8 replies to this topic

[Ragga]

Hey All,

 

In a recent audit we got picked up for a staff member using white cotton gloves to open cartons of frozen meat and then handle the lined block of meat whilst wearing the same gloves  (health & safety, cold). Later in the process a food handler removes the meat lined bag and then the meat. Thereby, cross contamination occurs from the person who decartoned to that who handles the meat directly (as both touch the liners).

, 

Does anyone have any ideas of procedures that could fix this? Without requiring handwashing after handling each block of meat. All suggestions appreciated.

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

 

[Caddyshack]

The bag/plastic liner with the meat inside should be decontaminated with a sanitiser spray post de-boxing. This means the operator opening the bag is dealing with a clean surface.

 

It's common practice, I hope this helps.

[Charles.C]

Dear Raj.reddy,

 

Not quite sure I understand the process.

 

I presume you mean frozen raw meat chunks (?) in plastic bags, the bags packed within an outer cardboard carton. ??

 

Why does the staff member handle the bags ? lab. sampling? Staff Canteen ?

 

If a rare event for the staff member, why not simply change cotton gloves  ?  or 2 people ?

 

The spraying idea seems to add another contamination possibility to me. And to the environment.

 

My first reaction  was that the comment was  nit-picking although I appreciate the sanitary logic (plus I don’t  myself eat raw meat).

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[Ragga]

Thanks for your feedback guys,

 

My apologies, perhaps I didn't give quite enough information. 

 

The frozen blocks are decartoned by stores staff who are in the same protective gear as food handlers within the factory except that the guys in the processing room wear thick reusable latex gloves. They are large 25/27kg blocks of frozen meat racked into metal frames for tempering prior to use. It's a process that the company has been carrying out for over a decade.

 

The stores staff use the cotton gloves as it is cold handling plastic lined meat blocks directly. Part of the auditors concern was that the staff member did not change gloves between driving the electric forkhoist and decartoning (which is fair enough). That being said when handling the exterior of the cartons and then handling the lined meat blocks, would you not be causing contamination at that point too?

 

Spray would probably be out of the question as the liners are not sealed, just folded over. 

[Barrie@RJT]

I'm with Charles' first reaction - it's logical, but over-the-top cr*p.  Was the auditor a vet in a previous life....??!!

[SpiceGenius]

Hello,

At our plant we also handle meat from a carton with an inner liner. We have separate operators opening the boxes and handling the inner bags (gloves are dumped after use). We then have a kill step which voids any potential bacterial risk. When the auditor questioned the process, we were ready with a risk assessment with historical data and micro testing of the finished product which demonstrated an absence of risk.
If the auditor questioned your process, it is because there is a risk however minute; he may have seen it somewhere or it is documented, so he needs to make sure you understand the risk and are in control.
I don't know what your process is and how big you are but the spray sounds interesting and potentially expensive. Can you afford it?
Can you afford 2 operators? Then do a thorough risk assessment demonstrating control. Do you have a kill step? Does your product support bacterial growth?
I hope this helps,

[Charles.C]

Hello,

At our plant we also handle meat from a carton with an inner liner. We have separate operators opening the boxes and handling the inner bags (gloves are dumped after use). We then have a kill step which voids any potential bacterial risk. When the auditor questioned the process, we were ready with a risk assessment with historical data and micro testing of the finished product which demonstrated an absence of risk.
If the auditor questioned your process, it is because there is a risk however minute; he may have seen it somewhere or it is documented, so he needs to make sure you understand the risk and are in control.
I don't know what your process is and how big you are but the spray sounds interesting and potentially expensive. Can you afford it?
Can you afford 2 operators? Then do a thorough risk assessment demonstrating control. Do you have a kill step? Does your product support bacterial growth?
I hope this helps,

 

Dear SpiceGenius,

 

Thks for the input.

 

We then have a kill step which voids any potential bacterial risk.

 

Wow! Assuming heat / irradiation is not involved, I recommend you  patent this magic and then inform the raw, RTE, vegetable community asap .

 

For the OP, the control required  presumably comes as usual back to risk assessment.

I accept the logic that even new (?) gloves being used by storage workers will inevitably be less than microbiologically pristine at the decartoning stage (as will also be the raw meat ??) but is there really a significant cross-contamination risk to the meat itself ? And, particularly from a HACCP POV, ultimately to the final consumer?. Frankly I would expect not if carried out in a sanitary environment and subsequently cooked but only the OP knows for his process.

 

I deduce you actually feel that the cross-contamination risk  in yr own process would still be “minute” even if done by 1 person. Or perhaps this conclusion is reliant on yr  “killing” step.

 

 

micro testing of the finished product which demonstrated an absence of risk

.

This is a slightly bold statement  for zero-tolerant micro. species at usual sampling levels  but fortunately auditors have to accept it. And I presume the product will later be cooked.

 

I have to say that I am familiar with an analogous situation for a raw, non-beef process and the idea of  a significant hazard  occurring at this step has never surfaced, including to the auditor. Fingers crossed.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

(added)

PS (1) – A partial compromise might be to simply implement  periodic glove (dedicated) dipping at a temporary sanitising station within the decartoning area (chill-room level temperatures?).

 

PS (2) – It is presumably possible (within the usual sampling limitations) to organise a control study to microbiologically demonstrate absence  (or the opposite) of significant cross-contamination  between a 1 and 2-stage option for the situation under discussion. Auditor – friendly document .

[Ragga]

Thanks for all the advice,

 

Just to update people regarding the outcome.

 

The end result suggested by the auditor that we will look at implementing is a table which will sit in the clean area.

 

The "dirty" storeman will need to open the cartons without handling the liners and flick the blocks onto a table, from which a "clean" person on the other side of the line will then load it into a rack.

[Charles.C]

Dear raj.reddy,

 

Many thks for the edifying update.

 

Apparently Superman currently resides in NZ.

 

I trust you asked the auditor to quantify a typical  "flick".

 

Rgds / Charles.C