or improper handling during this stage may
> introduce contamination). How? Is it because the swelling of the can due
> to the heat creates small openings between the seam?
>
> Anyone interested to supervise me? :)
>
> --
> Kindly regards,
>
> Ko, Iwan Setiyono (Ko, I.S.)
> MSc Candidate - International Fisheries Management
> Norwegian College of Fishery Science (NFH)
> University of Tromsų - Breivika N-9037 Tromsų
> NORWAY
> Mobile: +47 4500 4097
> E-mail: isk025@student.uit.no
>
>
> Angel M Suarez said:
>>
>> Whenever an FDA inspector at the port of entry sample for canned tuna
>> this is send to the laboratory for decomposition and histamine analysis.
>> If the product is found to be decomposed or with histamine levels then
>> this entry is detained under Import Alert 16-105. The FDA import alert
>> 16-105 for canned tuna states that canned tuna is subject to refusal of
>> admission in the United States because after sampling and testing it
>> appears to bear or contain histamine, a poisonous and deleterious
>> substance in such quantity as ordinarily renders it injurious to health.
>> This is considered adulteration, under Section 402(a)(1)] of the Food
>> Drug and Cosmetic Act.
>>
>> There are other ways FDA may find out canned tuna could have histamine
>> this is through a consumer complaint. The complainant had a reaction due
>> to consumption of the product analysis test positive for histamine. FDA
>> probably will perform examination of future entries and if histamine is
>> found then the product is detained.
>>
>> The manufacturing firm must have a HACCP plan that has a Critical
>> Control Point that prevents histamine formation during receiving and
>> process. Chapter 7 of the Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards and
>> Controls Guide, Third Edition, states that scombrotoxin formation is a
>> the result of time/tempera abuse of certain species of fish that can
>> cause consumer illness.
>>
>> In addition to sampling canned tuna for histamine analysis the FDA can
>> detain canned product found injurious to health based on any of the
>> following:
>> a) The manufacturing firm failed to register under 21 CFR 108 for all
>> manufacturer that process low acid canned food products thermally
>> process under 21 CFR 113 or acidified food 21 CFR 114.
>> b) FDA field examination at port of entry detected that cans were
>> abnormal with defects such as swelling, springer, flippers, seam defects
>> that are critical that may result in the loss of the hermetic seal.
>> c) The manufacturing firm is under detention because is under Import
>> Alert 99-04, Detention Without Physical Examination of Manufacturer for
>> Low Acid Canned Food and Acidified products because the firm failed to
>> respond to verify information, failure to verify process, inadequate pH,
>> inadequate process.
>> d) Field examination detected that cans were mislabeled such as foreign
>> language, no information country of origin,
>> e) Failure by the manufacturer register under the Bioterrorism Act
>> f) Failure to submit prior notice at the port of entry.
>>
>> Hope this answer and provide you guidance.
>>
>> Angel M. Suarez,
>> Registered Sanitarian
>> Ceti
>> 7865 Thor Drive
>> Annandale, VA 22003-1437
>> Tel/FAX 703-560-4499
>> E-mail: cetifish@verizon.net
>>
>>
>>
>> Ko, Iwan Setiyono wrote:
>>
>>>Dear all,
>>>I am interested to study canned tuna quality and need some assistance.
>>>Anybody would like to explain these following questions?
>>>
>>>1. Based on your experience, do you think the reject products when they
>>>are under US FDA detention do tend come from older can age (3, 4 or even
>>> 5
>>>years old) after production date?
>>>
>>>2. Do you think it's mainly due to the histamine content? Or other
>>>microbiological problems?
>>>
>>>3. How do you generally assess the quality of the canned product of
>>>increasing can age compared with the newly produced one, based on
>>>chemical, microbiological and sensory criteria?
>>>
>>>Looking forward to hearing it from you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 30 2005 - 16:28:53 PDT