imca sampers phd student at the laboratory of food ...users.skynet.be/wavfh/wavfh_fsms.pdf ·...

Microbial assessment scheme to measure performance of a food safety

management system in sector of poultry meat preparations and relation to

Campylobacter contamination

Imca Sampers

PhD student at the

Laboratory of Food Microbiology and Food Preservation

Dept. Food Safety and Food Quality, Ghent [email protected] - www.foodmicrobiology.UGent.be

WAFVH – Campylobacter in pluimveevleesbereidingen – 27th November 2008 – Bornem

Imca Sampers - Laboratory of Food Microbiology and Food Preservation, Ghent University

Project Research team:

Prof. Dr. Mieke Uyttendaele, Dr. Liesbeth Jacxsens,

Imca Sampers

Ghent University – Faculty of Bioscience Engineering

Dr. Pieternel Luning

Product design and quality management groep – WUR –the Netherlands

Project technicians: Josefien Gousseau

Special thanks to Accreditation lab of LFMFP-UGent; An De Coen; Andréja Rajkovic and Jamal Kussaga.



Variability in Campylobacter

contamination between the companies:

‣ A high variability for Campylobacter contamination although all companies had a good documented and functional HACCP based system?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

SCM CM SCM SCM SCM CM M CM SCM SCM CM

Medium Medium Big Big Big Small Big Small Big Small Medium

A B C D E F G H I J K

Variability in Campylobacter contamination

between the 11 Belgian companies.

Variation in frequency distribution of Campylobacter

counts in chicken meat preparation samples over

companies D & I.

Log10 cfu/g

Frequency



Company profiling & microbiological

testing:

‣Even food under HACCP or hygiene codes may be unsafe!?

‣ Assessment of the status of current food safety managements performance is necessary to know the constraints / bottlenecks for best performances…

‣ The effectiveness of the Food Safety Management Systems (FSMS) was measured with diagnostic instrument. (UGent – WUR)



Product characteristics

Organisational characteristics

•Lack of technical workforce

•Variability in workforce composition

•Insufficiency operators competence

•Lack of commitment

•Deficiency of employee involvement

•Absence of formalisation

•Insufficiency information support

systems

Process characteristics

Environmental characteristics

Product

safety

Stakeholder

Requirements

Assurance

on product

safety

Food safety control system

Food safety assurance system



Company profiling

‣

‣ Company D: HACCP, BRCCompany I: HACCP, BRC, IFS

I D



Company profiling & microbiological

testing:

‣ Main difference:I D



The performance of a FSMS is basically expressed in

terms of low microbial numbers in the final products.

Evaluation of the performance of FSMS and

microbiological sampling in the flow of the company

was not only for Campylobacter, but the general

hygiene indicators were looked at.

MAS (microbial assessment scheme):

microbial analyses are used for different purposes to

obtain more in-depth performance of QA systems .





Sampling locations

-Raw material � intermediate � final product

�To control the operational performance (HACCP-QA)

-Environment & Hand hygiene

� to validate and verify cleaning and disinfection procedures

� to obtain information on the presence and incidence of micro-organisms, their distribution in relation to processing lines and thus on the risk of product contamination



CSL 1

CSL 2

CSL 3

CSL 4

CSL 5, 8

CSL 6, 9

CSL 7, 10



CSL 1

CSL 2

CSL 3

CSL 4

CSL 5, 8

CSL 6, 9

CSL 7, 10

CSL 5-10: 3 different sampling

moments on the same sampling

visit



CSL 1

CSL 2

CSL 3

CSL 4

CSL 5, 8

CSL 6, 9

CSL 7, 10

3 sampling visits



CSL 1

CSL 2

CSL 3

CSL 4

CSL 5, 8

CSL 6, 9

CSL 7, 10

In total 66 samples/company



Microbial analyses

Quantitative Qualitative

CSLTotal Count Entero-

bacteriaceae

E. coli Campylo-

bacter

L. monocyto-

genes

S. aureus Salmonella L. monocyto-

genes

1-4 x x x x x x x

5-7 x x x x x x x

8-10 x x x x

CSL 1 - 4: Destructive sampling

CSL 5 - 10: Non-destructive sampling (swab)



MAS chicken processing companies: resultsPathogens (Listeria monocytogenes / Salmonella/Campylobacter):

L. monocytogenes Salmonella

Company D ++ : Each visit from

raw material up to

end-product

+ : During visit 2 & 3:

one environmental

sample

++ : Each visit in the

end-product

+ : During visit 2:

environmental

Company I + : visit 3 in raw

material and minced

meat

++ : every visit:

environmental

-

This is not according the EU

regulation 2073/2005: absence in

10g (1/1/2006); absence in 25g

(1/1/2009)

Not according

the internal

guidelines of the

lab:

Absence in 25g

(tolerance <<

100/g)



MAS chicken processing companies: resultsPathogens (Listeria monocytogenes / Salmonella/Campylobacter):

Campylobacter spp.

0,00,51,01,52,02,53,03,54,04,5

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

CSL5T1

CSL5T2

CSL5T3

CSL6T1

CSL6T2

CSL6T3

CSL7T1

CSL7T2

CSL7T3

CSL8T1

CSL8T2

CSL8T3

CSL9T1

CSL9T2

CSL9T3

CSL10T1

CSL10T2

CSL10T3

sampling points

log c

fu/g Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

Campylobacter spp.

