13 replies to this topic

[lob]

I work in an egg packing plant so low risk as product is shelled so none of our machines are actually food contact - also we don't use chemicals to clean in the packing station due to risk of eggs taking on taints. Is it necessary to swab to check effectiveness of cleaning in this case or will verification of cleanliness by QA Manager on a daily basis suffice?
Thanks for your help.

[GMO]

I disagree. What does the egg touch as it's cracked? What does the consumer touch as they crack the egg? I would argue that although the egg is "packaged" the exterior needs to be hygienic. People do not wash the outside of the egg before use!

I could be wrong but I also thought that an egg shell was semi permeable? Is that true? Actually it must be if they can pick up taint. Egg mayonnaise producing plants use chemicals so there must be suitable chemicals which will not taint your eggs.

I think your HACCP team need to consider the risks of contamination of the contents from the exterior first due to use by the consumer or customer (which I think would be there) and then decide what verification methods are required for your cleaning schedule.

[lob]

I disagree. What does the egg touch as it's cracked? What does the consumer touch as they crack the egg? I would argue that although the egg is "packaged" the exterior needs to be hygienic. People do not wash the outside of the egg before use!

I could be wrong but I also thought that an egg shell was semi permeable? Is that true? Actually it must be if they can pick up taint. Egg mayonnaise producing plants use chemicals so there must be suitable chemicals which will not taint your eggs.

I think your HACCP team need to consider the risks of contamination of the contents from the exterior first due to use by the consumer or customer (which I think would be there) and then decide what verification methods are required for your cleaning schedule.

Thanks - mayonnaise plants as a rule will not use shelled egg, rather buy in pasteurised liquid/powder egg.

Risk assessments have been completed and all are low risk (obv apart from Salmonella but there are stringent controls there), there are controls in place to ensure that dirty/soiled eggs are removed before packaging, when shells are contaminated with the yolk (protein) bacteria will grow but not so with the white but there are processes in place to remove these from class a production.

All the above has been considered but under normal cricumstances the shell should not come into contact with egg after cracking, the egg will be cooked so killing off most bacteria and consumers have always been advised to wash their hands after touching raw meat, poultry and eggs.
Im not opposed to the idea of swabbing but dont want to introduce a procedure that isn't really needed - there are enough of those flying about!
What would you suggest for a swabbing schedule?

[GMO]

All the above has been considered but under normal cricumstances the shell should not come into contact with egg after cracking, the egg will be cooked so killing off most bacteria and consumers have always been advised to wash their hands after touching raw meat, poultry and eggs.
Im not opposed to the idea of swabbing but dont want to introduce a procedure that isn't really needed - there are enough of those flying about!
What would you suggest for a swabbing schedule?

I disagree. The persons hands come into contact with the shell and the contents very easily (thumbs particularly depending on cracking technique) also I'm assuming you sell to consumers? I will be making some royal icing in a few weeks time (containing raw egg white) and I don't fully cook my fried or scrambled eggs (hard scrambled eggs, bleurgh!) People make mayonnaise and hollandaise at home, both contain raw or partially cooked eggs.

You have admitted there is a risk of Salmonellae, I assume the Irish flock is innoculated too now? So you now have a consumer who isn't expecting to catch Salmonellae even from raw egg anymore! Even if you don't consider consumers contaminating the eggs on cracking and not cooking them properly as a risk; I think some swabbing is a good idea to verify your controls are effective; as for how much,that's up to your HACCP team and what you find.

[Mike Green]

I disagree. The persons hands come into contact with the shell and the contents very easily (thumbs particularly depending on cracking technique) also I'm assuming you sell to consumers? I will be making some royal icing in a few weeks time (containing raw egg white) and I don't fully cook my fried or scrambled eggs (hard scrambled eggs, bleurgh!) People make mayonnaise and hollandaise at home, both contain raw or partially cooked eggs.

You have admitted there is a risk of Salmonellae, I assume the Irish flock is innoculated too now? So you now have a consumer who isn't expecting to catch Salmonellae even from raw egg anymore! Even if you don't consider consumers contaminating the eggs on cracking and not cooking them properly as a risk; I think some swabbing is a good idea to verify your controls are effective; as for how much,that's up to your HACCP team and what you find.

Not sure whether it helps(or not)- but here is an extract from the 2003 Egg Survey from FSA

"A total of 4753 samples (mostly boxes) of six eggs were purchased from a

representative cross-section of retail outlets throughout the UK and the shell

and contents tested for

Salmonella contamination.The overall UK finding was that 9 samples (0.34%) were contaminated with

Salmonella

, which is equivalent to approximately 1 in every 290 “boxes” of 6eggs."



