Food Production Pathogen Monitoring
Enhanced In-House Testing Capabilities
Sample collection and testing at all stages of food production assures successful monitoring of the entire workflow.
Statistical Process Control (SPC) methods increase the confidence levels of the data collection and testing methods and protocols of the facility.
More data is always better than less data.
More accurate, correct, and validated data is the goal for food safety managers to assure consumers, organizational stakeholders, and buyers of the safety of the production goods.
In-house testing by employees can be very reliable if the appropriate testing equipment and procedures are in place and are certified.
If employees are properly trained and have access to the necessary resources and testing methods, they can reliably test products for bacterial contamination or adulteration.
Managers of food production companies, investing in employee training can not only enhance the skills and knowledge of the employees but also lead to increased profits.
Well-trained food safety technicians can play a crucial role in improving the quality and safety of your food products, ultimately increasing profits.
According to a report by the Food Marketing Institute, companies that invest in employee training have a 64% reduction in food safety incidents (FMI, 2021).
By providing food safety training to employees, they can better identify potential hazards, prevent contamination and reduce the chances of product recalls.
Fewer recalls can save the company money, and a good reputation will increase customer loyalty, ultimately leading to higher profits.
Employee training can also lead to increased efficiency in the production process, reducing waste and increasing productivity.
A study by the National Skills Coalition found that companies that invest in employee training have a 37% higher productivity rate than those that don't (NSC, 2020).
With well-trained employees, tasks can be performed more efficiently, reducing the time and resources required to produce high-quality food products. This can result in significant cost savings and increased profitability.
Invest in Employees
Investing in employee training can also improve employee morale and retention.
According to a study by the National Restaurant Association, companies that invest in employee training have a 20% higher retention rate than those that don't (NRA, 2022).
When employees feel valued and engaged in their work, they are more likely to stay with the company. This can lead to cost savings by reducing the need for recruitment and training of new employees.
Finally, investing in employee training can help food production companies stay competitive in their industry.
By keeping employees up-to-date with the latest technologies and best practices, companies can stay ahead of their competitors and provide a competitive advantage.
Summary
Investing in employee training can provide numerous benefits for food production companies, including improved food safety, increased efficiency, improved employee morale and retention, and a competitive advantage. By prioritizing employee development and growth, managers of food production companies can create a more engaged and effective workforce that is better equipped to drive the company's success and increase profits.
References
Food Marketing Institute. (2021). Report: Best Practices for Training and Retaining Employees in the Food Retail Industry. Retrieved from https://www.fmi.org/docs/default-source/research-reports/best-practices-for-training-and-retaining-employees-in-the-food-retail-industry.pdf?sfvrsn=83a541c2_2
National Restaurant Association. (2022). Restaurant Workforce Report. Retrieved from https://www.restaurant.org/research/reports/restaurant-workforce-report
National Skills Coalition. (2020). Business Benefits of Upskilling. Retrieved from https://www.nationalskillscoalition.org/resources/publications/file/Business-Benefits-of-Upskilling.pdf
In-House Testing Teams Empowers Everyone
Well-equipped, trained, supplied, and certified team members yields amazing quality value for the entire food production team.
All team members substantially contribute their skills, energies, and pride in the finished products sold to the organization's buyers.
In-House Sample Handling is Critical
Vigorous sample handling and retention methods and protocols are critical to the testing and storage of physical evidence of a lot-based sample testing program in the event of consumer claims.
A “test and release” program for food production is a process where a food producer tests and monitors their products to ensure that they meet specified safety standards. This process involves testing the product for microbial levels, toxins, and other contaminants, and releasing the product for sale only if it passes the safety tests. Test and release programs are used to prevent contaminated or adulterated food from entering the market.
Incoming Raw Products Must be Pathogen Screened
All in-coming raw food products and materials must be held in a receiving "red zone" and immediately tested upon receipt with quantitative, real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) methods prior to being admitted into any food processing facility. This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) will prevent any cross-contamination by those products within the food processing environment. Sample collection, sample preparation, sample testing, and test reports should be produced within one (1) hour of delivery in the facility "red or holding zone." This measure more than any other will prevent most major cross contamination events.
Statistical Process Control (SPC) Methods to Assure Food Safety
Statistical Process Control (SPC) has been very effective in the beef and other mass food production industries. For SPC to be most effective, critical control points (CCPs) must be measured in real time. The quickest reactions for remediation and loss prevention can be effected with SPC. Measuring CCPs along the entire food production process system requires unique effectiveness studies and application measurements.
