Food Safety Magazine - June/July 2013

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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%
(% of P 10% 5% 0% Protein Dairy Fruit/Veg Processed NA EU Asia ROW MICROBIAL TESTING 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% Campylobacter — Methods by Geography geneous. There are important variations by organism, by food segment, by geographic region, by where samples are collected and by the method used for analysis. Given these inconsistencies, how do we consistently keep our food safe? The best way to start is to acknowledge and understand the variances and then use that knowledge to specify and require that all inputs to your product be monitored using a well-defined, consistent and clearly documented approach. As we know, problems can occur even at factories utilizing optimum food testing programs. Given this, it is imperative to minimize the risks associated with the testing variances that exist globally. • 20.0% 0.0% Figure 4. NA EU Asia Traditional Convenience Antibody Molecular Automated America, 25 percent of protein plants test for Campylobacter, but no other food segment tests for this pathogen. In Asia, however, every food segment but fruit/ vegetable tests for the organism (Figure 3). Across those plants testing for Campylobacter, the test methods vary regionally. In total, 76 percent of Campylobacter tests worldwide are performed using traditional culture methods, with the next leading analytical method, antibody-based tests, representing just 12 percent of test volume. On a geographic basis, Asian plants use only traditional methods for Campylobacter analysis, and in the EU, only traditional and antibody-based methods are used. In North America, the majority of analysis is done with newer, rapid methods. The regional variation in test methods seen for Campylobacter is like that seen with other pathogen test methods. Different methods can result in different food safety decisions since method-to-method equivalency is not always perfect (Figure 4). In spite of the increasing incidence of foodborne illness from Campylobacter, it appears that minimal pathogen-specific testing is done for the organism. Even when Campylobacter testing is done, there are considerable differences among the geographic regions, food segments and where samples are collected. If we were to draw one overall conclusion about global food pathogen testing practices, it would be that food testing worldwide is far from homo- Tom Weschler is president and founder of Strategic Consulting Inc. Over his 30-year career in international industrial management, he has created, implemented and redirected numerous businesses, with demonstrable successes in venture capital-backed start-ups, publicly traded companies, transformation of underachieving companies and technology acquisitions. He can be reached at 802.457.9933 or weschler@strategic-consult.com. Reference 1. Strategic Consulting Inc., 2013. Food Micro, Eighth Edition: Microbiology Testing in the Global Food Industry. www.strategic-consult.com. J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 3 15
Page 2 and 3: Make Grainger Your Lab Partner >Wid
Page 4 and 5: June/July 2013 Vol. 19, No. 3 FEATU
Page 6 and 7: Editor’s Letter Taking Care of Yo
Page 8 and 9: News Bites FSIS Updates Directive o
Page 10 and 11: Steve Taylor, Ph.D., Receives Food
Page 12 and 13: MICROBIAL TESTING By Tom Weschler C
Page 16 and 17: Process control By Richard F. Stier
Page 18 and 19: Process control MANAGEMENT COMMITME
Page 20 and 21: Process control list. This allows t
Page 22 and 23: Testing By Joseph L. Baumert, Ph.D.
Page 24 and 25: Testing are not well suited to rout
Page 26 and 27: genetically modified foods By Mauri
Page 28 and 29: SANITATION By Ewen C. D. Todd, Ph.D
Page 30 and 31: SANITATION ceilings; the main reaso
Page 32 and 33: SANITATION floors and knife racks)
Page 34 and 35: SANITATION remained unchanged at 0.
Page 36 and 37: Creating a Culture By Geoff Schaadt
Page 38 and 39: The Atlas ® System. Fully automate
Page 40: Changing Culture Anyone who gives c
Page 44 and 45: ally kill a change effort even if i
Page 46 and 47: MEAT By Emily Meredith and Christop
Page 48 and 49: MeAT Safety.” Although the articl
Page 50: MEAT for food. The legislation, ent
Page 53 and 54: as little as 22 hrs.
Page 55 and 56: REGULATIONS FSMA gives FDA broad ne
Page 57 and 58: REGULATIONS uled and held a series
Page 59 and 60: HACCP Management. Redefined. The ne
Page 61 and 62: PRODUCE the Harmonized Standards fi
Page 63 and 64: PRODUCE Fruit and Vegetable NIG as
Page 65 and 66:
Get concentrated processing informa
Page 67 and 68:
JOIN US! 127th AOAC Annual Meeting
Page 69 and 70:
Viscometer Brookfield Engineering L
Page 71 and 72:
Choose Confidence Choose Confidence
Page 73 and 74:
One Destination. Global Connections
Page 75 and 76:
Advertisers Index Advanced Instrume
show all

Food Safety Magazine - June/July 2013

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?