"All Salmonella positive samples were from egg shells.

It is not unusual for

Salmonella to be present in the environment and therefore

not surprising that a few isolates were found from egg shells. The small

number of positive samples points towards random contamination from the

production environment rather than any systemic contamination from infected

flocks." (edited by me)



Full report is attached

Regards

Mike

Attached Files

•  fsis5004report.pdf   398.42KB   65 downloads

[Charles.C]

Dear Mike,

Nice search but all the Annexes missing (or deleted by FSA ).

With respect to salmonella one has to feel encouraged by the final result, particularly if one only consumes eggs from non-caged birds.
Less impressed by the validation as shown.

From memory, the last UK survey of (raw) retail chicken breasts (?) gave a salmonella result somewhere between 5 – 10%. Should there be a correlation ?

Few observations on report -

1. Didn’t know that vaccination was a routine procedure in UK. (I wonder if GMO knew ?). I presume this is a major proponent for free range eggs. From memory, a related issue arose regarding Bird flu in Asia, the problem was that adopting vaccination cancelled any chance for export to countries X, Y, Z etc.

2. Few more positives excluded on seemingly intuitive basis.

2. Lab procedure missing. Each box of 6 eggs was totally sampled or ? Sampling error ?

(Purely as an illustration, I think USFDA (for raw foods) take a minimum of 15, 25g, samples from 1 defined lot, all are combined for analysis. A negative result indicates a 95% confidence that lot contamination less than 20 percent, 60 samples < 5pct). To put it another way, how many (different?) lots were there ?)

3. I found the comment that none of the labs involved made a single positive or negative error with respect to any control sample remarkable (obviously it may depend on the level of contamination).

3. The text states that, due to the analytical method used, contamination between shell and contents was possible. I almost got the impression that they would hv liked to say inevitable.

4. The fact that all positive results were totally confined to caged sources (50% of total sample) but this had no statistical implications as compared to the non-caged birds seems truly remarkable.

Regardless of the above, i agree with GMO about swabbing.

Rgds / Charles.C

[GMO]

1. Didn’t know that vaccination was a routine procedure in UK. (I wonder if GMO knew ?). I presume this is a major proponent for free range eggs.

Yep I did all Lion eggs are. I had many arguments with pregnant ladies when I was pregnant that eggs still need to be fully cooked for sensitive individuals as vaccination is not 100% effective and because contamination from the shell can occur.

Edited by GMO, 13 November 2010 - 06:13 AM.

[Mike Green]

Dear Mike,

Nice search but all the Annexes missing (or deleted by FSA ).

With respect to salmonella one has to feel encouraged by the final result, particularly if one only consumes eggs from non-caged birds.
Less impressed by the validation as shown.

From memory, the last UK survey of (raw) retail chicken breasts (?) gave a salmonella result somewhere between 5 – 10%. Should there be a correlation ?

Few observations on report -

1. Didn’t know that vaccination was a routine procedure in UK. (I wonder if GMO knew ?). I presume this is a major proponent for free range eggs. From memory, a related issue arose regarding Bird flu in Asia, the problem was that adopting vaccination cancelled any chance for export to countries X, Y, Z etc.

2. Few more positives excluded on seemingly intuitive basis.

2. Lab procedure missing. Each box of 6 eggs was totally sampled or ? Sampling error ?

(Purely as an illustration, I think USFDA (for raw foods) take a minimum of 15, 25g, samples from 1 defined lot, all are combined for analysis. A negative result indicates a 95% confidence that lot contamination less than 20 percent, 60 samples < 5pct). To put it another way, how many (different?) lots were there ?)

3. I found the comment that none of the labs involved made a single positive or negative error with respect to any control sample remarkable (obviously it may depend on the level of contamination).

3. The text states that, due to the analytical method used, contamination between shell and contents was possible. I almost got the impression that they would hv liked to say inevitable.

4. The fact that all positive results were totally confined to caged sources (50% of total sample) but this had no statistical implications as compared to the non-caged birds seems truly remarkable.

Regardless of the above, i agree with GMO about swabbing.

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Charles- yes I think it is useful to see where we are at in general terms' -but if you dipped below the surface they may fold under questioning!!
Attached is a similar overview of salmonella trends in poultry 1984-2008 from the Zoonoses report- again i think you could drive a truck through some of the gaps(!)-but the trends are interesting!
Regards
mike

Attached Files

•  zoonosereport-2008.pdf   1.07MB   35 downloads

[Charles.C]

Dear Mike,

Thks for the report. Took 2 years to edit apparently.

Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Printed in the UK, February 2010, on recycled material containing 80%
post-consumer waste and 20% totally chlorine free virgin pulp.

Virgin pulp? The mind boggles

Very informative indeed and a bit less Gung-Ho than the FSA style. More freedom to manouevre I guess.

All this data is surely relative (as in the EC target programs mentioned). I expect these UK numbers would horrify the authorities in Scandinavia but are maybe envied by other EC members (assuming data exists). For sure, this area is a tough nut to control without draconian regulations.

The original poster asked for swab schedules -

It rather depends on yr program scope / staffing / specifications / what you find and if you have in-house lab facilities IMO. Some initial prioritisation is suggested. No major problems for a (mostly) raw end product line was approx 1tour/month IMEX but I hv seen far more intensive schemes by data lovers. The snag is that in-depth can be a substantial workload, presumably less so if via ATP.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Tony-C]

I disagree. The persons hands come into contact with the shell and the contents very easily (thumbs particularly depending on cracking technique) also I'm assuming you sell to consumers? I will be making some royal icing in a few weeks time (containing raw egg white) and I don't fully cook my fried or scrambled eggs (hard scrambled eggs, bleurgh!) People make mayonnaise and hollandaise at home, both contain raw or partially cooked eggs.

The legislation doesn't tend to agree with you although some may consider it a little contradictory:

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 589/2008 of 23 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards for eggs

(8) In general, eggs should not be washed or cleaned because such practices can cause damage to the egg shell, which is an effective barrier to bacterial ingress with an array of antimicrobial properties. However, some practices, such as the treatment of eggs with ultra-violet rays, should not be interpreted as constituting a cleaning process. Moreover, Class A eggs should not be washed because of the potential damage to the physical barriers, such as the cuticle, which can occur during or after washing. Such damage may favour trans-shell contamination with bacteria and moisture loss and thereby increase the risk to consumers, particularly if subsequent drying and storage conditions are not optimal.

(9) However, egg-washing systems subject to authorisation and operating under carefully controlled conditions are used in some Member States with good results. According to the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority, Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards on the request from the Commission related to the Microbiological risks on washing of table eggs adopted on 7 September 2005, the egg-washing practice as performed in certain packing centres can be sustained from a hygienic standpoint, provided, inter alia, that a code of practice for egg-washing systems is developed.

Lob,

I have to agree with GMO, if there are egg washing systems then there is no reason why you can't find a suitable chemical for cleaning that won't taint the eggs. Your verification will need to be based on the standard of cleaning that your HACCP team has determined is acceptable. If visually clean is an acceptable standard the an inspection is fine but if a microbiological standard needs to be met then you will need to swab. Your swabbing schedule should depend on how reliable and consistent your cleaning is.

Regards,

Tony

[Mike Green]

Charles- If I was cynical I might suggest that it would take two years to make the survey results look even halfway acceptable -But having had prior experience of the organisation in question I think 2 yrs is pretty quick for them to put out a survey-so I do not suspect foulplay!

Chlorine Free Virgin Pulp= unbleached newly destroyed rainforest-(but only 20% )



Attached a re a couple more docs to add to the 'mix'

Firstly the Irish Egg Quality Assurance scheme(not sure if it is a factor here-but if it is it puts equipment cleaning firmly in the validated haccp plan-and what better way to do it than with a bit of swabbing!)

Secondly some info from USA - an egg packaging haccp plan with some nice(but maybe a bit vague) info on effectiveness of egg cleaning process

Regards

Mike

Attached Files

•  eggpackinghaccp.pdf   30.48KB   34 downloads
•  Egg%20Processor%20Standard.pdf   298.5KB   28 downloads

[lob]

Thanks for all the help on this - we are going to sample swabs and risk assess what frequency we will use.

Washing of eggs is not allowed in both Ireland and the UK, above when it mentions some member states it refers to Finland from memory.

[Tony-C]

Thanks for all the help on this - we are going to sample swabs and risk assess what frequency we will use.

Washing of eggs is not allowed in both Ireland and the UK, above when it mentions some member states it refers to Finland from memory.

They also wash them in the US:

 USDA Egg Grading.pdf   118.65KB   16 downloads

Regards,

Tony

[Kamwenji Njuma]

Dear All,

I think swabbing here is for cleaning validation purposes and not basically getting to know the microbial load on an egg.So i would support swabbing of the cleaned surfaces lets say weekly to ensure there is no microbial load accumulation and to ensure that action is taken immediately in case of contamination.

Regards,
Kamwenji