I assume yr product is for local consumption.
If so it presumably has to compy with yr local micro.regs regardless of whether you disagree with the limits or not. In fact neither TPC nor coliform are usually regarded as directly safety-related.
it also appears you only sampled/analysed one unit. This is normally not a recommended procedure although may be unavoidable if so specified in the regulatory requirements.
57,000 is greater than 1 million ?.
As to the basis of microbiological specifications here is the Codex viewpoint -
Codex establishment of micro.criteria, 1997.pdf 145.26KB
And another Codex related document (2007) -
Codex, micro. risk management.pdf 229.41KB
Somewhat negative viewpoints also exist, eg -
Many of the microbiological examinations of foods both by industry and regulatory agencies are meaningless and a waste of time and resources. Indiscriminate application of microbiological testing and criteria should be avoided. As the existence of a MC always requires some degree of microbiological testing, it needs very careful consideration, before any MC is established.
PS - IMO it is illogical to compare yr data with that of the spec for a RTE product.
IMEX for frozen raw fish, yr data for TPC/coliform would not be considered objectionable. Presence of pathogens such as Salmonella would be though.
Some suggested reference data (1986) for frozen raw fish is on pgs 190-191 of this document -
microorganisms in foods 2,pt2.pdf 802.97KB
The additional components are all potential sources of contamination, both intrinsic (eg raw eggs) and handling (eg coconut milk).
You might consider comparing the coliform level in finished product to that in the input materials, a significant increase could indicate a need for more hygiene control such as time/temperature aspects.
PPS - also note this usfda comment for vac.packed frozen raw fish -
Frozen, reduced oxygen packaged raw, unpreserved fish and unpasteurized, cooked fishery products
For frozen, reduced oxygen packaged raw, unpreserved fish (e.g., frozen, vacuum-packaged fish fillets) and frozen, reduced oxygen packaged, unpasteurized, cooked fishery products (e.g., frozen, vacuum-packaged, unpasteurized crabmeat, lobster meat, or crayfish meat), the sole barrier to toxin formation by C. botulinum type E and non-proteolytic types B and F during finished product storage and distribution is freezing. Because these products may appear to the retailer, consumer, or end user to be intended to be refrigerated, rather than frozen, labeling to ensure that they are held frozen throughout distribution is critical to their safety.
Controls should be in place to ensure that such products are immediately frozen after processing, maintained frozen throughout storage in your facility, and labeled to be held frozen and to be thawed under refrigeration immediately before use (e.g., “Important, keep frozen until used, thaw under refrigeration immediately before use”). Frozen, reduced oxygen packaged products that are customarily cooked by the consumer or end user in the frozen state (e.g., boil-inbag products and frozen fish sticks) need not be labeled to be thawed under refrigeration. For purposes of hazard analysis, other frozen products that do not contain the “keep frozen” statement should be evaluated as if they will be stored refrigerated because the consumer or end user would not have been warned to keep them frozen.
Edited by Charles.C, 19 January 2016 - 12:28 AM.