E.coli limit in Chocolate cream filling
One of our supplier has mentioned in their specification as <10 MPN/g.
But according to my knowledge it should be "ABSENT".
please give me your comments with the reference.
Thankz
Amireshi,
In my experience, this is really down to how the lab displays their results. Most labs that I've dealt with have a minimum detection threshold of 10 units.
If their minimum detectable units is 10, then 'absent' wouldn't make sense because they cannot possibly know if there is 1, 2, 3, etc.
Nonetheless, many labs do list 'absent'. I think you will be ok if you get a letter from the suppliers laboratory that states that 10 is their minimum threshold and that, for all intents and purposes, a < 10 is equivalent to an 'absent'
Can you please tell me, what is the E.coli limit in chocolate cream filling???
One of our supplier has mentioned in their specification as <10 MPN/g.
But according to my knowledge it should be "ABSENT".
please give me your comments with the reference.
Thankz
I assume this is RTE product.
I assume you refer to generic E.coli, not the pathogenic variety.
There is no universally agreed Standard Yr location may have its own Regulatory data.
As noted previous Post, quantitatively the detectable limit depends on the analytical methodology, can go down to <1 cfu/g.
This is a fairly "average" comment IMO although higher numbers can be found (see other files in link below)-
The presence of E. coli in RTE foods is undesirable because it represents poor hygienic (insanitary) conditions or inadequate heat treatment (lack of process control). Thus, E. coli should not be detected in RTE foods; generally, when microbiological specifications are established, a microbiological limit of <10/g or <3 MPN/g (the limit of detection of usual test methods) is typical for this microorganism. Levels exceeding 100/g are typically interpreted as a level of contamination that may be associated with the introduction of pathogens or conditions that allowed pathogen survival.
(see file com1, Pg25 -
Amireshi,
In my experience, this is really down to how the lab displays their results. Most labs that I've dealt with have a minimum detection threshold of 10 units.
If their minimum detectable units is 10, then 'absent' wouldn't make sense because they cannot possibly know if there is 1, 2, 3, etc.
Nonetheless, many labs do list 'absent'. I think you will be ok if you get a letter from the suppliers laboratory that states that 10 is their minimum threshold and that, for all intents and purposes, a < 10 is equivalent to an 'absent'
Jcieslowski,
thank you so much for your explanation
I assume this is RTE product.
I assume you refer to generic E.coli, not the pathogenic variety.
There is no universally agreed Standard Yr location may have its own Regulatory data.
As noted previous Post, quantitatively the detectable limit depends on the analytical methodology, can go down to <1 cfu/g.
This is a fairly "average" comment IMO although higher numbers can be found (see other files in link below)-
(see file com1, Pg25 -
Charles.C
thank you so much for your information.
but as you mentioned I too thought it would be refer to generic E.coli, not the pathogenic variety.
but is there any meaning of giving non pathogenic limits??
if it's non pathogenic we are not spending money test these parameters , isn't it?
thank you so much for your reference link.that's so useful.
Charles.C
thank you so much for your information.
but as you mentioned I too thought it would be refer to generic E.coli, not the pathogenic variety.
but is there any meaning of giving non pathogenic limits??
if it's non pathogenic we are not spending money test these parameters , isn't it?
thank you so much for your reference link.that's so useful.
Hygienic logic implies that the E.coli count should be "Low".
So customers tend to ask for it. :smile:
Hygienic logic implies that the E.coli count should be "Low".
So customers tend to ask for it. :smile:
:thumbup: