FOOD SAFETY IN GGC FLOUR MILLS

BY

TARANNUM AHMED

MSc (HONS) FOOD TECHNOLOGY

PGC (Mf. Mgmt),Canada

What Is Wheat?

• Wheat is a raw agricultural commodity. • Wheat grain is a staple food used to make flour for leavened, flat and steamed

breads, cookies, cakes, pasta, noodles and couscous, and for fermentation to make beer, alcohol, vodka or bio-fuel.

• The husk of the grain, separated when milling white flour, is bran. • During growth, harvest, and distribution it is naturally contaminated with

microorganisms from numerous sources, including soil, air, water, birds, rodents and insects.

• While milling will remove most (more than 90 percent) of the microbes but the resulting flour is still a raw agricultural commodity. There is no “kill step” in milling that will further reduce the level of microbes in flour.

• http://www.x-cd.com/opmillers/PaperSperber.pdf

Wheat: Wheat Kernel Structure

2.5%

14.5 %

83%

Types Of Wheat

• Hard wheats include the strong wheats of Canada (Manitoba) and the similar hard red spring (HRS) wheats of the US. They yield excellent bread-making flour because of their high quantity of protein ranges 12–15 % mainly in the form of Wet gluten (29-39%).

• Medium type is used for general purposes like bun, rolls and donuts having protein 9-12 % with wet gluten 27-30 %.

• Soft wheats, the major wheats grown in the UK, most of Europe, and Australia, result in flour producing less attractive bread than that achieved from strong wheats. The loaves are generally smaller, and the crumb has a less pleasing structure.

Soft wheats, however, possess excellent characteristics for the production of flour used in cake & biscuit manufacture.

Whole Grain Products

Physical Analysis of Wheat Stowage Examination

• When the vessel arrives in port, the inspection process usually begins with a stowage examination while the ship is still at anchor in the harbor. For the stowage examination , the inspection personnel go aboard the ship and enter the ship holds for checking the potential defects such as rust scale, insect infestation, oil sludge, and water.

Sampling

After passing the preliminary tests, the composite sample is divided into two portions of approximately 1,350 gm each: the work sample and the file sample. The work sample is used to determine the moisture and all grading factors. The file sample is maintained in a moisture-proof container at the lab. and is stored in a locked compartment after the inspection is completed. In the event there is any question regarding the quality of the grain, the file sample is available for review. A Boerner Divider is used in the laboratory to break down the representative sample into smaller sized portions for factor determinations. Each time grain passes through the divider, it divides the sample into two approx. equal portions.

Sample Inspection

Then, the inspector examines the sample for the insect & infestation. The inspector sieves the entire sample and performs a visual examination for live insects that fall through the sieve into the bottom pan.

During sampling, the inspector periodically examines the samples collected in the lab. for the objectionable odors. A portion of the wheat from the collection box is transferred into a sieve pan & smells the grain for unusual or unnatural odors.

Dockage

Large Material

Light Material

Small Material

This material consists of all matter that is lighter than, larger than, and smaller than wheat. The material removed by a dockage tester is readily separated

Carter Dockage Tester

Damage Kernels

Damaged Kernels

Kernels, pieces of wheat kernels, & other grains that are badly ground-damaged, badly weather-damaged, diseased, frost-damaged, germ-damaged, heat-damaged, insect-bored, mold-damaged, sprout-damaged, or otherwise materially damaged

Damaged kernels is a grade-determining factor and is composed of two categories:

1)heat damage

2)total damage.

Heat-damaged kernels are reported separately from all other types of kernel damage but are included in the total damage.

Insect damaged

midge damaged & sprouted

Damaged by Wheat Head Armyworm

Wheat Quality Factors

Parameters Acceptable Definition Effect on Wheat/Milling

Test

Weight 68 Bulk density measure; weight of a

specific volume of grain

Provides rough estimate of potential

flour yield

Damaged

Kernel 1-2 % Kernel defects due to heat, germ,

insect, frost, sprouting

Affects the appearance of flour,

increases, ash, decreases yield, or

decreases sanitary quality

Foreign

Material 0.5% All non-wheat material that remains

in a dockage and shrunken and

broken kernel free sample

Wheat must be cleaned of foreign

material before milling into flour, if not,

foreign material can decrease the

quality of flour

Shrunken

& Broken

Kernels

0.5% Broken or shrunken enough to go

through NO.2 sieve in carter

dockage tester

Must be removed before milling; sold

at a reduced cost in comparison to

flour

Dockage All non-wheat material that can be

removed from a sample using

approved procedures

Wheat must be cleaned of dockage

before it is milled into flour

Falling

Number 300 Sec

Minimum

Indicator of sprout damage and

flour’s ability to set up

Falling number <250 results in gummy

bread and flour unable to thicken in

gravies or soups

Kernel

Weight* 32 gm

minimum

Average weight of the individual

kernels

Kernel weight, along with moisture

effects protein

STANDARDS FOR WHEAT GRADING

Grade Designated

Foreign matter

(% by wt.)

