© 2007 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), all rights reserved. Use without permission is prohibited. Results Assessment.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Member consultation 2007 Draft ISPM: Sampling of Consignments Steward: David Porritt.
Advertisements

Stability Studies - Evaluation of Outcomes and Development of Documentation For Regulatory Submissions Bob Seevers.
EVALUATING THE EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN MEAT AND POULTRY FOOD REGULATORY SYSTEMS EVALUATING THE EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN MEAT AND POULTRY FOOD REGULATORY SYSTEMS.
Who Will Regulate my Food Business? John E. Rushing, Ph.D. Department of Food Science NCSU.
The Regulatory Environment for Food Processing in Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Food Summit March, 2011 Chris Smith, Food Safety Specialist.
Confirmation Strategies for Clear Communication. Review Strategies we’ve learned so far for the final group discussion: (1) Checking Comprehension (2)
Microbiological Criterion to Assess the Acceptability of a Food Lot Jenny Scott FDA/CFSAN U.S. Delegate – Codex Committee on Food Hygiene.
Food Safety and Inspection Service Pathogen Reduction/HACCP.
1 Why/When Should Countries Require Official Export Certificates (From Japan’s Point of View)
Regulation and Safety Assessment of Novel Foods in Canada William Yan, Ph.D. Office of Food Biotechnology Health Canada.
Chapter 10 Quality Control McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Quality control of raw materials In-process control
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service August 27, 2008 Carol Maczka, PhD Assistant Administrator Office of Food Defense.
Radiopharmaceutical Production
Codex Guidelines for the Application of HACCP
Food safety and cheese International Food Safety Consultancy Dr.W.R. Marsman.
Listeria Guidance – Part 1 Sally Hasell. Purpose of Guide 1 1.Gives an overview of the issues – why controls are needed and why this need is becoming.
Perspectives on Pathogen Performance Standards Richard C. Whiting FDA, CFSAN College Park, MD December 10, SRA Annual Meeting.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FOOD SCIENCE INDUSTRY Agriscience 102 Applied Agricultural Science and Technology #8408 TEKS: (c)(5)(A)
Food Safety Regulations Canada Dr Ruby Lee. Food Safety Regulations - Canada 1. Health Canada Policy on Listeria monocytogenes in RTE Mushroom 2. Safe.
DENNIS CRYER Veterinary Meat Hygiene Adviser Food Standards Agency
OFFICIAL CONTROL OF FOOD LABELLING AND FOOD QUALITY CONTROL Dr. Pirjo-Liisa Penttilä Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Finland.
1 Proposed amendment of the Harmful Substances in Food Regulations (Cap. 132AF) Centre for Food Safety 3 June 2011.
Food Industry Perspective on Non-O157 STEC Jenny Scott Vice President, Food Safety Programs Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association.
Introducing Antimicrobial Fruit & Vegetable Treatment.
1 Keeping Food Safe Chapter Number 1. Learning Objectives After this presentation, you should be able to complete the following Learning Outcomes 1.0.
© 2007 Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), all rights reserved. Use without permission is prohibited. Nutrition.
Farmer’s Markets: Approved Foods and Health Licensing
A Bacterial Analysis of Irradiated and Non-Irradiated Meat Megan Markland Department of Biological Sciences York College, PA Introduction Hypotheses H.
How Food Safety Systems Protect our Food Supply. The implementation and maintenance of strict food safety systems ensures the health and safety of the.
Food Safety Assurance August Scope of food quality & food safety The term “food” covers any unprocessed, semi- processed, or processed item that.
Part 4: Corrective Actions Lisa Olsen Specialist Adviser, NZ Standards.
Review of the Compliance Guide HACCP Systems Validation Public Meeting June 25, 2013 Washington, DC Dr. William Shaw Risk, Innovations & Management Staff.
Example 1: GHP-based microbiological criteria Rosa M. Peran i Sala European Commission on behalf of the drafting team New Orleans, 11 th November 2012.
BASELINE software tool for calculation of microbiological criteria and risk management metrics for selected foods and hazards WP6 Model Development Final.
Example (5A) Operationalising a Performance Objective with a Microbiological Criterion for a Risk-Based Approach.
Lessons Learned from the Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein Incident Jenny Scott FDA CFSAN Office of Food Safety.
Non-O157 STEC: New Challenges / Practical Limitations / Next Steps Robert L. Buchanan HHS Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied.
Proposed Rule for Preventive Controls for Animal Food.
Proposed Rule: 21 CFR 507 Proposed Rule for Preventive Controls for Animal Food 1.
THE CONCEPTS of PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, CUMULATIVE STEPS AND VALIDATION STUDIES Dr. John Kvenberg, Acting Director, Office of Field Programs July 15, 1999.
Jenny Scott FDA/CFSAN U.S. Delegate – Codex Committee on Food Hygiene
Reclaimed Wastewater Quality Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines
Pathogen Reduction Dialogue Panel 2 HACCP Impacts on Contamination Levels in Meat and Poultry Products: FSIS Perspective Delila R. Parham, DVM Office of.
Example (5A) Operationalising a Performance Objective with a Microbiological Criterion for a Risk-Based Approach.
1 Historical Perspective on FDA’s Listeria Approach Mickey Parish, Ph.D. Senior Advisor for Microbiology FDA/CFSAN, Office of Food Safety JIFSAN Advisory.
1 Introduction to the Control of Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) in Ready-to-Eat Products; Interim Final Rule Small and Very Small Establishment Implementation.
1 FAC Charge and Questions Mickey Parish, Ph.D. Senior Advisor for Microbiology FDA/CFSAN, Office of Food Safety JIFSAN Advisory Board November 6, 2015.
 This notice provides new instructions to Enforcement Investigations and Analysis Officers (EIAOs) and Public Health Veterinarians who were trained in.
United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 1 Across Establishment Ranking Concept For Processing and Slaughter February.
United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Overview of Trim Sampling Compliance Guidelines and Discussion Daniel Engeljohn,
USDA Public Meeting; Control of E. coli O157:H7
United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Public Health-Related Performance Standards Currently Under Consideration for.
Quality Control Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill.
NACMPI May 23-24, Measuring Establishment Risk Control for Risk-Based Inspection Philip Derfler Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program.
Awareness Training: ‘HARPC’ for Food Safety Complimentary Presentation by Quality Systems Enhancement 1790 Wood Stock Road Roswell GA E. mail:
Experiences with Controlling Listeria monocytogenes in Ready- to-Eat Food Processes W. Payton Pruett, Jr., Ph.D. ConAgra Refrigerated Foods USDA Listeria.
© Food – a fact of life 2009 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) HACCP is a system which looks for and prevents potential problems before they.
Food Safety Challenges and Benefits of New Technology Randall Huffman, Ph.D. Vice President, Scientific Affairs American Meat Institute Foundation USDA-
United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Draft Labeling Policy Guidance for N- 60 Testing Claims for Boneless Beef Manufacturing.
Determining shelf life in food products for manufacturers.
The Risk Assessment in the Food Industry
PREPARATION FOR GMP INSPECTION
Understanding a Nutrition Facts Label
Microbiological Sampling of Dairy Products
Food and Beverages Importers Association (FBIA)
Who Will Regulate my Food Business?
International Food Safety Consultancy Dr.W.R. Marsman
GL 51 – Statistical evaluation of stability data
Presentation transcript:

