21 replies to this topic

[carmel39]

I work in a meat processing plant, and the latest micro lab result shows E. Coli present on raw chicken fillets. It is around 40cfu/g on them all. I am new to the job, but I assume this is a cross contamination issue? We process chicken, beef and pork in the same room.


What would be the best corrective action to take here? I cannot re-sample the same product, as there is such a short shelf life the chicken from this batch is gone already.


Am I right in thinking this is primarily down to poor cleaning/hygiene on the staff who handled this product?

[Martinblue]

if other samples are with in limits e.g pork and beef then it might have come from your supplier.

[Hygienist]

If you have approved suppliers for your items, then cross contamination could be one of the factors of having the E coli on the chicken.
In that case:
*a color coding policy should be in place for knives and utensils for each product / specie.
*If you are using the same machine, there should be a validated sanitation program in between change of specie for the said machine.

[Hygienist]

If you have approved suppliers for your items, then cross contamination could be one of the factors of having the E coli on the chicken.
In that case:
* I suggest to have proper provision on personal hygiene, a checklist perhaps before the start of production..

IF in case contamination also came from other sources,
(*a color coding policy should be in place for knives and utensils for each product / specie.
*If you are using the same machine, there should be a validated sanitation program in between change of specie for the said machine.)

[Marco]

Hello Carmel39,

An immediate CA would be to sample and test raw material (it may be worth dong on all of them so you get a better idea where it may come from should this be the case), clean and verify cleaning of machinery/utensils used and maybe also swab staff hands and some environment sampling.

Afterwards I would look at validating your cleaning procedures when changing from one specie to another and using colour coded utensils as mentioned in other posts, re-train staff in hygiene and working procedures, reviewing process/product flow, environmental barriers etc..

Regards
Marco

[YFoodSafety]

You should test workers hand swabs, received raw chicken and other species meat. I think that the main E. coli source in this case is the hands of workers as it is an indicator of fecal pollution.
So, you should train all staff in personal hygiene and sanitation, working procedures and reviewing process/product flow. Also, if possible you can make a suitable partition to separate each processing line.
Best wishes.
Youssef

[Charles.C]

Dear carmel,

Personally, in view of the well-known characteristics of chicken vis-a-vis Salmonella, I would hv been more surprised if the E.coli result was consistently negative.

Presumably yr company hv a specification for E.coli on incoming raw materials ? And similarly for the finished product?. Presumably also not maximum zero?

Any significance may also relate to the variation of yr / previous results / other proximate items, eg product daily levels / supplier/ (worker?)

Rgds / Charles.C

[YFoodSafety]

Dear Dr Charles
Good Judge

[carmel39]

Thanks for all the replies.

I have swabbed the area, hands and knives. We use colour coded knives, and there is a dedicated area just for chicken. Our spec for E. Coli is less than 50 little m, and 500 M.

[Charles.C]

Dear carmel,

At least the values you first mention are inside yr first level. . But is this spec. for finished product or ?? Similarly, are yr original numbers also from the end of the process, ie packed product or ? And is yr raw material whole chicken, pork, beef ? (more chance of contamination)

How about same stage data on other days ?

The usual approach is to construct a (representative / average) microbiological map along the chain. The APC, E.coli etc should be seen to decrease. Obviously if data starts low then shoots up, the problem is likely on yr line, eg temp.control, cross-contamination from XYZ as discussed previously. Any expected decrease will also depend on the actual process steps, eg anti-bacterial treatments etc but, at least, the end should not be significantly higher than the beginning.

Rgds / Charles.C

[hygienic]

Dear carmel,

Personally, in view of the well-known characteristics of chicken vis-a-vis Salmonella, I would hv been more surprised if the E.coli result was consistently negative.

Presumably yr company hv a specification for E.coli on incoming raw materials ? And similarly for the finished product?. Presumably also not maximum zero?

Any significance may also relate to the variation of yr / previous results / other proximate items, eg product daily levels / supplier/ (worker?)

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Charles:

Just I want to add an enquery with regards E.coli , in our Micro standards , E.Coli is absent same with Salmonella in all kind of food (Raw , cooked and ready to eat food) so in this case and while testing if any sample has showed E.coli growth , what is the safe corrective action ? is the rejection good & secure idea?
is the recall procedure for the contaminated items should implement ?

and another question in same subject , if there is E.coli in one of the samples , Is there any confirmation test to know exactly which E.coli has detected ?
because most of E.coli harmless only E.coli 0157 harmful and can cause serious diseases , So for that a confirmation test for the Plate which is the E.coli has been grothw is required , but I am not sure for that I am asking .

Thanks Charles
Hygienic

[Charles.C]

Dear hygienic:

Just I want to add an enquery with regards E.coli , in our Micro standards , E.Coli is absent same with Salmonella in all kind of food (Raw , cooked and ready to eat food) so in this case and while testing if any sample has showed E.coli growth , what is the safe corrective action ? is the rejection good & secure idea?
is the recall procedure for the contaminated items should implement ?

It may depend on the specific product / destination / regulation but in general yr generic E.coli micro.standard is not realistic IMO. Suggest you take a look at some typical compilations of standards, eg -

 uk microbiological guidelines 2009 RTE.pdf   1012.42KB   75 downloads

and another question in same subject , if there is E.coli in one of the samples , Is there any confirmation test to know exactly which E.coli has detected ?
because most of E.coli harmless only E.coli 0157 harmful and can cause serious diseases , So for that a confirmation test for the Plate which is the E.coli has been grothw is required , but I am not sure for that I am asking .