For processed vegetable production, measuring not only finished products but also processing steps such as washing and growing conditions (irrigation and run-off) for statistically valid sampling. Processing water and field conditions can be spot checked. All these data can be used to SPC production in real time enabling the processor to react to abnormalities as they happen and control distribution prior to release.
Food Production Processes Audit Consultation
A client engagement to audit a food facility's production processes includes the initial inquiry, parameters questionnaire, quotation submission, assignment agreement, date/time scheduling, opening conference meeting, walk-through inspection with comprehensive notations and observations, policies, procedures, standards, and programs review, exit conference, and the issuance of the complete report which will include corrective actions (if observed), , findings, and suggestions.
An independent, internal expert will review the audit for technical accuracy prior to final submission to the client.
Financial Disadvantages of Outsourcing Food Pathogen Testing
Time/Control/Quality/Brand Reputation Loss
The Main Disadvantage of Outsourcing: Cost
Outsourcing food pathogen testing can be expensive, and it can take a long time to get results back from a third-party lab.
This can lead to delays in getting products to market and can increase costs.
Another financial disadvantage of outsourcing food pathogen testing is that it can lead to a loss of control over quality.
When food pathogen testing is outsourced, it can be difficult to ensure that the outsourced company has the same standards as your own.
This can lead to a lower quality product being produced and can damage your brand reputation.
Reference
“The Pros and Cons of Outsourcing Food Production.” Deskera. https://www.deskera.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-outsourcing-food-production/
Additional
Doyle, M. P. (2018). Food Safety and the Costs of Foodborne Illness. In Food Safety in the 21st Century: Public Health Perspective (pp. 27-41). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60171-6_3
Frenzen, P. D., Drake, C. L., & Angulo, F. J. (2005). Economic cost of illness due to Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections in the United States. Journal of Food Protection, 68(12), 2623-2630. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-68.12.2623
Lee, H., Lee, S., & Seo, Y. (2020). A comparative study on the cost of in-house and outsourcing for food safety management: A case study of South Korea's school meal service. Food Control, 107, 106783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106783
LeJeune, J. T., & Rajala-Schultz, P. J. (2009). Food safety: unpasteurized milk: a continued public health threat. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 48(1), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1086/594124
Melino, V. J., & Kelly, L. A. (2017). Validation of analytical methods for food safety: current and emerging approaches. Analytical Methods, 9(12), 1946-1958. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7AY00326A
Salazar, J. K., Deng, X., & Marcos, B. (2019). Microbiological quality of leafy greens: A review of food safety challenges, risk factors, and practical strategies. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 18(5), 1292-1312. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12455
Sneed, J., & Jaykus, L. A. (2017). Cost-effectiveness of food safety interventions and the case for mandatory adoption. Journal of Food Protection, 80(7), 1136-1141. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-518
Swaminathan, B., Barrett, T. J., Hunter, S. B., & Tauxe, R.
V. (2001). PulseNet: the molecular subtyping network for foodborne bacterial disease surveillance, United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 7(3), 382-389. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid0703.017303
Thippareddi, H., & Matthews, K. R. (2014). Food safety in the 21st century: Public health perspective. Academic Press.
Wang, H., Chen, Y., & Dennis, S. (2020). Outsourcing food safety: A strategic approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 218, 137-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.05.019
AME Maximizes Your In-House Pathogen Testing Capabilities
Quality Systems/Training/Technical Support/SOPs/Compliance Boosts
In-house pathogen testing laboratories are crucial for ensuring the safety and quality of food products in production facilities (Mavroudis & Papageorgiou, 2020).
Such testing stations are available to test raw materials, process samples, wash water, finished products, and environmental samples for the presence of harmful pathogens.
Maximizing the investment of people, equipment, and testing capabilities in an in-house pathogen testing laboratory is vital for ensuring that a food production facility is producing safe and that only high-quality food products are cleared for shipment to buyers.
Invest in Quality Systems
The first step to maximizing an-house pathogen testing laboratory investment is to finance only quality equipment.
A high-quality laboratory requires state-of-the-art equipment that can detect even the smallest amounts of pathogens in food and environmental samples (Galanakis et al., 2021).
Ensure that the laboratory has the necessary equipment, such as DNA analyzer systems (qRT-PCR instruments, micropipettes, centrifuges, vortex units (Mavroudis & Papageorgiou, 2020).
All equipment must be periodically validated, calibrated and maintained to ensure accuracy and performance within design specifications (Galanakis et al., 2021).
Train and Certify Personnel
Investing in trained in-house personnel is also important.
The laboratory should be operated by a team of trained technicians who can collect samples, perform the analytical examinations accurately and interpret the results accurately.
The personnel should be certified in the latest testing methods, protocols, and regulations.
They should be knowledgeable about the specific pathogens that can be found in food products and the facility (Mavroudis & Papageorgiou, 2020).
Primary training, certification guidance, and continuing education can help ensure that the laboratory staff remains up-to-date with the latest developments in the field (Galanakis et al., 2021).
Implement Industry Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are essential for maximizing the effectiveness of in-house pathogen testing laboratory.
SOPs provide a standardized set of protocols for sample collection, processing, testing, interpretation, and reporting to management (Rasooly & Do, 2020).
The laboratory should develop and follow strict SOPs for each stage of the testing process to ensure that the test results are accurate, consistent, and defensible.
The laboratory staff should be trained on the SOPs and should follow them strictly to avoid errors and ensure consistency in the testing process (Galanakis et al., 2021).
Invest in Continuing Technical Support
Investing in continuing technical support from established vendors can significantly improves the efficiency and accuracy of your in-house pathogen testing laboratory.
Expertise in DNA testing, food safety, and sanitation systems reduces the risk of human error and increases the speed and accuracy of test reports.
Additional on-demand expertise from nationally-recognized technicians also helps the laboratory team to handle a higher volume of samples, during peak production periods, and ‘food emergency events’ (Rasooly & Do, 2020).
Ensure Compliance with Regulatory Requirements
Compliance with local, state, national, and international regulatory standards and requirements is critical for maximizing the effectiveness of your in-house pathogen testing laboratory.
Food production facilities must comply with various regulations and standards, including those set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Galanakis et al., 2021).
The laboratory should follow all relevant regulations and standards, and it should be regularly audited to ensure compliance to ISO 17025 procedures (Mavroudis & Papageorgiou, 2020).
Summary
Maximizing your in-house pathogen testing laboratory investment requires investment in quality equipment, trained personnel, SOPs, and compliance with regulatory requirements. By ensuring that the laboratory has the necessary resources and adheres to strict protocols, food production facilities can produce safe and high-quality food products. Regular monitoring and continuous improvement can also help ensure that the laboratory remains effective in detecting and preventing the spread of harmful pathogens in the food production process (Rasooly & Do, 2020).
References
Besser, R. E., & Griffith, J. F. (2020). Enhancing food safety through pathogen testing and surveillance. Microbiology spectrum, 8(2), e00557-19.
Buchanan, R. L., & Gorris, L. G. (2020). Understanding and managing microbial risks associated with produce. Annual review of food science and technology, 11, 401-426.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). National outbreak reporting system (NORS) dashboard. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/norsdashboard/
Food and Drug Administration. (2020). Food safety modernization act (FSMA). Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma
Galanakis, C. M., Tornberg, E., Gekas, V., & Blekas, G. (2021). Handbook of food processing. Elsevier.
Havelaar, A. H., Kirk, M. D., Torgerson, P. R., Gibb, H. J., Hald, T., Lake, R. J., … & Devleesschauwer, B. (2020). World Health Organization global estimates and regional comparisons of the burden of foodborne disease in 2010. PLoS medicine, 12(12), e1001923.
Jaykus, L. A., & Mann, D. A. (2020). Performance standards for microbial testing: A path forward. Journal of food protection, 83(2), 326-331.
Mavroudis, G., & Papageorgiou, M. (2020). In-house versus outsourcing pathogen testing in the food industry. In Handbook of food science and technology (pp. 1233-1258). Springer.
Rasooly, A., & Do, P. M. (2020). Methods in microbiology, infectious diseases, and virology. Academic Press.
Scharff, R. L. (2020). Economic burden from health losses due to foodborne illness in the United States. Journal of food protection, 83(5), 753-761.
Sikin, A. M., Othman, R. Y., & Saad, M. Z. (2021). Foodborne pathogen detection using lab-on-a-chip devices: A review. Food Control, 121, 107648.
United States Department of Agriculture. (2020). Food safety and inspection service (FSIS). Retrieved from https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/home
US FDA's Food Traceability Final Rule (Nov. 2022)
US FDA Defined Critical Tracking Events
All food producers are required by January 2026 to develop and maintain records containing key data elements: “Critical Tracking Events”
-1. Harvesting,
-2. Cooling (Before initial packing)
-3. initial packing
-4. First land-based receiver
-5. Shipping
-6. Receiving
-7. Transformation
An issue indoor growers may not fully appreciate is that indoor-grown greens could also be vulnerable to contamination despite the obvious safeguards of controlled environment growing, filtered water sources, and high-tech production methods and instrumentation (https://www.re-nuble.com/blogs/re-nuble/how-indoor-farms-can-prepare-for-fda-s-food-traceability-rule?hss_channel=tw-277234877).
The obvious lesson is that all food producers should strengthen their food safety and quality programs and regimes to prevent future contamination events and product recalls.
The FDA’s food safety requirements require strict adherence to planning, precautions, and internationally-recognized standards.
AME Certified PCR Laboratories supports all clients to meet and exceed these standards and improve the marketability of their products.
US FDA Food Sampling equation
FDA Sampling Plan for Pre-shipment (FSP)
Sample collection and testing at all stages of food production assures successful monitoring of the entire workflow. Statistical Process Control (SPC) methods increases the confidence levels of the data collection and testing methods and protocols of the facility. More data is always better than less data. More accurate, correct, and validated data is the goal for food safety managers to assure consumers, organizational stakeholders, and buyers of the safety of the production goods.
In-house testing by employees can be very reliable if the appropriate testing equipment and procedures are in place and are certified. For example, if employees are properly trained and have access to the necessary resources and testing methods, they can reliably test products for bacterial contamination or adulteration.
21 CFR 1.21
The FDA Sampling Plan for Pre-shipment (FSP) can be found in the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Part 1, Subpart B, Section 1.21. This section outlines the requirements and guidelines for sampling food shipments for safety. The full text of the regulation can be found on the FDA website here: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=1&showFR=1.
Benefits of a "Test and Release" Program in Food Production
Benefits of a "Test and Release" program for food production organizations
The benefits of a "test and release" program for food production companies include:
- Improved food safety: A test and release program ensures that raw materials, ingredients, and finished products are safe for consumption or use before they enter the market.
- Cost savings: Catching issues early in the production process can save money by reducing waste and preventing costly recalls.
- Increased efficiency: By implementing a test and release program as part of their quality control process, companies can streamline the production process and ensure consistent product quality.
- Enhanced reputation: Companies that prioritize safety and quality through a test and release program can build a positive reputation with consumers, suppliers, and regulatory agencies.
Overall, a test and release program can provide a competitive advantage for food production companies by ensuring food safety and quality and providing a strong foundation for long-term success.
Many food buyers require their vendors to implement "test and release" programs and issue a "certificate of analysis" to assure food safety standards for every shipment.
Tactical advantages of "test & release" programs
Market Advantages
The tactical market advantages of "test and release" programs in food production organizations.
"Test and release" programs in food production refer to a quality control process where food products are thoroughly tested for safety before they are released to the market.
This assurance confirms that consumers are getting safe and high-quality food products. There are several tactical market advantages of "test and release" programs in food production, as discussed below:
- Building Consumer Trust: By implementing a "test and release" program, food companies can build consumer trust in their brand. Consumers are more likely to purchase products from a company that has a reputation for producing safe and high-quality products. This, in turn, can lead to increased sales and customer loyalty.
- Mitigating Risk: "Test and release" programs can help food companies to mitigate the risk of recalls and lawsuits. By ensuring that products are safe before they are released to the market, companies can avoid costly recalls and legal battles.
- Compliance with Regulations: "Test and release" programs are often a requirement of regulatory agencies, such as the FDA. By implementing such programs, food companies can ensure compliance with regulations and avoid fines and penalties.
- Competitive Advantage: Companies that implement "test and release" programs may have a competitive advantage over those that do not. Consumers are becoming increasingly concerned about food safety, and companies that can demonstrate their commitment to producing safe and high-quality products may have an edge over their competitors.
References:
- "Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)." FDA, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 25 Mar. 2022, www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-final-rule-preventive-controls-human-food.
- "Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) Guidelines/Inspection Checklist." FDA, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 8 Mar. 2022, www.fda.gov/food/guidance-documents-regulatory-information/good-manufacturing-practice-gmp-guidelinesinspection-checklist.
- "Test and Release." Food Safety Magazine, 10 June 2019, www.foodsafetymagazine.com/enewsletter/test-and-release/.
OpenAI.com lists major food buyers requiring "Test & release
Major Buyers Requiring "Test and Release" Programs
An inquiry submitted to https://platform.openai.com/playgroundof on March 22, 2023, to list all major food buyers require vendors to implement a "test and release" program for all shipments resulted in the following companies:
· Walmart
· Costco
· Target
· Kroger
· Aldi
· Whole Foods Market
· Sam's Club
· Lidl
· Trader Joe's
· Starbucks
· McDonald's
· Subway
· Burger King
· Dunkin' Donuts
· Wendy's
· Sonic Drive-In
· Arby's
· Chipotle
· Panera Bread
· Dairy Queen
in-house food testing laboratory is more efficient
In-House Testing is More Efficient
It is more efficient to have an in-house food testing laboratory in a food production organization. The essay will explore the benefits of having an in-house food testing laboratory, including cost-effectiveness, time efficiency, and quality control.
The essay will also discuss how having an in-house food testing laboratory can help organizations comply with regulatory requirements.
Food safety is a critical aspect of food production organizations. Food safety regulations require that food production organizations ensure that their products are safe for human consumption1.
One way that food production organizations can ensure that their products are safe for human consumption is by having an in-house food testing laboratory.
An in-house food testing laboratory can help organizations comply with regulatory requirements and ensure that their products are safe for human consumption.
Benefits of Having an In-House Food Testing Laboratory
One of the benefits of having an in-house food testing laboratory is cost-effectiveness. An in-house food testing laboratory can help organizations save money by reducing the cost of outsourcing food testing2.
Outsourcing food testing can be expensive, and it can take a long time to get results back from a third-party lab.
Having an in-house food testing laboratory can help organizations save money by reducing the cost of outsourcing food testing and by providing faster results.
Another benefit of having an in-house food testing laboratory is time efficiency. An in-house food testing laboratory can provide faster results than outsourcing food testing2. This can help organizations save time and reduce the time it takes to get products to market.
Quality control is another benefit of having an in-house food testing laboratory.
An in-house food testing laboratory can help organizations ensure that their products meet quality standards3.
This can help organizations avoid costly recalls and protect their brand reputation.
Compliance with Regulatory Requirements
Having an in-house food testing laboratory can help organizations comply with regulatory requirements1. Regulatory requirements require that food production organizations ensure that their products are safe for human consumption.
Having an in-house food testing laboratory can help organizations comply with these requirements by providing faster results and ensuring that products meet quality standards.
Summary
Having an in-house food testing laboratory is more efficient for a food production organization than outsourcing food testing. The benefits of having an in-house food testing laboratory include cost-effectiveness, time efficiency, quality control, and compliance with regulatory requirements.
References
“Foodtest Laboratories.” Foodtest Laboratories, https://foodtest.co.uk/.
“Testing & Analysis Food Services - Intertek.” Intertek, https://www.intertek.com/food/testing/.
benefits of microbial testing of food production
Microbial testing detecting pathogens is an effective tool for improving food safety
The value of microbial testing:
- "Microbial Testing for Food: What it is and Why it Matters" - An article in Food Safety Magazine discusses the importance of microbial testing for food safety and outlines some of the key benefits of this practice.
- "Microbial Testing in the Food Industry" - An article from F&B News provides an overview of the role of microbial testing in the food industry and discusses some of the key challenges and considerations associated with this practice.
- "The Importance of Microbial Testing in the Food Industry" - This article from Eurofins provides an overview of the importance of microbial testing for ensuring the safety and quality of food products.
- "Microbial Analysis in Food Safety: A Critical Tool for Value Protection" - This article from International Food Hygiene Magazine discusses the critical role of microbial analysis in protecting the value of food products.
- "Microbial Testing in the Food Industry: How to Ensure Safety" - This article from SafetyCulture explores the role of microbial testing in food safety and provides some practical tips for implementing effective testing protocols in the food industry.
These sources provide perspectives on the value and importance of microbial testing in the food industry, highlighting the need for careful consideration of the benefits of pathogen testing.
Low-cost, fast in-house pathogen testing
Cost and Speed of In-House Tesitng
The value proposition of "low cost, fast in-house pathogen testing in a food production facility with qRT-PCR" refers to the ability to quickly and affordably detect pathogens in food products using quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) technology within a facility or laboratory.
Testing in-house can help food production facilities ensure the safety and quality of products while also saving time and money.
A key benefit of in-house pathogen testing with qRT-PCR in a food production facility is cost savings.
Traditional methods of pathogen testing, such as culture-based methods, can be time-consuming and expensive.
qRT-PCR can provide results much more quickly, often within hours, and with higher accuracy. In addition, because qRT-PCR is a quantitative technique, it can provide information about the amount of pathogen present in a sample, which can be useful for tracking outbreaks and determining appropriate response measures.
