6 replies to this topic

[scoot915]

Hello

 

I need to list the specific microbes for each raw ingredient and process for my Hazard Analysis.

 

In addition to other references I am using ingredient specs from suppliers and I could use some clarification. 

 

 

If a spec lists the following:   {I did not add the Max & Units here}

 

Microbiology   (indicative value)

   Description                            Max                 Units

Total Plate Count              

Yeast and Moulds               

E. Coli                                             

Coliforms                                 

Staphylococcus aureus               

Salmonella                               

 

Would this list be all the biological contaminants that could be present in this ingredient?

 

If E Coli is a Coliform why is it listed separately?

 

Hope my questions make sense

 

Thanks for any help.

[Dr.Khan]

Hi Scoot

 

The proposed list is good and can be used almost for type of ingredients.

 

Am on a microbiologist  so can't give a definite answer why Ecoli is tested separately when it is a type Coliform.

 

The following paragraph taken from a Canadian Health publication may provide the some clue on the subject

 

Coliform bacteria are described and grouped, based on their common origin or characteristics, as either Total or Fecal Coliform. The Total group includes Fecal Coliform bacteria such as Escherichia coli (E .coli), as well as other types of Coliform bacteria that are naturally found in the soil. Fecal Coliform bacteria exist in the intestines of warm blooded animals and humans, and are found in bodily waste, animal droppings, and naturally in soil. Most of the Fecal Coliform in fecal material (feces) is comprised of E. coli, and the serotype E. coli 0157:H7 is known to cause serious human illness. Total Coliform do not necessarily indicate recent water contamination by fecal waste, however the presence or absence of these bacteria in treated water is often used to determine

 

Kind regards

Dr Humaid khan

Managing Director

Halal International Services

Beverly Hills NSW Australia

[Charles.C]

Hi scoot,

 

Just for starters, you have forgotten the probably most US hysterical one of them all !
 

 

If E Coli is a Coliform why is it listed separately?

 

Seriously, you need to consult a microbiologist for assistance.

[Charles.C]

addendum

 

Hi scoot,

 

Extended (cumulated) lists (and Books) do exist of the "hazardous" microbial species most frequently encountered in different Foods (eg from FAO, USFDA) (See addendum2 post following). IIRC such basic lists usually have approx 15-30 elements but may expand depending on the level of detail/scope of foods used. (For example the Salmonella group has more than 2000 recognised species, all of which are considered as "dangerous" health-wise).

 

However the list for a given ingredient/input as presented in haccp plans typically picks a few representative elements which are known to be (or predicted to be) the most likely causes of illness for the specific ingredient. The selection often varies with the food, eg meat will likely both overlap and differ from seafood.

 

I will try to offer a simplified explanation of the basis of such hazard lists (ie [a] in text below)  -

 

(1) Potential micro. species / specified groups of micro.species,  which may be detected on/in a given food can, for haccp purposes be approx. divided into 2 "Classes" - (a) safety-related (= pathogenic) species, (b) non-safety related (non-pathogenic) species.

Certain Groups/Counts of Groups of micro.species/sub-species are also associated with either of (a) or (b) although the designation is sometimes imperfect, eg some groups may/could contain members of both (a) and (b) (aerobic plate count/Coliform are common examples).

 

Some typical examples are -

(a) - L.monocytogenes [a species], Salmonella [a large group of species], pathogenic E.coli [a group of sub-species/strains]

(b) - aerobic plate count[APC/TPC][a count of a large variable group of species], Coliform [a large variable group of species], non-pathogenic E.coli (a group of sub-species/strains)[sometimes loosely referred to as "E.coli" or "generic E.coli"]

 

(2) Currently, haccp, per se, is usually focused only on members of Class (a) with respect to microbial aspects, ie food safety. Also includes CPA hazards of course. (Typical "Food Product Specifications" include selected species/groups/counts from both [a,b])

 

(3) Many food categories, eg meat, fish have been micro.studied so as to determine/list their own most common/most "dangerous" members of (a).

 

(4) Typical haccp plans for a given food/food category do not list every possible member in (a) but focus on a few selected species (= "hazards"), often those mentioned in (3).

 

(5) Compilations of "hazards" as referred in (4) do exist. Several threads on this Forum offer links to such articles/Books.