Other

food grains

(% by wt.)

Other

wheats (% by wt.)

Damaged grains

(% by wt.)

Slightly

damaged grains

(% by wt.)

Immature

shriveled & Broken Grains

(% by wt.)

Weevilled Grains

(% by wt.)

I 1.0 1.6 5.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0

II 1.0 3.0 15.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0

III 1.0 6.0 20.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 6.0

IV 1.0 8.0 20.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING & MARKING) ACT, 1937 (AGMARK STANDARDS).

(Maximum limits of tolerance)

Codex Standard For Wheat And Durum Wheat

Parameter Wheat Durum Wheat

Moisture Max. 14.5% 14.5%

Organic extraneous matter, Maximum 1.5% 1.5%

Inorganic extraneous matter, Maximum 0.5% 0.5%

Test weight (wt. of a hundred liter volume expressed in Kg/hectoliter), Minimum 68 Kg/hl 70 Kg/hl

Shrunken & broken kernels, Maximum 5.0% 6.0%

Edible grains other than wheat and durum wheat, Maximum 2.0% 3.0%

Damaged kernels, Maximum 6.0% 4.0%

Insect bored kernels, Maximum 1.5% 2.5%

Filth (impurities of animal origin, including dead insects), Maximum 0.1% 0.1%

Ergot (Sclerotium of the fungus Claviceps purpurea), Maximum 0.05% 0.05%

Flow Diagram Of Milling Process

Wheat Receiving and Storage • Along each wheat shipment the COA , COC , Certificates of inspection,

health, radioactivity , Phytosanitary, pesticide residues, and origin are received from the supplier. CCP

• The accepted wheat is unloaded at the weigh bridge and on its way to the storage silos it undergoes:

1. The first cleaning phase where it passes through magnets to get rid of ferrous materials. CCP

2. Excess dust is also removed by aspiration before going to silo. PRP 3. Before storage the wheat gets fumigated in order to get rid of all forms

of live insects (Anon. 1993). OPRP 4. The wheat now stored in the silos for an uncertain time period it is still

respirating, it is important that the moisture content of the wheat should not be more than 14% and the store at temperature must below 20 -30 C by transfer from one silo to other silo to avoid unpleasant odor or moisture loss may happened (Anon. 1993).OPRP

Wheat Grain After Mechanical Cleaning

• In cleaning machine the grains are exposed to 70% of mechanical cleaning. The number of fungal spores on the cleaned grains are reduced almost twice in comparison to storage point.

• During the mechanical cleaning fungal spores are eliminated with dirt and dust stuck on the grain coat.

• The level of fungal contamination of the dried grain decreased to 21-35% during storage.

• Scourer functions: rubbing the grain to grain and grain to surface that will remove dirt and outer surface. OPRP

• Aspiration will take out this removed material. OPRP

Flour Milling Preparation Process

Cleaning :Powerful magnets, metal detectors and other machines are used to extract metal objects, stones and other grains such as barley, oats and small seeds from the wheat grain. Throughout the cleaning process, air currents are used to lift off dust and chaff. Conditioning with water softens the outer pericarp (bran) layer of the wheat and makes it easier to remove the floury endosperm during milling. Gristing: The cleaned and conditioned wheat is blended with other types of wheat in a process called gristing. This means using different types of wheat and mixing them in different proportions to make different kinds of flour. Occasionally, wheat gluten is added to increase the protein content of milled flours. Simplified flowchart of the

wheat milling process

Flour Milling Ingredients Incoming material P= Physical, B=biological C=chemicals

Raw Material Packing Material Dry ingredients Raw wheat Paper & Polythene bags Fortifying agents Water (Municipal)

Milling Cleaning House

• After gristing stage where different types of wheat is mixed in different proportions in order to produce the right quality flour. The wheat undergoes a cleaning process in order to get rid of foreign materials and impurities. OPRP

• Following various steps in cleaning are referred to as the cleaning house and involve a number of cleaning machinery. OPRP

1. Aspirators,

2. de-stoners,

3. combi-cleaners,

4. carter disks /treur cylinders (other grains like oats , barley removes)

5. Scourer beater and aspirator

The above machines and steps are used at various places and in different combinations varying from mill to mill, to get rid of foreign materials. CP

WHEAT CONDITIONING In TEMPERING BINS

• After cleaning , the wheat is transferred to tempering bins for extensive conditioning where water is added in order to facilitate the efficient separation of the endosperm from the bran (Anon.1993).

• water is added to bring the moisture within the kernel to about 15.5% (Anon. 1993). This conditioning phase usually takes place in two stages where 60% of the water is added during the first conditioning and 40% during the second conditioning phase (Anon. 1993). The lying time wheat is between 12-20 hours at ambient water temperatures and depend upon type of wheat and weather condition.

• Advantages of proper conditioning are a better flour product , less stress on the reduction rolls due to the mellowed endosperm, easily separation and removal of coarse bran and germ at first break hence reduce grain micro flora and consistent milling performance. OPRP

Objectives of Tempering or

Conditioning

1. Easy separation of bran from

the endosperm hence reduce the micro flora from of the grain

2. Mellowing of endosperm

3. Optimum sifting efficiency

4. Ensure appropriât moisture content in flour

5. Maximum flour extraction

Dampener Turbolizer

Courtesy of Buhler AG, Uzwil

The Milling Stages

Milling: The miller’s art lies in finely tuning a sequence of breaking, sifting and

rolling operations to achieve the desired colour & consistency of flour. Stage 1:

The grist is passed through a series of fluted 'break' rolls rotating at different speeds. These rolls are set so that they do not crush the wheat but shear it open, separating the white, inner portion from the outer skins (Coarse Bran). CCP

Stage 2: The various fragments of wheat grain are separated by being passed through a complex arrangement of sieves. White endosperm particles are channeled to a series of smooth 'reduction' rolls for final milling into white flour.

Coarser fractions of bran with endosperm still attached will go to a second break roll, with stages 1 and 2 being repeated until the flour, bran and wheat germ are completely separated. The result is 3 flour streams: 1. white flour stream 2. bran stream 3.wheat germ stream.

The whitest flours are produced from the early reduction rolls, with the flour getting less white on later rolls as the proportion of bran particles increases. Brown flour is a mixture of white flour and a portion of the other streams. To produce whole meal flour, all the streams must be blended back together.

Packing: The different flours are packaged and sent to the bakeries. The remainder is blended into wheat feed which is used for animal food.

Milling Process

• After the wheat was tempered for a couple of hours in the tempering bins, the wheat passes through a scourer and aspirator in order to remove any mud formed (Anon. 2004b).CCP –Reduction in micro flora by rubbing grain to grain friction and grain to rough wall and remainder is removed by aspiration process.

• After this last cleaning section, the wheat goes through to the first break roller

and first break scale.

• During the milling process, the endosperm is separated from the bran and the germ by breaking the kernel into smaller fragments (Mousia and Pandiella 2004)

• These break rolls are fluted rolls that was designed to break each grain into three

parts the endosperm, germ and bran. OPRP-Coarse bran & Germ removal

• A continuous process of grinding, conveying and sifting takes place whilst the endosperm is sent through reduction rolls, scales and sifters in order to reduce bran quantity and sizes to produce the final safe and quality flour product.

• The bran and wheat germ were also sifted into different streams and separated by sieves so that when the milling process is complete, these products are also separated and these risky portion are transferred for animal feed products.

Scourer & Aspirator

After the wheat was tempered for a couple of hours in the tempering bins,

the wheat passes through a scourer and aspirator in order to remove any

mud formed and matter (Anon. 2004b).OPRP

In Scourer process, micro flora is reduced by rubbing grain to grain friction

and grain to rough wall and remainder is removed by aspiration process

Aspirator,Courtesy of Buhler AG, UzwilScourer

Scourer : Courtesy of CIGI,C anada

Debranning Micro Flora Reduction Process-OPRP

• The aleurone layer refers to the most inner part of the bran layers closest to the endosperm was removed with the bran layers because it is very difficult to separate in milling processes.

• Debranning, removes the layers from the wheat grain from the outside inwards which means that the aleurone layer can remain attached to the endosperm (Mousia and Pandiella2004).

Advantages of the debranning system are:

• Improvements in the flour ash and colour

• Improved flour quality, more value-added food since the aleurone is used,

• Debranning reduces stress on the milling process, increases yield and reduces bran size (Mousia and Pandiella 2004).

• This system has proved that it efficiently removes the bran from the wheat kernel therefore improving the flour quality and reduce contamination lesser degree. The bread quality is affected in terms of colour, volume and texture (Mousia and Pandiella 2004).

• The presence of bran in the final product therefore can have a negative effect on the flour shelf life and stability during storage. (Mousia and Pandiella 2004).

Feed Screen

Abrasion Roll

Blower

Polishing Roll

Bran and Air

Discharge

Screw Feeder

Suction Fan

Finished Flour

• The result of the milling process is production of different types of flour depend on the variety of wheat as well as maximum % age of bran removal before the milling process.

• White bread flour is more refined because the maximum bran is separated from the rest of the grain and consider more safer than Brown bread flour.

• In whole wheat flour production the whole grain is used. • Brown flour has higher extraction rate than white bread flour

since it contains more bran content thus giving the flour a darker color and a stronger flavor and odor (Anon. 2004a; Anon. 2005e).

• In most of the milling process coarse bran is removed at 1st break stage and packed separately as animal feed

Factors Of Microbial Counts Found in a Flour Mill

Factors Of Microbial counts found in a flour mill are: 1. Initial counts in the grain from crop conditions 2. Milling practices 3. Post-milling handling, 4. moisture content of flour and storage conditions. Typical microbiological counts in flour are: 1. 1.5×104 for total aerobic count; 2. 200 count for coliforms; 3. 120 count for yeasts and 4. 800 count for moulds 5. • A weak but significant correlation has also been reported between the

total plate count and the moisture content of grain.

Level of fungal contamination of grain at flour-manufacture

• Grains in the storehouse before processing showed quite a high level of fungal contamination (15-30.5%) due to their moisture content.

• Fungal contamination decreased to 21% in dried grain samples with the decreasing moisture content.

• In cleaned grains due to the elimination of dirt and dust stuck on the grain coat, fungal contamination decreased almost twice (7.0%–15.0%) in comparison with grains in the storage before processing.

• High levels of mycotoxins producing fungi were found in grains during storage time and at the mechanical cleaning point at flour-manufacture.

Microbiological Profile of Flour The typical microbiological profile of flour is quite low (Table 1).

Composite of four publications (1, 2, 4, 6)

Organism n Geometric mean/g Upper limit/g

Total Aerobic Count 4888 15,000 300,000

Yeasts 1744 120 1200

Molds 5211 800 50,000

Coliforms 2951 200 20,000

Table 2. Incidence of indicator and pathogenic microorganisms in flour

Organisms n Sample Number Positive %

E. coli 3444 448 13

Staph.aureus 3126 1 0

Salmonella b 4360 47 1

*a Composite of five publications (1, 3, 4, 5, 6) *b 25-gram samples

Acceptable Quality Limits

Flour Not Sensitive Ingredient For Microbial Contamination

• Flour is typically not consumed in its raw state. The customer or consumer either bakes of cooks the flour as an ingredient in a more complex food. These processes are very effective kill steps for Salmonella and other vegetative bacterial cells.

• Furthermore, foodborne illnesses have not been attributed to flour. For this reason, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not consider flour to be a “sensitive ingredient” for Salmonella or other microbiological contamination.

• However, the presence at a low incidence of pathogens in a raw agricultural food is not necessarily a food safety concern.

• In particular, such a presence in flour does not present a public health risk.

Basic PRP

Following Pre-requisite programs should be in place before HACCP implementation :

• Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP),

• Good Agricultural Practices (GAP),

• Good Hygiene Practices (GHP) i.e cleaning and sanitation

• Good Laboratory Practices (GLP)

• Pest Control

• Control of operation: temperature and time is critical to the safety of the food

• Storage, packaging, distribution and transportation

• Maintenance,

• Training

• If HACCP is implemented before the pre-requisite programs are in place, it could lead to a complicated HACCP system with too much critical control points (Mitchell 1992).

• Of all these pre-requisite programs the Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Good

Hygiene Practices (GHP) are the most important and should be documented, monitored,

confirmed and reviewed frequently.

