Prof. Dr. Mieke Uyttendaele, Dr. Liesbeth Jacxsens, Imca Sampers Ghent University Faculty of Bioscience Engineering

Transcription

1 Microbial assessment scheme to measure performance of a food safety management system in sector of poultry meat preparations and relation to Campylobacter contamination Imca Sampers PhD student at the Laboratory of Food Microbiology and Food Preservation Dept. Food Safety and Food Quality, Ghent University imca.sampers@ugent.be - Project Research team: Prof. Dr. Mieke Uyttendaele, Dr. Liesbeth Jacxsens, Imca Sampers Ghent University Faculty of Bioscience Engineering Dr. Pieternel Luning Product design and quality management groep WUR the Netherlands Project technicians: Josefien Gousseau Special thanks to Accreditation lab of LFMFP-UGent; An De Coen; Andréja Rajkovic and Jamal Kussaga.

2 Variability in Campylobacter contamination between the companies: Frequency SCM CM SCM SCM SCM CM M CM SCM SCM CM Medium Medium Big Big Big Small Big Small Big Small Medium A B C D E F G H I J K Variability in Campylobacter contamination between the Belgian companies. Log 0 cfu/g Variation in frequency distribution of Campylobacter counts in chicken meat preparation samples over companies D & I. A high variability for Campylobacter contamination although all companies had a good documented and functional HACCP based system? Company profiling & microbiological testing: Even food under HACCP or hygiene codes may be unsafe!? Assessment of the status of current food safety managements performance is necessary to know the constraints / bottlenecks for best performances The effectiveness of the Food Safety Management Systems (FSMS) was measured with diagnostic instrument. (UGent WUR)

3 Product characteristics Process characteristics Organisational characteristics Lack of technical workforce Variability in workforce composition Insufficiency operators competence Lack of commitment Deficiency of employee involvement Absence of formalisation Insufficiency information support systems Environmental characteristics Food safety assurance system Food safety control system Assurance on product safety Stakeholder Requirements Product safety Company profiling I D Company D: HACCP, BRC Company I: HACCP, BRC, IFS

4 Company profiling & microbiological testing: Main difference: I D The performance of a FSMS is basically expressed in terms of low microbial numbers in the final products. Evaluation of the performance of FSMS and microbiological sampling in the flow of the company was not only for Campylobacter, but the general hygiene indicators were looked at. MAS (microbial assessment scheme): microbial analyses are used for different purposes to obtain more in-depth performance of QA systems.

5 Sampling locations -Raw material intermediate final product To control the operational performance (HACCP- QA) -Environment & Hand hygiene to validate and verify cleaning and disinfection procedures to obtain information on the presence and incidence of micro-organisms, their distribution in relation to processing lines and thus on the risk of product contamination

6 CSL 5, 8 CSL CSL CSL 6, 9 CSL CSL 7, 0 CSL 4 CSL 5-0: different sampling moments on the same sampling CSL 5, 8 visit CSL CSL CSL 6, 9 CSL CSL 7, 0 CSL 4

7 sampling visits CSL 5, 8 CSL CSL CSL 6, 9 CSL CSL 7, 0 CSL 4 In total 66 samples/company CSL 5, 8 CSL CSL CSL 6, 9 CSL CSL 7, 0 CSL 4

8 Microbial analyses Quantitative Qualitative Total Count CSL Enterobacteriaceabactegenes E. coli Campylo- L. monocyto- -4 x x x x x x x 5-7 x x x x x x x 8-0 x x x x S. aureus Salmonella L. monocytogenes CSL - 4: Destructive sampling CSL 5-0: Non-destructive sampling (swab) Not according the internal guidelines of the lab: Absence in 5g (tolerance << 00/g) MAS chicken processing companies: results Pathogens (Listeria monocytogenes / Salmonella/Campylobacter): L. monocytogenes Salmonella Company D Company I ++ : Each visit from raw material up to end-product + : During visit & : one environmental sample + : visit in raw material and minced meat ++ : every visit: environmental This is not according the EU regulation 07/005: absence in 0g (//006); absence in 5g (//009) ++ : Each visit in the end-product + : During visit : environmental -

9 This is unsatisfactory according a KB in MAS chicken processing companies: results preparation: absence Pathogens (Listeria monocytogenes / Salmonella/Campylobacter): in g for minced meat samples Campylobacter spp. log cfu/g 4,5,5,5,5 CSL CSL CSL CSL4 CSL5T CSL5T CSL5T CSL6T CSL6T CSL6T CSL7T CSL7T CSL7T CSL8T CSL8T CSL8T CSL9T CSL9T CSL9T CSL0T CSL0T CSL0T Company D Campylobacter spp. Company I log cfu/g (CSL-4) log cfu/5cm (CSL5-0),5,5,5 CSL CSL CSL CSL4 CSL5T WAFVH Campylobacter in pluimveevleesbereidingen 7sampling th November points008 Bornem CSL5T CSL5T CSL6T CSL6T CSL6T CSL7T CSL7T CSL7T CSL8T CSL8T CSL8T CSL9T CSL9T CSL9T CSL0T CSL0T CSL0T MAS chicken processing companies: results CSL 4 (foodstuffs): Company D Total count Enterobacteriaceae log cfu/g 8,0 7,0 6,0 CSL CSL CSL CSL4 log cfu/g 6,0 CSL CSL CSL CSL4 E. coli log cfu/g 4,5,5,5,5 CSL CSL CSL CSL4 Follows the same trend This is not satisfactory for the meat preparations, but acceptable according the EU regulation 07/005: Imca Sampers limits: - Laboratory m of = Food 500 Microbiology cfu/g; and M Food = 5000 Preservation, cfu/g Ghent University

