CDC FILE REVIEW FORM

Name of the organization seeking certification: CETRAF Ltd.

Product/system: Musanze Banana based Alcoholic Beverage/Musanze No.1 Ginger Flavored Wine
Date of review of the file: 10 February 2020

Reference
S standard
Parameter/
/ (clause, sub Comment on the audit report Expert’s view/Recommendation
requirement
N clause or
paragraph)
 @11.2.2. That the amount of “sure eau” used is not General comment
adequate. The auditor should have checked the Why the applicant has to pay the license
effectiveness of the cleaning effectiveness (tank, fee when the audit has not been carried
bottles, machine and piping,...)? Since spoilage of a out and the mark granted? What would
beverage can even occur after bottling caused by acetic happen if he cannot be certified? Can
acid and lactic acid bacteria? this be considered as “undue pressure”?

 Had the auditor checked the effectiveness of the UV

machine in sanitizing the water? For ex. what was the
number of hours of usage/maximum number of hours?

1.  @11.4.1 the auditors indicates that they use stainless steel

equipment, but also says that plastic are used. What grade
of stainless steel is used? The company also uses
plastic drums, are these food grade plastic, given that
ethanol is a solvent? (These plastic tanks come with
polymer latex, how is their suitability assured).

 @11.2.1 What about the suppliers of other raw materials,

(honey, ginger) are they also approved suppliers?

CDC File Review Form

  The controls applied to raw materials are not indicated
or are insufficient: Heavy metals, aflatoxins, pesticides
residues should have been tested in raw materials
such as sorghum, honey (Sorghum, used grow in
volcanic soil and are likely to be fumigated; honey is
harvested in area known use high amounts of
pesticides)

 The auditor indicates that the company (11.2.1)

pasteurizes its juice at 85~95 oC /1~2 min. but he
further indicates that the company has no pasteurizer
(13.5). What is the actual situation?

 @11.4.1. The plan for medical checkups should also

have been audited. What were the diseases that were
checked for since last audit? Any positive outcome?

 How the company does use juice extraction machine, yet

they also utilizes grass? It is suggested that the auditee
abandon using grass, since it can be a potential source
contamination and deadly microbes

 The pest control program and waste management plan are

in place, how are they implemented?

 @11.5.1 what is a sequenced record, how does is it related

to traceability and link received the raw materials to
2.
product?

 Were the findings of this audit directly linked to those of the

previous audit?

 The wine failed in Total sugars (reducing), this may be an

indication of excessive added saccharose or an early halted
fermentation. How does the company arrest the
fermentation, and make sure it does not progress during the
product shelf life? What kind of filter is used does it remove

CDC File Review Form

 yeast (at less than 2µm size can remove yeast) ? Any
preservative such as potassium sorbate used? If yeast is not
removed, uncontrolled fermentation may continue on the
shelf leading to formation of acetic acid, for example

 Does the company use preservatives? If yes, why are they

not indicated on the label; yet some of ingredients (sorghum
flour, yeast,…) indicated on the label are not actually
ingredients. Also the labelling fails the standards req. for
methanol content.

 @11.5.2 What was the cause(s) of not-well-filtered juice?

The auditor should have questioned the maintenance plan
for filters and determine how often the filter media
(membrane?) is changed

 Had the auditor investigated whether the lubricants used on

the machines (ikamura, isuka/ipfundikira inzoga) are food
grade as specified in RS 234:2014? (The bill of lading shows
that there water soluble lubricants).
 What kind of energy do they use for boiling for example or
for pasteurizing? What effect does it have on the quality of
the juice?

 @11.6.3. The auditor says that “Part of the Juice Ex. is not
made of SS”. Which part is it?
 Is the piping being installed made of stainless steel?
3.
 @11.7.1 the auditor should rather have audited the
calibration program. Are the filling machine calibrated?

 The level of volatile acids (2.1 g/L) is close to max. (3.0 g/L)
to be watched in older beverage. In fact the auditor should
have sample the market rather than the factory.
 Aldehydes should also form part of the tests

CDC File Review Form

  The test certificate for “ginger flavored drink”, shows that
the TVC is 85 close to 100 max. (Should be certain of the
reported TVC include yeast). What will happens during its
shelf life? The microbiology of the product is tested
twice a year only, yet there are many controls lacking,
thus the raw juice and the product should be tested
4. frequently.

 According to the test results of the “ginger flavored wine”,

methanol is 221 mg/L which is beyond the max. level of 100
mg/L. This, given the potential health danger of methanol,
should have been a major non-conformity.

Recommendation/conclusion

1. The S-Mark be GRANTED to Musanze Banana based Alcoholic Beverage, subject to the company commitment to address the issues
raised herein, in no more than 6 months from the date of signing of the supervision contract.

2. The S-Mark be DENIED to Musanze No. 1-Ginger Flavored Wine until such time the root cause(s) of the deviation is identified and
investigated and the non-conformity fully addressed, to the satisfaction of the S-Mark owner.

Signature and names of the reviewer (CDC Expert):

Vuningoma J. Bosco

CDC File Review Form