• If these practices are well-developed and frequent auditing shows consistency, the food safety plan (in this case the HACCP plan), is noticeably simplified.

Food Safety In Flour Mills

• The flour milling industry is considered a low risk area within the food handling enterprises since the flour is produced in controlled milling process condition where most of the food safety risks are covered during flour production process.

• Secondly has low moisture and is mainly used for baking purposes • However there are pathogens that produce toxins that can be heat

stable and can cause illness even after the product has been baked such as Bacillus and Staphylococcus species.

• In some cases the flour does not undergo heat treatment (cooking or baking) for example, flour used for candy coatings and in such cases consumers are at risk of contracting food poisoning.

• In other cases where the flour are used in sauces, the heat treatment sometimes are not at the extreme and the chance that the micro-organisms are no t killed off completely, exist.

Flour Milling Food Safety objectives

• To develop pre-requisite programs for the flour milling industry;

• To develop a generic flow diagram; • To conduct a hazard analysis; • To identify the critical control points; • To identify the critical limits; • To identify monitoring and verification

procedures; • To investigate the microbial safety of wheat and

flour.

Product description

1. Product name Wheat flour 2. Important product characteristics Total microbial count 50000/g

end product 3. How the product is to be used Normally fortified

4. Packaging Sealed polythene /Paper bags (I,2,5kg)

5. Shelf-life 6 month at retail shelf 6. Where the product will be sold Retail, commercial bakeries &

food service. 7. Labeling instructions Shows product storage &

safety. 8. Special distribution control No physical damage, excess

humidity or temperature

Flour Milling Hazards and Controls

Hazards

Type

Control Measures

Glass, stones, sticks, metal, bone, wood,

grains, plastic, rubber ,straw, dust, hair, sand

,mud balls, paint flakings, insects: grain

weevils, grain borers, grain moths, flour and

grain beetles, rodents, insulation material, fruit

pits (Forsythe 2002)

Physical Preliminary cleaning, aspiration, removal of un

millable material, intermediate cleaning,

cleaning house: aspirator ,separator, combinator,

combi-cleaners, de-stoner,carter disk, treur

cylinder, scourer, magnets, metal detectors, pest

control program

Residues of pesticides or heavy metals due to

industrial pollution of the environment. Chemical Wheat grading specifications

Micro-organisms:

Aspergillus spp. Penicillium spp (can produce mycotoxin as by product) Fusarium graminearum

(produce vomitoxin / deoxynivalenol / DON)

Bacillus spp. (Mills and Pedersen 1992)

Biological Store grain in a dry place, aerate if possible, control temperature and moisture condition, temperature should not exceed 25 C, moisture should not exceed grading specifications

(13 -14%) %), aw should be <0.90 to prevent

Fusarium from growing and producing DON/NIV

(Hope and Magan)

Control Measures

• Control measures to minimize the presence of moulds and mycotoxins should be implemented at the grain handling, transportation, storage and milling stages.

• No report comparing overall microbial load in wheat and its relationship to quality parameters available. This limits our ability

to provide solid technical evidence of acceptable limits of bacteria, yeasts and moulds.

• For this an additional data is required that can help to (I ) establish defines normal microbial loads in wheat shipments, (ii) verify authenticity/reliability of microbial counts (iii) identify factors contributing to high counts (iv) evaluate the relative contribution of wheat to the health hazard

risk associated with baked products.

Flour as a Carrier

• In certain specialized circumstances, customers may want to use flour in an application that has no kill step, such as baking.

• Such circumstances include the use of flour as a carrier for nutraceuticals, pharmaceuticals, spices, or flavors; or as a bulking/caloric agent in dried mixes, including geriatric and infant foods.

• In these cases, the flour must be pretreated to eliminate the possibility of pathogen contamination.

• If such a treatment is not practical, flour should not be used for such specialized purposes.

Free final product

• High-grade flour are free from Aspergillus, Penicillium and Fusarium contamination

• The grinding process under several-sequence mills and through sieves eliminates the fungal spores with bran from grain covers.

• It is found that supreme-grade flour is safe for

consumption since there is no possibility of mycotoxins production.