10 MAS chicken processing companies: results CSL 4 (foodstuffs): Company I Total count Enterobacteriaceae log cfu/g 7,0 6,0 log cfu/g CSL CSL CSL CSL4 CSL CSL CSL CSL4 E. coli log cfu/g 4,5,5,5,5 CSL CSL CSL CSL4 No pure faecal contamination This is satisfactory for the meat preparations according the EU regulation 07/005: Imca Sampers limits: - Laboratory m of = Food 500 Microbiology cfu/g; and M Food = 5000 Preservation, cfu/g Ghent University MAS chicken processing companies: results CSL 5-0 (food contact materials): Total count 7,0 6,0 CSL5T CSL5T CSL5T CSL6T CSL6T CSL6T CSL7T CSL7T CSL7T Company D 7,0 6,0 Total count CSL5T CSL5T CSL5T CSL6T CSL6T CSL6T CSL7T CSL7T CSL7T Estimated values for visit for CSL 7 Company I

11 MAS chicken processing companies: results CSL 5-0 (food contact materials): Company D Company I Enterobacteriaceae Enterobacteriaceae 6,0 CSL5T CSL5T CSL5T CSL6T CSL6T CSL6T CSL7T CSL7T CSL7T CSL5T CSL5T CSL5T CSL6T CSL6T CSL6T CSL7T CSL7T CSL7T Enterobacteriaceae Enterobacteriaceae 6,0 CSL8T CSL8T CSL8T CSL9T CSL9T CSL9T CSL0T CSL0T CSL0T CSL8T CSL8T CSL8T CSL9T CSL9T CSL9T CSL0T CSL0T CSL0T MAS chicken processing companies: results CSL 5-0 (food contact materials): Company D Company I E. coli E. coli 4,5,5,5,5,5,5 CSL5T CSL5T CSL5T CSL6T CSL6T CSL6T CSL7T CSL7T CSL7T CSL5T CSL5T CSL5T CSL6T CSL6T CSL6T CSL7T CSL7T CSL7T E. coli E. coli 4,5,5,5,5 4,5,5,5,5 CSL8T CSL8T CSL8T CSL9T CSL9T CSL9T CSL0T CSL0T CSL0T CSL8T CSL8T CSL8T CSL9T CSL9T CSL9T CSL0T CSL0T CSL0T

12 MAS chicken processing companies: results Microbial Safety Level Profile Company D Level Total mesophilic count S. aureus Enterobacteriaceae E. coli L. monocytogenes Salmonella Campylobacter Remaining Campylobacter: O & E Salmonella: O L. monocytogenes: O TC: O & E E.coli/Enterobacteriacea: O & E S. aureus: E O: Operational factor E: cleaning & disinfection MAS chicken processing companies: results Microbial Safety Level Profile Company I Level Total mesophilic count S. aureus Enterobacteriaceae E. coli L. monocytogenes Salmonella Campylobacter Remaining Campylobacter Salmonella L. monocytogenes: E TC: O & E E.coli: O Enterobacteriacea: E S. aureus O: Operational factor E: cleaning & disinfection

13 Conclusion Company D: High microbial numbers all over the process. A better management of the process line is necessary (operational performance). Followed by more time for and better GHP instead of corrective actions. Improvement must and can be made. Company I: Low microbial numbers in the final products a high level of performance of the FSMS-system. Improvement can still be made on environmental control. Conclusion The diagnostic instrument and the MAS enabled to show the pressures and bottlenecks of the FSMS-system (HACCP) in these two poultry processing companies. Systematically repeating of both systems learn the companies to validate (company D) and verify their system. Performance of FSMS level differed significantly between the two companies (MAS), but start from raw materials (poultry carcasses) with high numbers (and prevalence) of campylobacters the lack of any intervention step in the processing line may explain why still both companies provided chicken meat preparations with high prevalence (and numbers) of Campylobacter.

14 Expected results Diagnostic instrument MAS Context FSMS FS =most dangerous =highest level =best performance Results D Diagnostic instrument MAS Context FSMS FS - - =most dangerous =highest level =best performance

15 Results I Diagnostic instrument MAS Context FSMS FS - =most dangerous =highest level =best performance Thank you for your attention Questions? Comments?