Our Inspection Services
​

The samples are transferred into a water bath and kept immersed by hand. The product may be carefully agitated, till no more glaze can be felt by the fingertips on the surface of the product: change from slippery to rough. Needed time, depending on size, shape and glaze content of the product, 10 to 60 sec. (and more in case of higher glaze contents or if frozen together). Remove adhering water using paper towels (without pressure) and weigh the product in a tared pan. TWO ADJUSTMENTS NEEDED: 1- Several international methods impose the use of a “gentle spray of cold water” to remove the glazing on IQF products. This requirement goes directly against the laws of physics: a gentle spray of cold water does not remove glaze, it adds water and increases the glaze if the inspection is done in proper cold room conditions. Inspection must be carried out in correct conditions, and therefore trying to “adjust” the strength or the temperature of this gentle spray is not a valid option. It simply does not work. The only consistent way to remove glaze without adding water is to bypass this part of the norm and dip the product into a water bath, keeping it immersed by hand until no more glaze can be felt by the fingertips on the surface of the product. 2- Several international methods impose the use of an “inclined sieve at an angle of 17–20° to facilitate drainage and draining exactly for 2 minutes (or 3 minutes depending on the method)” instead of using a towel or paper towel to remove the adhering water. Theoretically, this method is not consistent. If the control is done in proper cold room conditions, a proportion of the adhering water will refreeze on the product. This proportion depends on several external factors that are impossible to control precisely, such as: • the temperature of the frozen product • the temperature of the room • the humidity of the room • the geometry of the product (belly flap, tail, folds, irregular surface) • the size of the product, • the treatment level (open fibers retain more water) • the surface texture of the fillet • the speed at which the product is transferred from water to sieve All these factors influence how much water remains on the product and how much refreezes. The result is therefore not reproducible and not scientifically consistent. Using a paper towel to remove the adhering water, as recommended by OFCO, is a more “visible” external factor, but with far less impact on the result. It removes the water directly and eliminates the refreezing problem entirely. Practically, the inclined sieve method is also unreliable. It may look simply when controlling only a few samples, but as soon as the number of samples increases, the risk of errors increases dramatically: • each fillet must be drained for exactly the same duration • each fillet must be placed at exactly the same angle • fillets must not touch each other • fillets must be transferred from water to sieve at the same speed • the operator must track multiple timers simultaneously • drainage is not linear (some fillets stop dripping after 45 seconds, others after 3 minutes) In real inspection conditions, this is simply not feasible. The more samples you control, the more timing errors, handling inconsistencies, and drainage variability you introduce. The reliability of the result collapses. Conclusion: This method is theoretically inconsistent (because of refreezing and uncontrolled external factors) and practically risky (because it cannot be applied reliably on multiple samples). It works only “on paper”, not in real inspection environments. REQUIRED ADJUSTMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL METHODS 1- Using a “gentle spray of cold water to remove the glazing” is simply not an option, because it is physically impossible. OFCO is an independent third party inspection company: we follow international norms and standards whenever they are applicable, but we are not obliged to pretend that a method works when it clearly does not. We do not “follow” or “claim to follow” procedures that are not realistic, not efficient, or not compatible with proper inspection conditions. We remain fully open to discussion and to any constructive proposal that could improve our inspection methods or our services in general, but we will not apply a method that contradicts basic physics. 2- Using an inclined sieve at 17–20° is no longer an option for OFCO. After years of practice, we consider this method both theoretically inconsistent and practically unreliable. Too many external factors interfere with the result (room temperature, humidity, product temperature, surface geometry, size of the products, treatment level, refreezing, drainage variability, etc.). And in real inspection conditions, the risk of timing errors and handling inconsistencies becomes too high, especially when controlling many samples. The method works only “on paper”, not in real life. For better consistency and reliability, OFCO will use only the paper wipe method, which removes adhering water directly and eliminates the refreezing problem. Clients who wish to compare OFCO results with the inclined sieve method can simply add around +2% to the net weight found by OFCO. This correction factor reflects the typical difference observed between the two methods (the sieve usually gives +1% to +4% higher net weight). This approach keeps the inspection method consistent and reliable while still giving a realistic approximation of what the inclined sieve would have shown under ideal conditions. In conclusion, the main issue with the inclined‑sieve draining method is not the additional 1–4% net weight it typically gives, but the inconsistency of the results caused by external factors such as room temperature, humidity, product geometry, handling speed, and refreezing. More importantly, the method carries a high risk of operational errors under real inspection conditions, especially when multiple samples must be processed simultaneously. These factors can easily lead to incorrect or non‑reproducible results. For these reasons, many professional inspectors have progressively moved away from this method in favor of the paper wipe method, which provides more stable, reproducible, and reliable outcomes across a wide range of inspection environments. ALTERNATIVE METHODS Instead of measuring the net weight on a deglazed product, it is also possible to measure the net weight on a defrosted product. This method is influenced by several external factors, and therefore the results are less consistent than the deglazed method. However, when the deglazed method is not possible, for example on block‑frozen products or very small items, the defrosted method becomes the only workable option. This method can also be a deliberate choice. On shrimps, many buyers prefer the defrosted method to standardize the inspection protocol across all sizes. For Pangasius, some buyers prefer the defrosted method because the added water can represent up to roughly one‑third of the final weight (around 50% pick‑up during processing). In this case, the defrosted method gives a more realistic idea of how the muscle releases water immediately after thawing, and the variation can be significant depending on the additive used. This approach is also easier for final consumers to understand, and it matches what they expect. However, this method has clear limitations and must be used carefully. External factors (water temperature and quality, including hardness, which influences osmotic behavior, product handling, treatment level, etc.) can affect the results, and the consistency of the defrosted method is far lower than that of the deglazed method. It is also far from international norms. For these reasons, OFCO recommends the defrosted method only when necessary or when specifically requested by the buyer, with full understanding of its limitations. NET WEIGHT RESULT & INTERPRETATION There is no single, globally accepted tolerance for net-weight results in frozen seafood. Official weight-control systems exist, notably the NIST Handbook 133 in the United States and the EU "℮" (average-weight) system, but each has real limitations when applied to a container of frozen product. Some approaches are too permissive: certain retail schemes accept several badly underweight bags as long as the overall average holds, which does not protect the individual buyer. Others, such as NIST Handbook 133 and the EU "℮" system, are more rigorous but strictly pass/fail: one or two bags below the individual limit can reject an entire container, with no allowance for the normal variability of production and no clear rule on what exactly should then be rejected, this container, or the whole production run. OFCO's approach treats the net-weight result as information for a decision, not as an automatic verdict. An isolated shortfall can be investigated, we can check additional bags to see whether the problem is exceptional or systematic, whereas a large or repeated shortfall cannot reasonably be recovered. This gives the buyer a realistic basis to decide, rather than a rigid pass/fail outcome. The guidance OFCO provides is informational only and must not be considered a rule or a mandatory standard. The decision to accept or reject a consignment always remains with the buyer, based on the tolerances applied by the buyer. We encourage buyers to communicate these tolerances clearly to suppliers and to OFCO, so that all parties work with the same expectations. To help buyers interpret net-weight results, OFCO created the reference table below in 2009. It has remained our working reference ever since, as no more suitable framework has emerged, and clients continue to refer to it when setting their own tolerances. It is offered for guidance only, not as a standard, you can download it here.