CCP: At Receiving The hazards associated with the CCP namely receiving are

physical , chemical and biological

• In order to verify whether the above mentioned step in the process is a critical control point, Yes

• Whether control measures exist at this specific stage. The answer to this question is yes

The COA,CAC, physical and chemical analysis report and certificate of Origin from the supplier and preloading and unloading inspection reports,

• Secondly the question is raised whether that step is specifically enough to eliminate or reduce the occurrence of the hazard to an acceptable level. Yes

• Therefore the grain receiving could be regarded as a CCP.

CCP: At Conditioning

• The hazards associated with the CCP namely conditioning stage before milling are mud, moisture contents and micro flora

• In order to verify whether the above mentioned step in the process is a critical control point, Yes

• Whether control measures exist at this specific stage. The answer to this question is yes cleaned water addition, specific moisture content, controlled temperature and time, scourer and aspirator, peeler (In GCC) and turbulizer system are in place.

• The question is raised whether these operational steps are specifically designed to eliminate or reduce the occurrence of the hazard to an acceptable level. Yes

• Most of the mud and dirt will be removed during this process

Milling Process CCP – Rebolt sifter, metal detector and impactor before

packaging • The physical hazards associated with the CCP namely the rebolt sifter, metal

detector and impactor before packaging, are insects, insect eggs and metal pieces.

• In order to verify whether the above mentioned step in the process is a critical control point, Yes

• Whether control measures exist at this specific stage. The answer to this question is yes because a rebolt sifter, metal detector and impactor system are in place.

• Secondly the question is raised whether that step is specifically designed to eliminate or reduce the occurrence of the hazard to an acceptable level. Yes

• Any living forms of insects will be removed by the rebolt sifter that might have escaped the other methods of detection.

• The impactor after a rebolt sifter assures that any form of insect that passed through a damaged rebolt sifter sieve, will be destroyed and the metal detector will give an indication of the presence of metal.

• Therefore the rebolt sifter, metal detector and impactor systems could be regarded as a CCP.

CCP – Rebolt sifter, metal detector and impactor before packaging

• The person in charge of packing department or a designated responsible person should check :

1. the redress tailings of the rebolt sifter for signs of infestation or sieves being broken.

2. Act accordingly and replace broken sieves

3. Regular challenge tests on the metal detectors should also take place on a regular basis.

4. The metal detector should be replaced as soon as it is found that it is faulty.

HACCP SYSTEM Development

CCP Hazards Critical limits Corrective

Actions Verification Records

Wheat Receiving

Physical,

microbiological,

chemical and

biological

No sign of chemical,

biological or microbial

or physical damaged

product

COA, COC, Health and

pytocenitary , and

inspection certificate,

Third party analysis for

confirmation

Copies of all the

certificate from the

suppliers

Wheat Conditioning

Physical and

microbiologial As per set standards

Turbulizer, peeler,

scourer and aspirator in

order to remove skin

,dust and mud to reduce

bacterial count

Microbiological analysis

report Analysis reports

Milling and Packaging stages: Rebolt sifter,

Physical

Hazards

infestation of

insects and

insect eggs,

metallic pieces

No signs of infestation.

Zero tolerance.

metal detector and

impactor before

packaging. Stop

production. Replace

sieves. Fumigation.

Sterilator.

Final product testing.

HACCP plan review.

Challenge tests.

Tailings report. Metal

detector log charts

The End

Thanks

Any Question?

References

• Bas, M., Ersun, A.S. and Kivanc, G. (2004). Implementation of HACCP and prerequisite programs in food businesses in Turkey. Food Control, In Press.

• Billy, T.J. (2002). HACCP a work in progress. Food Control, 13 (6-7), 359-362.

• DeWaal, C.S. (2003). Safe food from a consumer perspective. Food Control, 14 (2), 75-79.

• Heggum, C. (2001). Trends in hygiene management – the dairy sector example. Food Control, 12 (4), 241-246.

• Mead, P.S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L.F., Bresee, J.S., Shapiro, C., Griffin, P.M.,and Tauxe, R.F. (1999). Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerg Infec Dis, 5 (5), 607-625.

• Mortimore, S. and Wallace, C. (1995). HACCP: A practical approach. London: Chapman and Hall.

• National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for foods. (1998). Hazard analysis and critical control point principles and application guidelines. J Food Prot, 61(6),762-775.

• Sperber, W.H. (2005). HACCP does not work from farm to table. Food Control, 16 (6), 511-514.

• Sun, Y.M. and Ockerman, H.W. (2005). A review of the needs and current applications of hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) system in foodservice areas. Food Control, 16 (4), 325-332.