 

Just as an example, one accessible (BCPA) hazard compilation (Canadian) oriented towards haccp is attached below. Its organisation is sort of 3-way, eg product categories, process stages, BCPA hazards.

 

 Canada, Hazard DataBase,2008.pdf   1.15MB   28 downloads

(some of the URLs on pgs 292-295 still work, maybe 50/50)

 

Another useful route is via Country/Area/Product-specific compilations of Micro. Regulatory data which typically list selected/prioritised items from both (a,b). Many of such lists exist on IT and are posted on this Forum..

Unfortunately, afaik, there is no (maintained) public-accessible summary/links of accessible hazard compilations for individual/multiple food categories/locations (at one time FAO did do this). Certain Food Sector Industrial Organizations do fund such projects for their members.

 

Hope that above is semi-intelligible. Yr quest is a rather specialized field (not mine) and can be subjective.

 

PS - there are many, many lists/articles on food micro. criteria scattered aound this forum.  JFI i attach 3 which are not first time here but are less frequently reiterated and seem informative.

 

 mcr1 - Codex establishment of micro.criteria, 1997.pdf   145.26KB   14 downloads

 mcr2 - micro. criteria for food,1997.pdf   2.59MB   13 downloads

 mcr3 - Micro.criteria for foodstuffs,GSO,2014 - Final-Draft.pdf   750.43KB   23 downloads

[Charles.C]

addendum 2

 

 USFDA Regulatory, Retail, haccp manual.pdf   701.1KB   16 downloads

(esp. see Pg 63) (note that the entry "Vibrio spp" is incorrect since only certain Vibrio species are hazardous)

 

 Bad Bug Book,2013.pdf   3.25MB   17 downloads

(see "All")

 

and a current, expanded Table -

 

 Foodborne microbial pathogens,foods,CDC.pdf   1.55MB   26 downloads

[scoot915]

Thank you for the wealth of information !

 

I may not have worded my question as I meat it to be. Or more likely I am just confused lol

 

I received the following "room for improvement" nc on my last audit":

“The facility has conducted a hazard analysis, however the hazards identified are not specific. The facility lists microbial activity for biological hazards but do not define which microbes are the hazard for each process or ingredient.

 

In the example in my first post I listed what was on a ingredient spec from the supplier for a ingredient used in our facility.

I had read that a ingredient spec is a good way to begin to learn specific hazards.

 

Charles C you wrote this :However the list for a given ingredient/input as presented in haccp plans typically picks a few representative elements which are known to be (or predicted to be) the most likely causes of illness for the specific ingredient. The selection often varies with the food, eg meat will likely both overlap and differ from seafood.

 

 

I guess my question should have been: Are the biological hazards listed on the spec from a supplier for the given ingredient the representative elements that are know to be most likely causes of illness for that ingredient and therefore what I would list in my plan for that ingredient?

 

Thanks for your help.  Again 

[Charles.C]

“The facility has conducted a hazard analysis, however the hazards identified are not specific. The facility lists microbial activity for biological hazards but do not define which microbes are the hazard for each process or ingredient.

 

Charles C you wrote this :However the list for a given ingredient/input as presented in haccp plans typically picks a few representative elements which are known to be (or predicted to be) the most likely causes of illness for the specific ingredient. The selection often varies with the food, eg meat will likely both overlap and differ from seafood.

 

 

I guess my question should have been: Are the biological hazards listed on the spec from a supplier for the given ingredient the representative elements that are know to be most likely causes of illness for that ingredient and therefore what I would list in my plan for that ingredient?

 

Thanks for your help.  Again 

 

Hi scoot,
 

The first comment above is a "classic". Many texts/publications will not agree in that they also only state "microbial". But IMEX most haccp "experts" will agree with the auditor. The usual validation is that it is illogical/impractical to suggest an appropriate control measure without fully specifying the hazard. (Nonetheless less prioritised items like stones may offer a counter argument. Horses for courses ).

 

IMEX the answer to red question is unfortunately YES/NO. I have met plenty of examples of both situations. IMO it behooves the receiver to understand their purchased product / its possible hazards. Forewarned is forearmed. I'm sure Codex will agree.

 

In theory a Product Specification should be mutually agreed between buyer/seller. This should enable/necessitate input from QA. But Practice may be more flexible.