From memory, there are 4 or 5 pathogenic variants. haven't checked but i expect they are all confirmable via methods in reference text BAM - online which I gave you link in recent thread.

Rgds / Charles.C

[hygienic]

Dear hygienic:



It may depend on the specific product / destination / regulation but in general yr generic E.coli micro.standard is not realistic IMO. Suggest you take a look at some typical compilations of standards, eg -

 uk microbiological guidelines 2009 RTE.pdf   1012.42KB   75 downloads



From memory, there are 4 or 5 pathogenic variants. haven't checked but i expect they are all confirmable via methods in reference text BAM - online which I gave you link in recent thread.

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Charles:

Thanks for the useful attachement , actually we are following IFSA Microbiology standard , if you check it you will find E.coli and salmonella should absent in raw and ready to eat food (raw chicken & Fish , and cooked food or heated foods .

Regards
hygienic

Edited by hygienic, 19 February 2011 - 01:52 PM.

[Charles.C]

dear hygienic,

E.coli and salmonella should absent in raw and ready to eat food

So the standard (IFSA 2007?) for acceptable raw chicken requires no detection of E.coli ?

I think someone is kidding you. Perhaps you could post the relevant data.

Rgds / Charles.C

[hygienic]

dear hygienic,



So the standard (IFSA 2007?) for acceptable raw chicken requires no detection of E.coli ?

I think someone is kidding you. Perhaps you could post the relevant data.

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Charles:

I am sure , because I read the standard, any way I will attach a copy of the standard then you will see, or correct me maybe misconception ,

Thanks & Regards
Hygienic

[Charles.C]

Dear hygienic,

I will attach a copy of the standard

Sorry but I don't see any attachment. Maybe my browser protection again.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Tony-C]

dear hygienic,

So the standard (IFSA 2007?) for acceptable raw chicken requires no detection of E.coli ?

I think someone is kidding you. Perhaps you could post the relevant data.

Rgds / Charles.C

There is no way the standard for raw and ready to eat food are the same. I cannot see a standard for raw meat in the IFSA & AEA World Food Safety Guidelines and don't see why there would be.

Regards,

Tony

[hygienic]

There is no way the standard for raw and ready to eat food are the same. I cannot see a standard for raw meat in the IFSA & AEA World Food Safety Guidelines and don't see why there would be.

Regards,

Tony

Dear Tony ;

I read the guidlines (new version ) in IFSA website , salmonella is absent in all type of food (raw,fermented and ready to eat food) , I am not familier in this feild , is that mean no salomella should be detected for acceptance ?

http://www.ifsachoic...10(updated).pdf

Regards
hygienic

[hygienic]

Dear hygienic,



Sorry but I don't see any attachment. Maybe my browser protection again.

Rgds / Charles.C

I was very busy , any way the standard which I have is hard copy , I am trying to scan it then I will attach here, but still I insist that raw meat & fish in the standard , E.coli is absent .

Regards
Hygienic

[Tony-C]

Dear Tony ;

I read the guidlines (new version ) in IFSA website , salmonella is absent in all type of food (raw,fermented and ready to eat food) , I am not familier in this feild , is that mean no salomella should be detected for acceptance ?

http://www.ifsachoic...10(updated).pdf

Regards
hygienic

That attachment is 11Mb. I haven't got an hour to spend waiting for it to download. The standard quotes micro levels for ready to eat foods like cooked meats/vegetables/fruit not raw meat as far as I can see. If you believe different then let me know which page you are referring to.

[hygienic]

That attachment is 11Mb. I haven't got an hour to spend waiting for it to download. The standard quotes micro levels for ready to eat foods like cooked meats/vegetables/fruit not raw meat as far as I can see. If you believe different then let me know which page you are referring to.

hahaha , your right , but I am lucky I finished download within 5 minutes , my internet speed is 8 Mg.
So ,after downloading you can move to page # 39 which is the micro standard referr there.

Regards

[Charles.C]

Dear hygienic,

Thks for attachment.

A few comments –

The scope of the table is stated to be (pg 39 ) -

1. In-house produced ready-to-eat foods
2. Purchased ready-to-eat foods
3. Potable water and ice from caterer or aircraft
4. Cleaning effectiveness

I believe it is reasonable to assume that airlines do not consider raw chicken as ready-to-eat ( I suppose marinated raw chicken is a possibility but I think very unlikely to be served on an aircraft, although I have no experience of 1st Class? ).

So yr original thread title is perhaps incorrect as per yr numerical interest.

I see no reference to “absence” of generic E.coli for any of the products in the table of microbiological data on Pg 40. ( all of which I believe refer to RTE products as per above mentioned scope) .
(NB: the <10 which frequently appears in the E.coli column could under certain circumstances be interpreted as equivalent to “absence” but if that were the case, I think the authors of the table would have simply stated “absence”)(the non-clarity is due to absence of details regarding the procedure used to measure E.coli).

IMHO, the use of the word “absence” without qualification is curiously (microbiologically) unscientific for an official document but that is another story (the EC directive also uses the same terminology).

It is possible you (or your resident microbiologist) hv a different interpretation of the data. ?? Appreciate your comments.

Rgds / Charles.C