SANITATIONBy Sri Pfuntner, M.Sc.Raw Produce Field Samplingfor Biological RisksMitigating biological risk ispossible with early samplingof produce in the fieldAprimary requirement for a comprehensivefood safety management system for rawproduce is the verification and validationof certain processing steps. The method ofverification and validation is often achievedby testing a multitude of criteria, benchmarks or specificationsnecessitated by the process in question. Whentesting is needed, sampling is a required and essential firststep. Regardless if the verification or validation of theseprocessing steps is process control points or Critical ControlPoints, the fact remains that if a sample is not takenwith a specific objective or purpose in mind, the test andthe subsequent analytical result may be misleading, notrepresentative and/or meaningless altogether.We’re not going to discuss the merits or disadvantagesof testing. What we are here to discuss is that, too often,when testing is needed, sampling or the sampling processis not deliberated, not considered and generally overlooked.Hence, sampling may become the weakest linkin this important analytical chain. The weakness is thatan analytical testing method may address the “who, whatand why” for a sample but not necessarily the “where,when and how” to sample. Not knowing the “where,when and how” for a sample may lead to inaccuracies,errors and confusion in interpreting the analytical result.Testing results or analytics are like audits: they aresnapshots in time. As with audits, the depth, magnitudeand frequency of sampling, and thus the analytics, mayprovide one with a justifiable representation of how robusta food safety management system is and how safethe end product will be. It stands to reasonthat the larger the size and the morefrequently the samples are taken, themore accurate the resulting interpretationswill be. Unfortunately, a samplingand testing plan of intense frequency,depth and magnitude, while beneficial, isusually quite cost prohibitive.In the BeginningLet’s start with the end result in mind.As we know, food safety risks can be dividedinto three major categories: physicalrisks, chemical risks and biologicalrisks. One method of monitoring theserisks is to rely on a testing program toobtain analytical results for the variousrisk variables that may be controlled byprerequisite steps or by one or more killsteps. Assuming that we know what typeof analyte we wish to test for, the immediatequestion should be: How do wesample the process, product or commodityto provide the most representativesnapshot and, thus, the most representativeresult for the analyte in question?Let’s evaluate the above question byreviewing how the three food safety riskcategories most often manifest in processes.It can be safely said that physicaland chemical risks or contamination usuallyoccur with much more homogeneityin processes than do biological risks.Biological risks, however, are knownto be sporadic and difficult to isolate.Immediately, we realize that samplingfor biological risks will be like samplingfor the proverbial needle in a haystack.It also stands to reason that it wouldbe much easier to find a negative biologicalanalytical result than a positivebiological result, which, unfortunately,may encourage a false sense of security.While we can sample for physical andchemical risks by following a statisticaland/or a random number-generator samplingplan, sampling for biological risksis much more challenging. For example,the common Z-pattern field-sampling20 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e
SANITATIONapproach, 1, 2 while effective for pest managementand thus chemical residue sampling,may not be sufficient to samplefor a biological risk. That said, how doesone approach field sampling for biologicalpathogens? Before we answer thisquestion, let’s explore other considerations.Sampling with a Purpose:The Why, Where and WhenAs the title indicates, one shouldsample raw produce fields with a purpose.That is, why do we sample? Thereare two reasons: We sample either formonitoring purposes or for forensicpurposes (such as when we encountera recall issue). Either purpose requiresconsideration of the federal Reportable<strong>Food</strong> Registry reporting requirements,which