Another benefit of in-house pathogen testing with qRT-PCR in a food production facility is speed. qRT-PCR can provide results in a matter of hours, compared to traditional testing methods, which can take several days or even weeks. This rapid turnaround time can help food production facilities quickly identify and address potential sources of contamination, reducing the risk of foodborne illness outbreaks and product recalls.
Recent advancements by AME in qRT-PCR technology have also made the method more accessible and user-friendly. For example, some qRT-PCR devices are now portable and can be used in the field or at remote locations, allowing for more widespread and rapid testing. Additionally, there are now automated qRT-PCR platforms that can process large numbers of samples at once, making it easier and more efficient for food production facilities to perform testing.
Overall, the value proposition of low-cost, fast in-house pathogen testing in a food production facility with qRT-PCR is significant for ensuring the safety food products. It offers cost savings, speed, and accuracy, which can help food production facilities improve their ability to detect and prevent pathogen-related risks.
References:
- FDA. (2017). Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins Handbook. https://www.fda.gov/food/foodborne-pathogenic-microorganisms-and-natural-toxins-handbook
- Gurtler, J. B., & Bailey, R. B. (2013). Detection and enumeration of pathogens in food products. Food and Beverage Microbiology, 213-234. https://doi.org/10.1201/b14674-11
- Ma, L., Zhang, G., Gerner-Smidt, P., & Mantripragada, V. P. (2018). Advances in molecular subtyping and pathogen detection for foodborne illnesses. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 56(4), e01410-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01410-17
- Singh, A., Poshtiban, S., & Evoy, S. (2020). Recent advances in pathogen detection in food: a review. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 170, 112683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2020.112683
Calculating & quantifying risk percentage
Percentage of Pathogen Contamination
To calculate and quantify the percentage of risk of pathogen contamination in a food production lot with academic references and links
The percentage of risk of pathogen contamination in a food production lot can be calculated using the following formula:
Risk of contamination = (Number of contaminated units / Total number of units) x 100
Where the number of contaminated units is the number of units in the food production lot that have been found to be contaminated with the pathogen of concern, and the total number of units is the total number of units in the food production lot.
To determine the number of contaminated units, it is necessary to conduct microbiological testing of a representative sample of the food production lot. The number of units to be tested and the testing methodology will depend on the specific pathogen and the type of food being produced.
References:
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2005). Microbiological risk assessment in food processing. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-y4705e.pdf
- International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods. (2011). Microorganisms in foods 8: use of data for assessing process control and product acceptance. New York: Springer.
- Food Safety and Inspection Service. (2017). Sampling and testing for pathogenic microorganisms. Retrieved from https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/science/microbiology/sampling-and-testing-pathogenic-microorganisms
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Foodborne germs and illnesses. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/foodborne-germs.html
US FDA Percentage of bacterial contamination
What Percentage is Acceptable by the USFDA?
Fresh green leafy products, such as lettuce, spinach, and other leafy greens, are a staple in the American diet.
These products are prone to bacterial contamination, which can lead to foodborne illnesses.
To address this issue, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established guidelines for the acceptable percentage of bacterial pathogens in a production lot of fresh green leafy products.
These guidelines are designed to minimize the risk of foodborne illness and ensure the safety of consumers.
The FDA guidelines require that production lots of fresh green leafy products be tested for the presence of bacterial pathogens, including Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Salmonella. If the test results show the presence of these pathogens, the lot is considered adulterated and cannot be sold to consumers.
According to the FDA, a production lot of fresh green leafy products is considered acceptable if the percentage of E. coli and Salmonella is less than or equal to 5%.
This means that if a sample of fresh green leafy products is found to contain E. coli or Salmonella, the percentage of the pathogen in the sample must be less than or equal to 5% for the lot to be acceptable.
It's worth noting that the acceptable percentage of bacterial pathogens in a production lot of fresh green leafy products is not the same as the safe level of consumption. The FDA recommends that consumers always wash their hands and fresh produce thoroughly before eating to reduce the risk of foodborne illness.
To ensure compliance with these guidelines, the FDA conducts inspections and testing of fresh green leafy products at various stages of production and distribution. The FDA also works closely with industry partners to develop and implement best practices for the production and handling of fresh green leafy products.
In conclusion, the US FDA has established guidelines for the acceptable percentage of bacterial pathogens in a production lot of fresh green leafy products to ensure the safety of consumers. These guidelines require that the percentage of E. coli and Salmonella in a lot be less than or equal to 5% to be considered acceptable. Consumers can also take steps to reduce the risk of foodborne illness by washing their hands and fresh produce thoroughly before eating.
References:
- FDA. (2013). Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/media/110895/download.
- FDA. (2022). Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Food Safety: Leafy Greens. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/communication/leafy-greens.html.
E. coli non-pathogenic vs. pathogenic strains
The Difference Between
Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a type of bacteria that is commonly found in the intestines of humans and animals.
Most strains of E. coli are harmless and even beneficial, aiding in digestion and producing vitamins. However, some strains of E. coli can cause illness, ranging from mild to severe.
What are the differences between non-pathogenic E. coli and enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) subspecies, including the "big six."
Non-pathogenic E. coli
Non-pathogenic E. coli are strains of E. coli that do not cause disease in humans or animals. These strains are often used in research laboratories as a model organism because they are easy to culture and manipulate. Non-pathogenic E. coli are also commonly found in the environment, such as in soil and water.
Non-pathogenic E. coli strains are characterized by their lack of virulence factors, which are the proteins and other molecules that enable pathogenic strains to cause disease. For example, non-pathogenic strains do not produce the Shiga toxin that is characteristic of EHEC and other pathogenic strains.
Enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC)
Enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) is a subset of pathogenic E. coli that can cause severe illness in humans. EHEC strains are characterized by their ability to produce Shiga toxin, which can cause symptoms such as bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and kidney failure. EHEC can be transmitted through contaminated food or water, as well as from person to person.
The "big six" EHEC strains are six (6) specific serotypes (or subspecies) of E. coli that are responsible for the majority of EHEC infections in the United States.
These serotypes include O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that clinical laboratories test for these "big six" EHEC strains when screening for E. coli infections.
These serotypes are responsible for the majority of EHEC infections and can cause severe illness.
Differences between non-pathogenic E. coli and EHEC
The main difference between non-pathogenic E. coli and EHEC is their ability to cause disease. Non-pathogenic strains do not produce the virulence factors necessary to cause illness, while EHEC strains produce Shiga toxin, which can cause severe symptoms.
Another difference is in their prevalence. Non-pathogenic E. coli are commonly found in the environment and do not pose a threat to human health.
In contrast, EHEC is a pathogenic strain that can cause serious illness and is a significant public health concern.
In conclusion, non-pathogenic E. coli and EHEC are two subsets of E. coli bacteria with distinct characteristics.
While non-pathogenic strains do not cause disease and are commonly found in the environment, EHEC strains produce Shiga toxin and can cause severe illness in humans. Understanding the differences between these two types of E. coli is important for preventing and controlling outbreaks of EHEC infections.
References:
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Escherichia coli (E. coli). https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/index.html
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Big Six. https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/foodborne-germs/big-six.html
- Mellies, J. L., & Kaper, J. B. (1998). Development of EHEC vaccines. Microbes and infection, 1(12), 1183-1188.
USDA determines acceptable salmonella percentage
10% Contamination is "Acceptable"
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has set acceptable levels of Salmonella contamination in chicken production lots. Salmonella is a common foodborne pathogen that can cause illness in humans if ingested.
According to the USDA, the acceptable level of Salmonella in chicken production lots is less than 10 percent. This means that no more than 10 percent of the samples taken from a production lot can test positive for Salmonella.
The USDA has implemented several programs to reduce Salmonella contamination in poultry products, including the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) program and the Salmonella Initiative Program (SIP).
Under the HACCP program, poultry processors are required to develop and implement a plan to prevent or reduce Salmonella contamination. This plan must include monitoring and testing of the product, as well as corrective actions if Salmonella is detected.
The SIP is a voluntary program that encourages poultry processors to take additional measures to reduce Salmonella contamination. These measures may include testing for Salmonella at various stages of production, implementing additional sanitation measures, and using interventions such as chemical washes or steam treatments.
The USDA regularly tests poultry products for Salmonella contamination, and any products that exceed the acceptable level of Salmonella are subject to recall.
Consumers can also take steps to reduce their risk of Salmonella infection by following safe food handling practices. This includes cooking poultry products to a safe internal temperature, washing hands and surfaces that come into contact with raw poultry, and avoiding cross-contamination between raw poultry and other foods.
