RE: inquiry about cold storage being considered as CCP

From: Jairo E Romero (jairoeromero@tutopia.com)
Date: Tue Oct 11 2005 - 10:45:49 PDT

  • Next message: oscar.doporto: "Re: inquiry about cold storage being considered as CCP"

    Hector

    Some ideas come to my mind reading your excellent insight.

    1. Industry must deal not only with science based CCP’s and regulation based
    CCP’s but also with Client’s CCP, as is the frequent case with metal
    detectors

    2. In my opinion, if at a certain stage you have correctly identified the
    food safety hazards and the control limits, have in place an adequate
    monitoring system and take proper corrective actions when necessary, to call
    it a CCP or not is not as transcendental as it looks.

    3. Cold storage is rarely a CCP.

     

    JAIRO ROMERO, M. Sc.

    Consultor Internacional en Inocuidad y Comercio de Alimentos

    Cra. 4 # 16-29 Of 404, Bogotá DC, Colomia

    Teléfono (571) 282 4224

    Móvil (57) 315 309 5343

     

      _____

    De: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu] En nombre
    de Lupin, Hector (FIIU)
    Enviado el: Martes, 11 de Octubre de 2005 03:48 a.m.
    Para: richard@fishonline.co.uk; alma tina; seafood@ucdavis.edu
    Asunto: RE: inquiry about cold storage being considered as CCP

     

     

    Dear colleagues:

     

    This is a very interesting discussion, that pops up very frequently. I think
    that there are some general considerations:

     

    (i) Regulatory HACCP is not HACCP (e.g. in the sense of HACCP according the
    Codex Alimentarius) but a regulation based on HACCP. Therefore, in
    principle, you have to comply with a regulation and not just with the dry
    HACCP principles and/ or steps.

    (ii) Regulations, as any other piece of knowledge, is open to
    interpretations. "Interpretations" are usually a problem. Inspection
    agencies in general make every possible effort to make interpretations, of
    their own officers, uniform. But not always succeed.

    (iii) One of the aspects of HACCP-based regulations is that they determine
    directly or indirectly "regulatory hazards"; this means hazards that you
    shall be taken into account in your HACCP plan, regardless which could be
    your own technical opinion. In the case of the US FDA HACCP-based
    regulations theoretically you may eventual appeal (if you are in the US),
    based on scientific grounds. However, for most "regulatory hazards" the
    possibility somebody could demonstrate they are not hazards (e.g. histamine
    in pelagic fish) is usually very remote.

     

    Regarding the EU directives there are a couple of things to clarify
    (translate from EU English to USA English):

    (a) HACCP for fish and fish products is called "own-checks".

    (b) CCP is called "Critical Point"

    (c) "Hazard is a potential to cause harm to health and is anything covered
    by the hygiene objectives of Directive 91/493/EEC" (bold and Italics mine)

    (from Commission Decision 94/356/EC of 20 May 1994)

     

    Going to Council Directive 91/493/EEC we found the following:

     

    (1) "- frozen fishery products, with the exception of frozen fish in brine
    intended for the manufacture of canned foods, must be kept at an even
    temperature of -18 º C or less in all parts of the product, allowing for the
    possibility of brief upward fluctuations of not more than 3 º C, during
    transport;" (Council Directive 91/493/EEC, Annex, Chapter VIII, Storage and
    Transport, Point 1) (bold mine)

     

    (2) "3. Storage rooms must have a temperature recording device in place
    where it can easily be read. The temperature sensor of the recorder must be
    located in the area furthest away from the cold source, i.e. where the
    temperature in the storage room is the highest. Temperature charts must be
    available for inspection by the supervisory authorities at least during the
    period in which the products are stored." (Council Directive 91/493/EEC,
    Annex, Chapter IV, Special Conditions for Handling Fishery Products on
    Shore, II Conditions fro frozen products, Point 3) (bold mine)

     

    And finally, and perhaps the most important for this discussion:

     

    (3) "Critical limits may be derived from a variety of sources. When not
    taken from regulatory standards (e.g. frozen storage temperature) or from
    existing and validated guides of good manufacturing practices, the team
    should ascertain their validity relative to the control of identified hazard
    and critical points" (Commission Decision 94/356/EC, Chapter II, Point 1).
    (bold mine)

     

    In this case the regulation is not saying that the cold storage temperature
    is a CP (a CCP); but is given all the indications in that sense (critical
    limit, tolerance, measurement and record keeping and use it as regulatory
    example). The need for corrective actions, in the case of deviations, is
    obviously a result; and the need for verifications of measurement and record
    equipment fall into the general principle of verification and calibration
    and re-calibration of measurement equipment. Therefore we have our
    regulatory hazard and CP (or CCP).