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

CSL5T1

CSL5T2

CSL5T3

CSL6T1

CSL6T2

CSL6T3

CSL7T1

CSL7T2

CSL7T3

CSL8T1

CSL8T2

CSL8T3

CSL9T1

CSL9T2

CSL9T3

CSL10T1

CSL10T2

CSL10T3

sampling points

log c

fu/g

(C

SL1-4

)

log c

fu/2

5cm

2 (C

SL5-1

0)

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

Company D

Company I

This is unsatisfactory

according a KB in

preparation: absence

in 0,01g for minced

meat samples



MAS chicken processing companies: results

CSL 1 – 4 (foodstuffs):Total count

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

CSL1 CSL2 CSL3 CSL4

sampling points

log c

fu/g Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

Company D

Enterobacteriaceae

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

CSL1 CSL2 CSL3 CSL4

sampling points

log c

fu/g Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

E. coli

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

CSL1 CSL2 CSL3 CSL4

sampling points

log c

fu/g Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

This is not satisfactory for the meat

preparations, but acceptable according the

EU regulation 2073/2005:

limits: m = 500 cfu/g; M = 5000 cfu/g

Follows the same trend




CSL 1 – 4 (foodstuffs):Total count

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

CSL1 CSL2 CSL3 CSL4

sampling points

log c

fu/g Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

Company I

Enterobacteriaceae

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

CSL1 CSL2 CSL3 CSL4

sampling points

log c

fu/g Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

E. coli

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

CSL1 CSL2 CSL3 CSL4

sampling points

log c

fu/g Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

This is satisfactory for the meat

preparations according the EU regulation

2073/2005:

limits: m = 500 cfu/g; M = 5000 cfu/g

No pure faecal contamination




CSL 5-10 (food contact materials):

Company D

Total count

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

CSL5T1 CSL5T2 CSL5T3 CSL6T1 CSL6T2 CSL6T3 CSL7T1 CSL7T2 CSL7T3

sampling points

log c

fu/2

5 c

m2

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

Total count

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0


sampling points

log c

fu/2

5 c

m2

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

Estimated values for

visit 1 for CSL 7

Company I





Company D Company I

Enterobacteriaceae

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0


sampling points

log

cfu

/25 c

m2

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

Enterobacteriaceae

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

CSL8T1

CSL8T2

CSL8T3

CSL9T1

CSL9T2

CSL9T3

CSL10T1

CSL10T2

CSL10T3

sampling points

log

cfu

/25 c

m2

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

Enterobacteriaceae

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0


sampling points

log

cfu

/25 c

m2

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

Enterobacteriaceae

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

CSL8T1

CSL8T2

CSL8T3

CSL9T1

CSL9T2

CSL9T3

CSL10T1

CSL10T2

CSL10T3

sampling points

log

cfu

/25 c

m2

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3





E. coli

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5


sampling points

log c

fu/2

5 c

m2

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

Company D Company I

E. coli

0,00,51,01,52,02,53,03,54,04,5

CSL8T1

CSL8T2

CSL8T3

CSL9T1

CSL9T2

CSL9T3

CSL10T1

CSL10T2

CSL10T3

sampling points

log c

fu/2

5 c

m2

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

E. coli

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0


sampling points

log

cfu

/25 c

m2

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

E. coli

0,00,51,01,52,02,53,03,54,04,5

CSL8T1

CSL8T2

CSL8T3

CSL9T1

CSL9T2

CSL9T3

CSL10T1

CSL10T2

CSL10T3

sampling points

log

cfu

/25 c

m2

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3




Microbial Safety Level Profile

�Campylobacter: O & E

� Salmonella: O

� L. monocytogenes: O

� TC: O & E

� E.coli/Enterobacteriacea: O

& E

� S. aureus: E

Company D

O: Operational factor

E: cleaning & disinfection

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

Level

Total mesophilic count S. aureus Enterobacteriaceae E. coli

L. monocytogenes Salmonella Campylobacter Remaining




Microbial Safety Level Profile

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

Level

Total mesophilic count S. aureus Enterobacteriaceae E. coli

L. monocytogenes Salmonella Campylobacter Remaining

Company I

�Campylobacter

� Salmonella

� L. monocytogenes: E

� TC: O & E

�E.coli: O

�Enterobacteriacea: E

� S. aureus

O: Operational factor

E: cleaning & disinfection



Conclusion

•Company D:‣ High microbial numbers all over the process.‣ A better management of the process line is necessary (operational performance).

‣ Followed by more time for and better GHP instead of corrective actions.

‣ Improvement must and can be made.•Company I:‣ Low microbial numbers in the final products � a high level of performance of the FSMS-system.

‣ Improvement can still be made on environmental control.



Conclusion

•The diagnostic instrument and the MAS enabled to show the pressures and bottlenecks of the FSMS-system (HACCP) in these two poultry processing companies.

•Systematically repeating of both systems learn the companies to validate (company D) and verify their system.

•Performance of FSMS level differed significantly between the two companies (MAS), but

→ start from raw materials (poultry carcasses) with high numbers (and prevalence) of campylobacters

→ the lack of any intervention step in the processing line may explain why still both companies provided chicken meat preparations with high prevalence (and numbers) of Campylobacter.

Expected results



Context FSMS FS

3

1

2

1

2

3

1

2

3

3=most dangerous 3=highest level 3=best performance

MASDiagnostic instrument

Results D



Context FSMS FS

3

1

2

1

2

3

1

2

3



1 - 2 1 - 2

Results I



Context FSMS FS

3

1

2

1

2

3

1

2

3



2 - 3



Thank you for your Thank you for your Thank you for your Thank you for your

attentionattentionattentionattention

Questions?

Comments?

imca sampers phd student at the laboratory of food ...users.skynet.be/wavfh/wavfh_fsms.pdf ·...

Documents