8 replies to this topic

[Olive]

Hi, I would like to know if there are Food Manufacturing companies that uses only Pathogen test for EMP at Zones 2-4. Is it required to conduct hygiene indicator test parallel to pathogen test? If not, hope you can share the reference. Thank you, Olive

[Charles.C]

Hi,

 

Would like to know if there are Food Manufacturing companies that uses only Pathogen test for EMP at Zones 2-4. Is it required to conduct hygiene indicator test parallel to pathogen test? If not, hope you can share the reference.

 

Thank you,

Olive

 

Hi Olive,

 

Most food EMPGs are a mix of pathogen/indicators. Details likely depend on context,.eg -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...ls/#entry100060

[Olive]

Hi Charles,

 

Thank you for this feedback. I am just thinking if we can totally remove the Hygiene indicator in the environment (Zones 2-4) since we are using Molecular Detection System that can provide faster test results than the hygiene indicator.

 

I am aware that aside from indicating presence of pathogen; hygiene indicator can also be used as a measure of cleanliness. But in our case, we prefer the use of of visual inspection and verification of the PRP implementation (Waste Disposal, Cleaning and Sanitation, and other related PRPs).

 

Will there be any problem if we do this? The FSSC Additional requirement does not specifically require us to perform both tests.

 

Thank you,

Olive

[Charles.C]

Hi Charles,

 

Thank you for this feedback. I am just thinking if we can totally remove the Hygiene indicator in the environment (Zones 2-4) since we are using Molecular Detection System that can provide faster test results than the hygiene indicator.

 

I am aware that aside from indicating presence of pathogen; hygiene indicator can also be used as a measure of cleanliness. But in our case, we prefer the use of of visual inspection and verification of the PRP implementation (Waste Disposal, Cleaning and Sanitation, and other related PRPs).

 

Will there be any problem if we do this? The FSSC Additional requirement does not specifically require us to perform both tests.

 

Thank you,

Olive

 

Hi Olive,

 

I suppose it may relate to the Product/Process.

 

Not sure what you mean by ^^^MDS ? Mass Spectroscopy ?

 

Hygiene indicators typically do not predict regarding pathogens

[ebb30]

Zone 1 and 2 should have indicator testing. Is the speed of the test a reason you are thinking of getting rid of indicator testing in Zone 2? You should not be holding product until their results are in. The purpose of those results is to trend them over time to know your cleaning is effective, recleaning what was not clean. With pathogen testing only, just because a pathogen is not present on your equipment at the time of testing does not mean others can't be present, or that it is not present elsewhere. Testing for Salmonella, for example, and getting a negative result doesn't mean Listeria or E. coli can't also be present. Getting a negative for a pathogen on a Zone 1 or 2 does not mean that your zones are clean.  The reason for using indicators is to show whether cleaning removed all microorganisms, which includes pathogens. Also, generally, indicator testing is cheaper and you can (and should) swab more areas than you would with pathogen testing. 

 

Testing in Zone 3 and 4 depends on your risks and the facility. Usually I don't recommend indicator testing, only pathogen, because floors etc. can be high in indicators, and you are mainly trying to determine if pathogens such as Listeria and Salmonella are entering your facility through people and equipment. In many cases we don't test Zone 4 if there is a good way to separate that area out (captive shoe program, foot bath, etc). 

 

I hope this is helpful, but I'm in the USA so rules might be different in your country. Good luck!

[Charles.C]

Zone 1 and 2 should have indicator testing. Is the speed of the test a reason you are thinking of getting rid of indicator testing in Zone 2? You should not be holding product until their results are in. The purpose of those results is to trend them over time to know your cleaning is effective, recleaning what was not clean. With pathogen testing only, just because a pathogen is not present on your equipment at the time of testing does not mean others can't be present, or that it is not present elsewhere. Testing for Salmonella, for example, and getting a negative result doesn't mean Listeria or E. coli can't also be present. Getting a negative for a pathogen on a Zone 1 or 2 does not mean that your zones are clean.  The reason for using indicators is to show whether cleaning removed all microorganisms, which includes pathogens. Also, generally, indicator testing is cheaper and you can (and should) swab more areas than you would with pathogen testing. 

