Checking Allergen Verification and Validation
Hi All,
I can see that this topic has been reviewed quite a lot and I've read a bunch of the threads. I just wanted to make sure that I am doing it right.
Verificaiton of cleaning and sanititation in regards to allergens: During walk throughs, watching staff clean and sanitize surfaces. Documentating the check. Plus written checks on batch records saying that they are cleaning properly.
Validation: Using ATP and quick surface allergen swabs to make sure that the surfaces are clean.
If that is not enough by SQF standards, should I do one of the following?
-Take actual allergen swabs of the food contact surfaces and send them to a lab
- Or send finish product and test for allergen contamination
Thanks in advance,
AANNFF
In my opinion ATP is not enough to validate that your SSOPs are effective in removing allergens. I would recommend that on non-dedicated equipment where various products containing different allergens are processed you take swabs from various product contact surfaces, including hard to reach or potential "dead spots" after a clean (Neogen or 3M are good examples) as well as taking samples of changeover product run after a wet or dry clean and send this out to an outside accredited lab to see if any carryover is evident and use these results as the basis of your validation. You need to keep in mind that you need to define the frequency of these validations (monthly, semi-annually, annually?) and document this in your food safety management system.
ATP seems to be an acceptable way to verify a cleaning has been effective (in combination with a thorough visual inspection). And remember to document everything.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
esquef
Please look up http://www.sqfi.com/...ce-Document.pdf
Keep in mind you also need to vaildate your verification method.
Dear AANNFF,
I presume yr post is specifically directed to SQF sections 2.8.2 / 2.8.3.
Not personally a user of SQF. With apologies in advance, I’ve included a minor OT introduction to give a little context.
These are, IMO, key SQF (partial) extracts from the glossary –
Validation - Essentially validation as applied to control limits seeks to prove that the intended result was achieved and that it actually worked.
Verification Essentially verification as applied to control measures seeks to prove that the control measure was done according to its design.
Numerous auditorial problems have been reported here with respect to Va/Ve. These appear to particularly derive from SQF’s somewhat individual interpretation of Validation as quoted above when compared to Codex/NACMCF. The consequence seems to have been auditor confusion as to the xpected procedural compliance / differentiation of Validation from Verification.
In contrast, the cleaning / allergen related document produced by SQF and linked in previous post seems to me of excellent clarity. Maybe this is a result of the well-documented auditorial headaches referred above.
Clearly the inclusion of allergen “quality” within a definition of satisfactory surface cleanliness will require some testing for allergens.
I guess the answers to yr final queries, ie “enough” will depend on the actual process / procedures / results. I don’t recall seeing any references here to independent validation of allergen test kits (?) but presumably a continuous string of null results would invite such. Finished product testing is mentioned in 2.8.3 as being possibly “useful” but not specifically mandated as far as I can see.
@ SPl –
Keep in mind you also need to vaildate your verification method.
This seems rather circular / obscure ? Clarify ?
Rgds / Charles.C
Thank you for helping everyone. I've sent product away to test for allergens to make sure that we meet the standard.
Hi,
Another link from Food & Drink Europe : http://www.fooddrinkeurope.eu/uploads/publications_documents/FINAL_Allergen_A4_web.pdf
Mathieu Colmant
Hi,
Another link from Food & Drink Europe : http://www.fooddrinkeurope.eu/uploads/publications_documents/FINAL_Allergen_A4_web.pdf
Mathieu Colmant
Dear VeilleAlim,
Thks for link.
Apparently (although itself dated 2013) is based around the classic (and still operative I believe) FSA 2006 "monograph" so it should be good.
(the EC included regulatory bits visibly reach to, at least, 2011 refs)
Rgds / Charles.C