7 replies to this topic

[KingaZ]

Hi

 

We supply a customer who produces sandiwches, with Ready to Eat Salad Leaves e.g. spinach, baby leaf mix, rocket, apollo lettuce.

 

They are reporting to us that our salads are testing Enterobactericae over thier set limit of 104

 

I've read number of articules saying that Enteros on salad leaves are part of thier natural microflora and therefore high count. None of our main UK supermarkets microbiological specification asked to test for Enteros.

 

Does anyone has any experiance with that?

Can you share microbiological criteria you work  - for Sandwiches please?

 

thanks in advance

[SHQuality]

Did you intend to use a subscript 4 on that limit? Are you talking about a limit of 10 or a limit of 10⁴?

 

Some members of the Enterobacteriaceae family also cause food spoilage and as such, enterobacteriaceae are commonly used as indicator organisms for poor hygiene practices or failure of a manufacturing process.

 

I'm not surprised that your client set a strict limit on a product that is easily susceptible to spoilage.

[KingaZ]

Hello, yes i understand that and it works well for verification of cooking process. What we do is wash our salads, this is not a kill step but reduction step. you cant het rid of enteros present on the leaves as its thier natural microflora and is likely to be in high count at the start of washing process.

 

I understand that its a poor hygine indicator but definatelly not used for Salads as there is no point.

 

In Guidance for Assessing Microbiological Safety of RTE Foods Placed on Market (Health Protection Agency), page 12, its says "3.2 Enterobacteriaceae The Enterobacteriaceae family is a group of bacteria that is used to assess the general hygiene status of a food product. This group includes species that originate from the intestinal tract of animals and humans, as well as plants and the environment. All Enterobacteriaceae are killed by the heat processes used in food production and should be readily removed from the factory, equipment and surfaces by appropriate cleaning procedures. Their presence in heat treated foods therefore signifies inadequate cooking or post-processing contamination. High levels of these bacteria are expected in some food commodities such as salad vegetables. The use of sanitising rinses may reduce but not entirely remove these organisms."

 

I've read various Customer micro COP's and none of them requitres Enteros testing when salad is used as a component.

 

 

yes, Entero limit of 10⁴

[SHQuality]

I originally thought you said the limit was 10, which is a reasonable limit in dry products.

10⁴ doesn't sound like an unreasonable limit to me even for salad, but I must admit, it's not a product I've worked with a lot.

 

Did the customer say by how much your product exceeds their expected limits?

[Charles.C]

Hi

 

We supply a customer who produces sandiwches, with Ready to Eat Salad Leaves e.g. spinach, baby leaf mix, rocket, apollo lettuce.

 

They are reporting to us that our salads are testing Enterobactericae over thier set limit of 104

 

I've read number of articules saying that Enteros on salad leaves are part of thier natural microflora and therefore high count. None of our main UK supermarkets microbiological specification asked to test for Enteros.

 

Does anyone has any experiance with that?

Can you share microbiological criteria you work  - for Sandwiches please?

 

thanks in advance

Hi KingaZ,

 

IIRC you  treat yr vegetables with antimicrobial ? Should enable log 2 reduction ?.

 

New customer ?

 

Do you do any micro testing, eg coliforms (often a lot of EB) ? If not, might be worth testing some of yr own Product to compare.

 

!0,000 cfu/g seems not so little but maybe also not so much after reading below attachment, what did yr customer find ?

 

Not my product area but this (random) publication might be of interest -

 

 Microbiological Quality of (fresh) lettuce.pdf   421.47KB   18 downloads

 

PS - 10,000cfu/g is taken from UK, RTE, Guideline EB maximum but, as you quoted, stated not applicable to salad vegetables/sandwiches so  higher values may not be unusual.

Edited by Charles.C, 01 February 2023 - 01:14 PM.
added

[KingaZ]

Hello, yes we do wash our leaves in PAA (peroxyacetic acid) and it achieves 3 logs reduction but its still too high for Sandwich compamy. 

 

The whole sandwich has to complay woth 10000 cfu and when our Salad already exceeds that then their sandwich fails. 

 

No, I havent done any testing for coliforms but will do them now. Normally we test for E.coli. Salmonella, Listeria. 

 

Levels our customer is reporting are: 

Results

Suite

Det

Result

Flag

TRW-10

Pres. E. coli B-glucuronidase positive - cfu/g

< 10

False

TRW-10

Pres. Enterobacteriaceae Count (37øC) - cfu/g

> 150000

False

Results

Suite

Det

Result

Flag

TRW-10

Pres. E. coli B-glucuronidase positive - cfu/g

< 10

False

TRW-10

Pres. Enterobacteriaceae Count (37øC) - cfu/g

> 150000

False

[Scampi]

The standard sound unattainably high  what is the total limit they want on the finished sandwich???

 

Notice the section in red below--from CFIA

 

https://publications...67-2013-eng.pdf

 

 

Also, google FDA leafy greens and you will see the staggering amount of research done on this very topic of late

 

Table 1 Microbial Guidelines for Ready-to-Eat Foods Microbial Guideline (CFU per gram unless otherwise stated)

