7 replies to this topic

[BenjaminJolt]

Greetings, all! I have a question that I am wanting some opinions on.

 

When I started my position, one of my major focuses was micro, notably coliform counts. At the outside lab, they were using petrifilm at a 1:10 dilution, which is the standard. However, I was wanting to be extra cautious and see if any bacteria was growing and asked for a 1:1 dilution.

 

A client of ours recently started requesting our test results. Most are <1, but there are a few that are <10, but recorded as maybe 8, or 5, etc etc. 

 

I want to return back to our 1:10 dilutions, however I need to be able to explain why we were going back to it. (It's much cheaper and will be more efficient as we will be able to test our internal samples the same way)

The FDA requires that our coliform counts be 'no greater than 20' but I only send things out that are <10. 

 

How do we explain that there could be trace coliforms, but they don't pose any harm? If something is >1 but <10, is that a real indicator of a dirty product?

Thank you so much for your time!

 

[olenazh]

You may say, you've switched to different method due to financial reason - but that method is also government-approved and does not present any risks to food safety.

[Scampi]

Financial savings is not an acceptable reason to go back to 1:1 without changing anything at the process level---your customers are correct questioning your reports

 

How do you KNOW that the trace coliforms "don't pose any harm"  that my friend is quite the statement given that a lot of the time those coliform turn out to be e coli.......

[olenazh]

Financial savings is not an acceptable reason to go back to 1:1 without changing anything at the process level---your customers are correct questioning your reports

 

How do you KNOW that the trace coliforms "don't pose any harm"  that my friend is quite the statement given that a lot of the time those coliform turn out to be e coli.......

To eliminate the risk by testing a sample for TC and E.Coli?

[BenjaminJolt]

Financial savings is not an acceptable reason to go back to 1:1 without changing anything at the process level---your customers are correct questioning your reports

 

How do you KNOW that the trace coliforms "don't pose any harm"  that my friend is quite the statement given that a lot of the time those coliform turn out to be e coli.......

 

Then shouldn't the industry standard be 1:1 with a <1 result? Something that is less <10 could be harmful then? 

 

 

We test e.coli (Sorry I forgot to mention that) which are always <1. I don't believe my company has ever had a risk or a positive e.coli test.

[Brothbro]

I agree that financial benefit should not be used to justify a process control or specification limit in your product. After all, your client doesn't care too much how convenient the procedure is for you, they just want safe/quality product! It's best to justify specification limits with data, rather than finance.

 

Are you using the 3M Petrifilm e.coli/coliform plates? If so, what is your e.coli spec? Because if you switch to 1:10 as your least diluted test, your e.coli result would need to be recorded as <10 as well, and not <1. Does that pose a problem?

[Charles.C]

Greetings, all! I have a question that I am wanting some opinions on.

 

When I started my position, one of my major focuses was micro, notably coliform counts. At the outside lab, they were using petrifilm at a 1:10 dilution, which is the standard. However, I was wanting to be extra cautious and see if any bacteria was growing and asked for a 1:1 dilution.

 

A client of ours recently started requesting our test results. Most are <1, but there are a few that are <10, but recorded as maybe 8, or 5, etc etc. 

 

I want to return back to our 1:10 dilutions, however I need to be able to explain why we were going back to it. (It's much cheaper and will be more efficient as we will be able to test our internal samples the same way)

The FDA requires that our coliform counts be 'no greater than 20' but I only send things out that are <10. 

 

How do we explain that there could be trace coliforms, but they don't pose any harm? If something is >1 but <10, is that a real indicator of a dirty product?

Thank you so much for your time!

Product is unknown ??.

 

IMEX it is rare for coliform to be a sole critical micro specification.

 

"Coliform" is typically (but often arguably unless a cooked item) regarded as a process hygiene indicator. It is not regarded as a safety-related microbial entity.

 

Assuming your product is a solid and not soluble in water, using a direct mix (1:1 or 1:10)  for coliform counts may be visually impractical.

[juanolea1]

The justification is that they comply with FDA established limits (citing the document that states this fact). The tolerance for coliform numbers depends on the established regulation and internal specifications, if it meets both I see no problem in the switch. However, I would try to stick to a method (and a dilution) to avoid confusion.