is a federal mandate to report anyfoodborne pathogen found on a productdestined for consumption that is in thechannels of trade and not within theproducer’s complete control to mitigatefurther distribution. If one wants to testand sample for a foodborne pathogen,regardless of where the product or theprocess affecting the product is withinthe supply chain, it is advisable to have apositive release policy in place to ensurethat the product does not enter the channelsof trade should a contaminant ofsome type be encountered.Keeping this mandate in mind, wenow know the when to sample, whichis at the time we still have completecontrol of the distribution of all itemsproduced. If we do not have completecontrol of the distribution of all itemsproduced, we need to step farther backin the process and reconsider where tosample. Perhaps we must sample muchearlier in the process or supply chain todetermine and understand the baselinerisk of distribution control. Thus, thewhen to sample is at the point of completecontrol of product distribution,and the where to sample is at the earliestpoint in this production process. Thereason it is important to sample at thepoint of complete distribution controlis when the purpose of sampling is toanalyze for foodborne pathogens. Inthat case, it is recommended to enforcea positive release policy to lessen theaccidental distribution of contaminatedproduct entering the supply chain andthe channels of trade. Thus, sampling atthe point of distribution control enablesone to implement a positive release policy.Combining the when and the whereconsiderations isolates the field samplingprocess as close to the harvest event aspossible while providing sufficient timefor laboratory results turnaround so asnot to delay harvest plans, to still havecontrol of product distribution, and,hence, to reduce the possibility of contaminatedproduct entering the channelsof trade.The AIB<strong>Food</strong> Protection AdvantageLet AIB provide the INTEGRATEDsingle-source solution to your <strong>Food</strong>Protection needs.Leverage the synergies of the best global <strong>Food</strong>Protection products and services to lower your risk andprotect your company’s brands800-633-5137www.aibonline.orgF e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 21
- Page 4 and 5: February/March 2013Vol. 19, No. 1FE
- Page 6: Editor’s LetterWe at Food Safety
- Page 10 and 11: USDA Seeks Comments on ProposedFroz
- Page 12: TestingBy Katerina Mastovska, Ph.D.
- Page 15 and 16: Testingheat treatment, the toxins c
- Page 17 and 18: staying connectedto your data hasne
- Page 19: PROCESS CONTROL1. Scope2. Normative
- Page 23 and 24: SANITATIONis a matter of legal liab
- Page 25 and 26: Accreditationment undertaken by the
- Page 27 and 28: AccreditationFood Microbiological L
- Page 29 and 30: MANAGEMENTcertain spices. As no acc
- Page 31 and 32: MANAGEMENTtook so long to be resolv
- Page 33 and 34: Choose ConfidenceChoose Confidence
- Page 35 and 36: Special advertising supplement pres
- Page 37 and 38: AccuracyQualitySafetyHACCP Monitori
- Page 39 and 40: THE SANITARY CHOICEFOR FOOD SAFETYT
- Page 41 and 42: Specialists in Food & BeverageSampl
- Page 44 and 45: PACKAGING(continued from page 34)fo
- Page 46 and 47: Animal Welfareand Food SafetyBy F.
- Page 48 and 49: Animals versus PlantsBefore discuss
- Page 50 and 51: Percent (between 0 to 1) / $100 spe
- Page 52 and 53: Despite developments in traceabilit
- Page 54 and 55: INGREDIENTSBy Rupa Das, M.Sc.Qualit
- Page 56 and 57: SEAFOODBy Gary P. Richards, Ph.D.,
- Page 58 and 59: SEAFOODfoods is essential to reduci
- Page 60 and 61: SEAFOOD(infectious and noninfectiou
- Page 62 and 63: Product ShowcaseShelf-Life Extender
- Page 64 and 65: Coupler BrakeForce Control Industri
- Page 66 and 67: Advertisers IndexAdvanced Instrumen
- Page 68 and 69: Allergens LabeledSanitation Verifie
- Page 70 and 71:
Solutions for Today,Planning for To
- Page 72 and 73:
keynote theatre special events2013
- Page 74 and 75:
WORKSHOPS • TUESDAY, APRIL 30WORK
- Page 76 and 77:
Sessions • WednESDAY, May 1SESSIO
- Page 78 and 79:
Sessions • WednESDAY, May 1SESSIO
- Page 80 and 81:
Sessions • ThurSDAY, May 2SESSION
- Page 82 and 83:
Exhibit hall — where solutions ar
- Page 84:
155 N. Pfingsten Rd., Suite 205Deer