Test Satisfactory Marginal Unsatis factory Potentially Aerobic Colony Count Hazardous Category 1 <104 <105 ≥105 Category 2 <106 <107 ≥107 Category 3 N/A N/A N/A Indicator Organisms Coliforms (a) <102 <103 ≥103 Escherichia coli <10 <100 ≥100 See VTEC Pathogens Salmonella spp. Not detected in 25 g Detecte Camplybacter spp. Not detected in d 25 g Detecte Shigella spp.* Not detected in d 25 g Detecte E.coli 0157: H7 & VTEC Not detected in d 25 g Detecte L. monocytogenes Not detected in d 25 g 10-≤100 ©) ≥100(d) V. cholerae** Not detected in 25 g Detecte V. parahaemolyticus d (b) Not detected in 25 g Detected but <100 102 -103 ≥103 Clostridium perfringens <10 20-100 100- <104 ≥104 Coagulase positive staphylococci <205 <102 100- <104 ≥104 B.cereus and other pathogens Bacillus spp. <50 <103 <104 ≥104 N/A – Not applicable because the food, or a component of it, naturally contains high numbers of bacteria (e.g. raw fruits or vegetables, fermented or cultured foods, etc). Detected – Immediate action on the product is required (a) Not applicable for fresh fruit, raw vegetables or food containing these. (b) Should not be present in seafood that has been cooked. Products intended for consumption in their raw form should contain less than 100 CFU per gram. Potentially hazardous levels of V.parahaemolyticus relates to Kanagawa-positive strains. V. parahaemolyticus and V. cholerae should be considered when analysing fish and seafood products. © Foods intended to have a prolonged shelf-life should contain no detectable level of L. monocytogenes (e.g. cheese, processed deli meats, etc). (d) Detection of L. monocytogenes is also considered to be potentially hazardous if the food is to be served to “high risk” populations, such as the young, the elderly, or the immunocompromised (e.g. baby food, hospital food, and food served at seniors’ centers). * Microbiological criteria for Shigella spp. was added for consistency with UK guidelines. Shigella spp. have not been included in the guidelines developed by other countries for ready to eat foods. ** Microbiological criteria for Vibrio cholerae have been added to UK guidelines because the European Commission has made several decisions in response to the isolation of this organism from various ready-to-eat foods, mainly fishery products and fruits and vegetables, imported into countries of the European Union

[Charles.C]

The standard sound unattainably high  what is the total limit they want on the finished sandwich???

 

Notice the section in red below--from CFIA

 

https://publications...67-2013-eng.pdf

 

 

Also, google FDA leafy greens and you will see the staggering amount of research done on this very topic of late

 

Table 1 Microbial Guidelines for Ready-to-Eat Foods Microbial Guideline (CFU per gram unless otherwise stated)

Test Satisfactory Marginal Unsatis factory Potentially Aerobic Colony Count Hazardous Category 1 <104 <105 ≥105 Category 2 <106 <107 ≥107 Category 3 N/A N/A N/A Indicator Organisms Coliforms (a) <102 <103 ≥103 Escherichia coli <10 <100 ≥100 See VTEC Pathogens Salmonella spp. Not detected in 25 g Detecte Camplybacter spp. Not detected in d 25 g Detecte Shigella spp.* Not detected in d 25 g Detecte E.coli 0157: H7 & VTEC Not detected in d 25 g Detecte L. monocytogenes Not detected in d 25 g 10-≤100 ©) ≥100(d) V. cholerae** Not detected in 25 g Detecte V. parahaemolyticus d (b) Not detected in 25 g Detected but <100 102 -103 ≥103 Clostridium perfringens <10 20-100 100- <104 ≥104 Coagulase positive staphylococci <205 <102 100- <104 ≥104 B.cereus and other pathogens Bacillus spp. <50 <103 <104 ≥104 N/A – Not applicable because the food, or a component of it, naturally contains high numbers of bacteria (e.g. raw fruits or vegetables, fermented or cultured foods, etc). Detected – Immediate action on the product is required (a) Not applicable for fresh fruit, raw vegetables or food containing these. (b) Should not be present in seafood that has been cooked. Products intended for consumption in their raw form should contain less than 100 CFU per gram. Potentially hazardous levels of V.parahaemolyticus relates to Kanagawa-positive strains. V. parahaemolyticus and V. cholerae should be considered when analysing fish and seafood products. © Foods intended to have a prolonged shelf-life should contain no detectable level of L. monocytogenes (e.g. cheese, processed deli meats, etc). (d) Detection of L. monocytogenes is also considered to be potentially hazardous if the food is to be served to “high risk” populations, such as the young, the elderly, or the immunocompromised (e.g. baby food, hospital food, and food served at seniors’ centers). * Microbiological criteria for Shigella spp. was added for consistency with UK guidelines. Shigella spp. have not been included in the guidelines developed by other countries for ready to eat foods. ** Microbiological criteria for Vibrio cholerae have been added to UK guidelines because the European Commission has made several decisions in response to the isolation of this organism from various ready-to-eat foods, mainly fishery products and fruits and vegetables, imported into countries of the European Union

Hi Scampi,

 

afaik the Canadian guidelines are primarily  "borrowed" from UK but for some reason omitted EB..

 

yr link seems broken/ not directed. CFIA are constantly shuffling their documents around IMEX.

afaik the Canadian guidelines are com2 here -

https://www.ifsqn.co...al/#entry127998

 

 

@kingaZ - Yes, EB =  1.5 x 10⁵ cfu/g doesn't seem particularly unrealistic.

I looked over a few publications relating to lettuce, the EB values varied from approx 10³ to 10⁸, the majority being > 104 cfu/g, eg the one below looked relatively good. Note the guideline max for coliforms on pic.

(Everybody seems to use VRB for coliform nowadays since it's faster but IMEX it can sometimes give "elevated" results compared to the older MPN procedures. In fact afaik thermotolerant coliform is considered a superior indicator to coliform but needs more equipment).

 

 lettuce - EB,coliforms.png   161.89KB   1 downloads

source -

 microbial evaluation of fresh produce pre,post- packhouse and retail,2020.pdf   1.92MB   9 downloads