Cooking and Metal Detection CCP Deviations at a Poultry Plant
A poultry processor produces 2,000 kg per shift of cooked chicken breast for retail. The HACCP plan sets CCP1 cooking at 75°C core for at least 2 minutes; CCP2 metal detection uses a 2.0 mm ferrous, 2.5 mm non-ferrous, and 2.5 mm stainless steel test piece. On the night shift, the cooking chart shows one batch of 800 kg reached 68°C and was held for 3 minutes. The supervisor says the product looked cooked and released it to the chiller after 24 hours. At the start of the shift, the metal detector failed its hourly check with the ferrous test piece; maintenance adjusted it, and the next check passed. Product from the failed period was not segregated. The plant has no rework procedure for CCP deviations. The 800 kg batch was dispatched to three distributors before the QA manager reviewed the records the next morning.
1. Assess the two CCP deviations and decide the disposition of the 800 kg batch.
Read the worked answer
Deviation assessment and disposition. CCP1 is a validated kill step; 68°C for 3 minutes does not meet the critical limit of 75°C for 2 minutes. Appearance is not a control measure. The 800 kg must be placed on hold immediately and recalled from the three distributors because it was dispatched before release review. Do not release it as cooked chicken. A possible disposition is re-cooking to 75°C for 2 minutes only if the product has been kept chilled, the re-cook is validated for the product and pack size, and QA approves a deviation record; otherwise destroy it. If the product was cooled slowly or temperature-abused, toxins may already be present, so re-cooking may not be safe. The metal detector failure is a second CCP deviation: product passed after a failed check, and the failed period was not segregated. All product since the last successful check must be re-screened with all test pieces or destroyed. Because the plant has no rework procedure, re-cooking cannot be assumed acceptable. The recall should be documented and its effectiveness checked. The key reasoning is that a critical limit failure means the product is potentially unsafe until a validated assessment says otherwise.
2. What were the root causes, and what corrective actions should be required before production resumes?
Read the worked answer
Root cause and corrective actions. Root causes include: the supervisor overrode a CCP record; there was no hold-and-release procedure; there was no deviation or rework procedure; metal detector checks were not linked to product segregation; and QA record review happened after dispatch. Corrective actions: train supervisors on CCP authority and the rule that only QA can release product; create a deviation procedure with hold, assessment, disposition and recall triggers; require documented corrective action for every critical limit failure; add a metal detector reject or divert system that locks the line on failure; verify the detector with ferrous, non-ferrous and stainless test pieces at the stated frequency; review records before dispatch, not the next morning; and reassess the HACCP plan. The supervisor should not be allowed to release product. The plant should also check whether other batches in the same period were affected. Verification includes a mock recall and a records audit. Production should not resume until the plant can show that no product leaves the site without a verified CCP record.
3. What records and verification activities would you examine to confirm the corrective action is effective?
Read the worked answer
Records and verification. Batch records for the 800 kg should include the cooking chart, core temperature probe calibration, time in oven, chiller records, metal detector log, last successful check, maintenance work order, dispatch records, distributor list, and customer complaints. Also request training records for the supervisor and operators, corrective action records for both deviations, and HACCP reassessment and validation records for any re-cook. Verification should include reviewing the last 30 days of cooking and metal detector records, observing the next production run, testing the detector with all test pieces, and conducting a mock recall to the three distributors. The recall should record quantity dispatched, recovered and destroyed. If any product reached consumers, the competent authority must be informed. The plant should not resume until QA can demonstrate that no product leaves the site without a verified CCP record and that the metal detector failure mode is controlled by a documented procedure, not by memory or verbal instruction.