• Todd, E.C.D. (1989). Preliminary estimates of costs of food-borne disease in the United States. J Food Prot, 52, 595-601.

• Trujillo, A.J. (2000). Cereal food industry: Are you HACCP ready? Cereal Foods World, 45 (4), 157-160.

• Untermann, F. (1999). Food safety management and misinterpretation of HACCP. Food Control, 10 (3), 161-167.

• Uys, R. (2000). The benefits of the hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP)

• system in the fishing industry. M.Sc Thesis.

• Youn, S.M.S. and Sneed, J. (2003). Implementation of HACCP and prerequisite programs in school foodservice. J Am Diet Assoc, 103 (1), 55-60.

• Wallace, C. and Williams, T. (2001). Pre-requisites: a help or a hindrance to HACCP? Food Control, 12 (4), 235-240.

• Walker, E., Pritchard, C. and Forsythe, S. (2003). Hazard analysis critical control point and prerequisite programm implementation in small and medium size food businesses. Food Control, 14 (3), 169-174. (Slide#39)

REFERENCES

• 1. Richter, K. S., E. Dorneanu, K. M. Eskridge, and C. S. Rao. 1993.Microbiological quality of flours. Cereal Foods World 38 (5): 367-369.

• 2. Cicognani, G., C. Pedretti, and A. Cerrato. 1975. Microbiological characteristics

of wheat flours. Industrie Alimentari 14: 60-64.

• 3. Pozo, E. del., V. Leyva, O. Perez, M. delos Reyes, and Y. Ferrer. 2000. Detection

of Salmonella in feed for laying hens. Alimentaria 37 (316): 93-97

• 4. Eiroa, M. N. U., L. Freitas, L Ferreira, and P., Vitti. 1975. Microbiological

characterization of flours and starches. Coletanea—Inst. De Tecnol.de Alimentos

6 (2): 459-473.

• 5. Sperber, W. H. 2001. Personal communication.

• 6. Kehl, B. and W. Bostel. 1999. Examination of the current sanitary condition in

milled wheat products of the pasta industry. Getreide Mehl und Brot 53 (4): 242-

248.

References

1. Richard-Molard, D. 1994. The microbiology of cereals and flours. Chapter 2 (pp. 143-154) in: Primary Cereal Processing; A Comprehensive Sourcebook. B. Godon and C. Willm (Eds.), VCH Publ. Inc., New York, NY.

2. Fung, D.Y.C. 1995. Microbiological considerations in freezing and refrigeration of bakery foods. Chapter 6 (pp. 119-133) in: Frozen and Refrigerated Doughs and Batters. K. Kulp, K. Lorenz and J. Brummer (Eds.), American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN.

3. Kotsianis, I.S., V. Giannou and C. Tzia. 2002. Production and packaging of bakery products using MAP technology. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 13:319-324.

4. Gelinas, P. 2003. Flour know-how? Bakers Journal 63(7): 14-15, 66. 5. Sperber, W.H. 2003. Microbiology of milled cereal grains: Issues in

customer specifications. Technical Bulletin of the IAOM. 3(6): 7929-7931.

References

6. Manthey, F.A., C.E. Wolf-Hall, S. Yalla, C. Vijayakumar and D. Carlson 2004. Microbial loads, mycotoxins and quality of durum wheat from the 2001 harvest of the Northern Plains Region, USA. J Food Protection 67(4): 772-780.

7. Dale, H. 2003. Microbial threats in the bakery. International Food Hygiene 14(1): 9-10.

8. Smith, J.P., D.P. Daifas, W. El-Khoury and J. Koukoutsis. 2002. Foodborne illnesses associated with bakery products. Technical Bulletin of the American Institute of Baking. 24(4) 1-11.

9. Smith, J.P., D. Phillips Daifas, W. El-Khoury and J.W. Austin. 2003. Microbial safety of bakery products. Chapter 1 (pp. 3-33) in: The Microbial Safety of Minimally Processed Foods, J.S. Novak, G.M. Sapers and V.K. Juneja (Eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

10. Canadian Food Inspection Agency web site. Food Recalls. Last accessed 30 January 2004 at: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/englush/corpaffr/recarapp/recaltoce.shtml

• Dr. Mingwei Wang ,Technical Specialist, Baking Technology ,CIGI,Canada • Gordon R. Carson ,Director, Cereal Technology ,November 27, 2005