 

Testing in Zone 3 and 4 depends on your risks and the facility. Usually I don't recommend indicator testing, only pathogen, because floors etc. can be high in indicators, and you are mainly trying to determine if pathogens such as Listeria and Salmonella are entering your facility through people and equipment. In many cases we don't test Zone 4 if there is a good way to separate that area out (captive shoe program, foot bath, etc). 

 

I hope this is helpful, but I'm in the USA so rules might be different in your country. Good luck!

 

Hi ebb,

 

A few comments further to yr useful suggestions.

 

(1) EMPG programs may significantly vary depending on context. For example, dry /wet environments may focus on different pathogens. See link Post 2. Also -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...am/#entry119334

 

(2) Indicators typically have one quantitative advantage over pathogens, they tend to be present in larger numbers so are easier to evaluate. But, safety-wise, indicators have restricted significance, 

 

(3) Cleaning, inter alia, will reduce existing levels of microorganisms enabling some indicator limits to be  "formulated" , eg see - 

 

.http://www.ifsqn.com...ces/#entry60958

 

(4) Some (many?) texts suggest not testing for pathogens in Zone 1, particularly due strategic considerations. FDA may not agree.

[Olive]

Thanks, Ebb30 and Charles! Great inputs.

 

Just to clarify, we identified Salmonella since we manufacture dry and shelf stable products with low moisture and low water activity. I am thinking the same concept for the Zones 3 and 4 since there is no clear pattern for the hygiene indicator results (we've been collecting data since 2020). As for zone 2 I find the relevance of testing for indicator (thank you for this info). We also not holding our products while waiting for the result of EMP.

 

MDS is Molecular Detection System that is very similar to the principle of PCR. We can get the results within 26hours so we can act immediately whenever we detect Salmonella from the Environment. Plus we also implement vector swabbing and intensive cleaning on the area (50-foot radius)

 

Another reason why we are tying to recommend the removal of hygiene indicator in other zones is because we want to change the culture. We want to shift to "visually clean" surfaces and strengthen the implementation of other related PRPs (which is the basic foundation of Food Safety)

 

I appreciate your inputs, it will definitely influence our decision.

 

Regards,

Olive

[Charles.C]

Thanks, Ebb30 and Charles! Great inputs.

 

Just to clarify, we identified Salmonella since we manufacture dry and shelf stable products with low moisture and low water activity. I am thinking the same concept for the Zones 3 and 4 since there is no clear pattern for the hygiene indicator results (we've been collecting data since 2020). As for zone 2 I find the relevance of testing for indicator (thank you for this info). We also not holding our products while waiting for the result of EMP.

 

MDS is Molecular Detection System that is very similar to the principle of PCR. We can get the results within 26hours so we can act immediately whenever we detect Salmonella from the Environment. Plus we also implement vector swabbing and intensive cleaning on the area (50-foot radius)

 

Another reason why we are tying to recommend the removal of hygiene indicator in other zones is because we want to change the culture. We want to shift to "visually clean" surfaces and strengthen the implementation of other related PRPs (which is the basic foundation of Food Safety)

 

I appreciate your inputs, it will definitely influence our decision.

 

Regards,

Olive

 

Hi Olive,

 

I guess MDS is this -

 

 3M-LAMP-MDS.pdf   1.07MB   25 downloads

 Evaluation MDS, PDS Systems.pdf   618.1KB   26 downloads

 

Looks quite (analytically) impressive for Salmonella. And cost-wise ?

 

"Visually clean" is likely still in use as a hygienic criterion but seems rather limited from a microbiological POV.

[Olive]

Hi Charles,

 

Yes, we are using that in our pathogen testing for EMP. Actually the analysis is expensive compared with conventional method for Salmonella detection but we observed significant improvement in terms of providing feedback and manpower requirement (for testing). We are more confident releasing our products now.

 

Regards,

Olive