Food Safety Magazine - June/July 2013

MICROBIAL TESTING
200
0
418.2 461.6 517.1 600.2 742.2
365.7
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Routine Pathogen
closer look, however, reveals deeper inconsistencies
that are concerning.
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Figure 2.
Geographic Differences
The general increase in food microbiological
testing as well as the more
dramatic increase in pathogen testing
is not consistent across the geographic
regions of North America (NA), Europe
(EU), Asia or other regions of the world
(ROW). In North America, pathogen
testing has grown at greater than 10 percent
for the past few years, whereas in
the EU, it has grown at half that rate.
In general, SCI research shows that
each geographic region has different
trends/drivers affecting growth, and
these factors combined with public
perceptions about food safety influence
testing practices in the region. Clearly,
it’s important to consider the geographic
source of food imports, as well as the
food segment, to determine further testing
requirements that should be added
to the process.
Microbiological testing by food segment
(protein, dairy, fruit/vegetable,
processed food) also varies around the
globe. The protein segment, which includes
beef, pork, chicken, fish and eggs,
represents 27 percent of overall microbiological
testing in the food industry but
more than 40 percent of total pathogen
testing. The dairy segment (fluid milk,
cheese and other dairy-based products)
represents 23 percent of total testing but
just 10 percent of pathogen testing.
As any examination of foodborne illnesses
demonstrates, problems can—and
do—occur in any of the food segments.
Over the past 20 years, the protein segment
has received the majority of publicity,
and the regulations and pathogen
testing levels reflect that fact. The low
levels of testing in some of the other
food segments might not make sense
given the increasing foodborne illness
events over the past few years.
Where food samples are collected is
another area of significant geographic
variation. Worldwide, 26 percent of all
food microbiology samples are collected
from raw materials, and 25 percent are
collected in-process and in-plant/environmental.
The remaining 49 percent ations more thoroughly. A recent U.S.
30%
of tests are collected from
Food
end products
Micro Tests
Centers
– Worldwide
for Disease Control and Prevention
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
1,000
prior
25%
to release. Sample collection
224.3
within 20% geographic 800 regions, and when Report (April 19, 2013) summarized the
looking only at pathogen tests, shows 1996–2012 trends in illness from pathogens
commonly transmitted through
15%
138.1
major differences 600 (Figure 2).
109.8
In 10%
96.5
North 58.0 America, just 83.3 8 percent of food. The report showed that after years
400
pathogen 5% samples are collected from of substantial declines, Campylobacter
raw materials, whereas in-process/environmental
sampling 365.7
418.2 461.6 517.1 infections had 600.2 increased to their highest
742.2
0% 200
Protein is much more Dairy aggressive
at 044 percent. In contrast, just 8 leading causes of bacterial foodborne
level since Fruit/Veg 2000, representing Processed one of the
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 NA2003 EU 2004 2005 Asia 2006 2007 ROW2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
percent of pathogen samples in Asia are illness for the period.
collected from in-process/environmental
sources, indicating Campylobacter that very different — Methods bacter in by 2013 Geography
is estimated at 4.6 million
Routine Pathogen
Yet global test volume for Campylo-
testing 100.0% philosophies Where are at Pathogen work. While Samples tests—just Are 2 percent Collected of total pathogen
Hazard 70.0% Analysis and Critical Control testing worldwide. In addition, only
80.0%
Points plans (and other programs) have 14 percent of food plants interviewed
60.0%
58.6%
been 60.0% at the heart of food 47.8% safety programs
in North 44.2% America for the past 20 lobacter. Not many 44.1% plants test for this
by SCI indicated they test for Campy-
50.0%
47.5%
49.9%
years,
40.0% 40.0%
it appears this is not yet the case pathogen, and when they do, it is at a
25.8%
29.6%
in China, 30.0% India and other Asian countries
20.0% interviewed.
15.6% isms.
8.0%
much lower rate than for other organ-
20.0%
20.5%
10.0%
A closer 8.4% look at the 14 percent of
NA EU Asia
The
0.0%
Campylobacter Example food plants testing for Campylobacter
Traditional
An examination NA
Convenience
of one pathogen, EU
Antibody
shows variations Asia
Molecular Automated
both by food ROWseg-
and End Product geographic region. In Campylobacter, will illustrate Raw Materials testing vari-IP/Envment North
(% of Plants Testing)
(000,000)
(% of Plants Testing)
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Figure 3.
Campylobacter — Testing by Food Segment
Protein Dairy Fruit/Veg Processed
NA EU Asia ROW
14 100.0%
F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e
80.0%
8.0%
Where Pathogen Samples Are Collected
47.8%
44.2%
15.6%
25.8%
58.6%
47.5%
8.4%
44.1%
29.6%
20.5%
NA EU Asia ROW
Raw Materials IP/Env End Product
Campylobacter — Testing by Food Segment
Campylobacter — Methods by Geography
49.9%