     

    Again, the possibility that in this situation a fish inspector from the EU
    do not consider the temperature in a cold storage room a CP (a CCP) is
    remote. He/ she may eventually accept that continuous records could be
    replaced by recorded lectures, say every 3-5 hours (taking into account the
    thermal inertia of cold storage rooms); but hardly that it is not a CP
    (CCP).

     

    The discussion about the rationality or not of frozen storage temperature as
    a CP (or CCP) is interesting; I am tempted to go on that, but not time now.
    In any case we should keep in mind that HACCP based regulations (or by the
    case all Risk Analysis) are based on Science, they are not Science.

     

    I have worked with people in developing countries that want to export their
    fish. People normally ask you to provide an advice that put them into the
    safe side. Which advise would you provide in this case?

     

    (Warning: from 1 January 2006 there will be a new set of EU regulations
    dealing with HACCP, and a new careful reading of regulations is necessary
    for all trading fish with the EU)

     

    Kind regards.

     

    Hector M. Lupin

    Senior Fishery Industry Officer (Quality Assurance)

    Fish Utilization and Marketing Service (FIIU)

    Fishery Industries Division (FI)

    Fisheries Department, FAO, Room F 606

    Viale delle Terme di Caracalla

    00100 Rome, Italy

    Tel + 39 06 570 56459

    Fax + 39 06 570 55188

    E-mail: hector.lupin@fao.org

     

     

     

     

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf
    Of Richard Chivers
    Sent: 07 October 2005 16:36
    To: alma tina; seafood@ucdavis.edu
    Subject: RE: inquiry about cold storage being considered as CCP

    Hi Alma,

     

    These are my views:

     

    1. There are no EU directives that set CCPs, these are up to the
    processor to determine.
    2. I assume you refer to the Competent Authority. I would not consider
    cold (frozen) storage a CCP simply because a product that is intended to be
    kept in be frozen condition would be in breach of specifications and GMP,
    drawing in quality and safety issues. I would set the temperature control
    as a prerequisite programme; a given if you like. I.e. if the product
    temperature were outside the limits, that would be the end of it for its
    primary purpose and disposal or alternative use should be considered.
    3. Pathogen growth is unlikely to present a food safety hazard due to
    the reasonable expectation that the product would be cooked. That is unless
    there were an issue with spore formers or with heat resistant toxins then
    there would be a problem. These matters would be highlighted in the
    analysis part of the HACCP. Unfortunately it is not an argument that sways
    opinion in international trade which will set stringent micro counts.
    4. It is not illegal but may mean that your analysis was invalid if a
    CCP were missed. In the UK this alone would not lead to prosecution but
    could become evidence to support a prosecution if there were more serious
    matters arising from temperature abuse i.e. food poisoning.

     

    I hope this helps

     

    Richard Chivers

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu]On Behalf
    Of alma tina
    Sent: 07 October 2005 06:34
    To: seafood@ucdavis.edu
    Subject: inquiry about cold storage being considered as CCP

     

    Dear List,

     

    Please give me some insight or enlightening regarding the issue of
    considering cold storage as CCP.

     

    These are my questions:

     

    1.Is there an EU directives that considers storing at cold storage as CCP.

    2.Can the competitive authority insist on us to consider storing at cold
    storage as CCP.

    3. Is my thinking correct, that since our product is to be fully cooked
    before consumption, then pathogen growth is not a hazard? By the way our
    products are frozen octopus and shrimps.

    4. Is it illegal not to have CCP for a particular item?

     

     

    Plese provide some information on this issue, we badly needed the info.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Alma O. Tina

    almaorodiotina@yahoo.com

      _____

    Yahoo! for Good
    Click here to donate <http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/> to the
    Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

    ______________________________
    Visita http://www.tutopia.com y comienza a navegar más rápido en Internet. Tutopia es Internet para todos.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 11 2005 - 10:48:37 PDT