Should a HACCP program address nuclear and radioactive hazards?

If so, I would appreciate if anyone could give an example of HACCP study that addresses these two types of contaminants.

if u have any source gives radioactive u must adress to HACCP as will effect on food and food handler beside it is high risk if present, but u have to make measuers and check against save level of exposure to radioactive.

Ahmed

Thanks mile,

So a HACCP study need to address 5 hazards:
1. Biological
2. Chemical
3. Physical
4. Nuclear
5. Radioactive

Please provide an example.

Dear MOM,

Nuclear / radioactive could perhaps be classified within B/C/P hazard ?

From a HACCP viewpoint, the "Verification" step is intended to provide a "continuous" updating feature with respect to any changes in external /internal characteristics which might impact on the safety of the finished product, eg via raw materials.

For an example relating to intentional radiation / haccp can try this link -

http://www.fsis.usda...ives/7700-1.htm

For some food related industries, measurement of "radioactivity" is a routine element of their process haccp plan, eg see attachment -

radioactivity.png   69.21KB   31 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

If you are sourcing raw material ingredients for your process and they are irradiated then you will want to identify this and ask the rrelevant quetions to your supplier to ensure that that they canbe maintained as an Approved Supplier provided they meet your criteria.



In addition if you are using irradiation to manufacture an irradiated product then naturally you will have to take the limits of radiation into account for your critical limits. You will also have to consider radiation as a hazard for this process.



i hope this helps in answering your question and I am sure there are other intelligent heads out there with other examples to take the debate further.


Cheers


Ajay Shah

http://www.aasfood.com

I can sense the direction in which this question is going...

To include nuclear/radioactivity as a food safety hazard in a HACCP plan does not seem to be a big issue and makes sense in areas of this planet where there is a (real or perceived) risk of food being or becoming contaminated with radioactivity that is higher than the naturally occurring levels. 'Safe' levels of radioactivity are determined and corrobated by scientific evidence, although these limits are not necessarily interpreted equally around the world. Following the Fukushima accident, the EU has initially allowed much higer levels of radioactivity in foods than some other countries. You will have to find out about locally acceptable levels (or the levels that are acceptable in your target market).

To monitor the identified nuclear hazard as a CCP is much more difficult and might be very cost-intensive.
For easy monitoring, it might be sufficient to rely on reported results of radioactivity in foods from national or independent surveillance programs (probably to be taken at face value) or to ask your suppliers to test for radioactivity and trust their evaluation (verified by regular supplier audits). If these two are not an option and you need control of radioactivity in your business, you'll have to purchase expensive analytical kit to carry our the relevant analysis yourself. In my opinion, this only makes commercial sense if there is a real and proven risk of foods entering your business that could be emitting dangerously high levels of radiation and there are no other ways available for you to reliably control this hazard.

I also agree with Dr. Ajay Shah that in factories where food is irradiated, the hazard of nuclear contamination must be controlled with a CCP (national radiation legislation will probably require more stringent controls, though). - You'll know if that's the case in your business!

Nuclear and radioactive are two expressions for the same thing. I would see radiation as either physical contamination (i.e. because radioactive substances are attached to food) or chemical contamination (if radioactive elements have been incorporated into food). So - still only three groups of hazards.

This might become more relevant in the years to come.

Matt