References:
- United States Department of Agriculture. (2021). Salmonella Questions and Answers. Retrieved from https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/salmonella-questions-and-answers
- United States Department of Agriculture. (2021). Salmonella. Retrieved from https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/salmonella
- United States Department of Agriculture. (2021). HACCP. Retrieved from https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/haccp/hazard-analysis-and-critical-control-points-haccp
- United States Department of Agriculture. (2021). Salmonella Initiative Program. Retrieved from https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/salmonella/salmonella-initiative-program-sip
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Salmonella. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/index.html
verifying a third-party laboratory's credibility
Steps to verify:
- Check for accreditation: Look for the laboratory's accreditation from an independent third-party accreditation body such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) or the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). Accreditation ensures that the laboratory meets the required standards and is capable of performing accurate tests.
- Look for certifications: Check if the laboratory has certifications for the tests they perform. For instance, they may have certifications for testing food for Salmonella or Listeria.
- Check for proficiency testing: Find out if the laboratory participates in proficiency testing programs. Proficiency testing involves testing samples that are sent to the laboratory without the laboratory's knowledge. This helps to determine if the laboratory's results are accurate and reliable.
- Ask for references: Ask the laboratory to provide references from other food production companies they have worked with in the past. Contact these companies to ask about their experiences with the laboratory.
- Check online reviews: Search online for reviews of the laboratory. Look for feedback from other food production companies and read what they have to say about the laboratory's services.
- Check the laboratory's website: Look for information about the laboratory's quality assurance processes, their testing methods, and their staff's qualifications. You can also check if they have any case studies or success stories on their website.
Food Safety Managers Should Plan in Five (5) Year Budgets
Budget Strategically, Not Reactively
Project budget planning is crucial for the success of any business, including food production facilities. As a food safety manager, it is important to plan your budgets strategically, taking into consideration the long-term goals of the facility. While most project budgets are planned annually, there are several benefits to planning project budgets in five-year increments. This essay discusses why food safety managers in food production facilities should plan project budgets in five-year increments.
Reasons for Planning Project Budgets in Five-Year Increments:
Improved Long-Term Planning:
Planning project budgets in five-year increments enables food safety managers in food production facilities to focus on the long-term goals of the facility. This approach provides a more comprehensive perspective of the facility's future, allowing managers to align their financial planning with the company's strategic goals. It also helps facilities to plan for capital investments and major expenses that require long-term planning, such as equipment upgrades or facility expansions (National Institute of Food and Agriculture, 2021).
Better Resource Allocation:
Planning project budgets in five-year increments enables food safety managers to allocate resources more effectively. When managers have a clear idea of the facility's future goals, they can prioritize investments and allocate resources accordingly. This approach helps to prevent underfunding or overfunding of projects and ensures that resources are allocated based on the facility's long-term goals (Steele, 2020).
Enhanced Cost Control:
Planning project budgets in five-year increments helps food production facilities to control costs. When managers plan for long-term expenses, they can identify cost-saving opportunities and implement strategies to reduce expenses. This approach also helps to avoid the risk of sudden expenses that could derail the facility's financial planning. For example, investing in automated systems for food safety testing can reduce costs in the long run by reducing labor and material expenses (Gokmen, 2021).
Improved Financial Performance:
Planning project budgets in five-year increments helps food production facilities to improve their financial performance. When managers have a clear understanding of the facility's long-term goals, they can make more informed financial decisions that drive growth and profitability. This approach also helps to identify potential revenue streams and optimize the allocation of resources to maximize returns. For example, investing in new product development can help to expand the facility's product line and increase revenue (Gokmen, 2021).
Increased Compliance:
Planning project budgets in five-year increments helps food production facilities to ensure compliance with food safety regulations. When managers plan for long-term expenses, they can identify the resources required to meet regulatory requirements and allocate funds accordingly. This approach also helps to avoid the risk of non-compliance penalties, which can be costly and damaging to the facility's reputation (Food and Drug Administration, 2021).
Summary:
In conclusion, planning project budgets in five-year increments provides several benefits for food safety managers in food production facilities. It enables improved long-term planning, better resource allocation, enhanced cost control, improved financial performance, and increased compliance with food safety regulations. While it requires more significant upfront planning, the benefits of long-term budget planning are essential for the success of food production facilities and the safety of their products.
References:
Food and Drug Administration. (2021). Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma
Gokmen, G. (2021). The Effect of Budgeting on Firm Performance: Evidence from Turkish Companies. Journal of Business Research, 135, 595-607.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.010
National Institute of Food and Agriculture. (2021). Food Safety. Retrieved from https://nifa.usda.gov/program/food-safety
Contact
Andy Moreno, PhD
Bacterial Surveillance Systems Engineer
AME Certified PCR Laboratories
650-445-4115