© 2007 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), all rights reserved. Use without permission is prohibited. Results Assessment for Microbiology April 30,2009 Katie Eloranta CFIA Burnaby Laboratory- Microbiology

2 Items for consideration We’ll Examine… The Regulations 2 Class vs 3 Class Plans Understanding the Lingo Examples Additional Commodity Specific Policies Results Assessment for Microbiology

3 So the testing is done…now what does this mean? First Step- The Regulations For Most Commodities Health Canada- Provides an Interpretive Summary of Current Regulatory Standards Available at ( Search the Compendium of Analytical Methods- Volume I)

4 For Fish Products Canadian Food Inspection Agency Appendix 2 Bacteriological Guidelines for Fish and Fish Product Available at (Search on inspection.gc.ca for Bacteriological Guidelines)

5 For certain foods, microbiological standards have been established : These standards have legal status and are defined in the Food and Drugs Act Examples: Table 1 b. from Interpretive Summary

6 For other foods, while no specific legal standard has been created, they still fall under the general clauses of the Food and Drugs Act: Section 4: No person shall sell an article of food that has in or upon it any poisonous or harmful substance; is unfit for human consumption; consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance; is adulterated; or was manufactured, prepared, preserved, packaged or stored under unsanitary conditions.

7 To aid in assessing these foods, the Health Products and Food Branch develops microbiological guidelines While these guidelines are not defined in the Regulations of the Food and Drugs Act, Used to judge compliance under : Section 4, 5, and 7 of the Food and Drug Act

8 2 Class vs 3 Class Plans 2 Class Plans: 2 outcomes, either acceptable or unacceptable. 2 Class Plans are used when no living cells of a specific organism is tolerated (Presence/ Absence Testing) Example: Tolerance of Salmonella in any food is zero Finding any isolates of Salmonella would result in an unsatisfactory assessment

9 3 Class Plan: 3 possible outcomes; acceptable, marginally acceptable, and unacceptable. Used when some cells of the organism in question are tolerated. (Enumeration used to determine whether cell levels exceed tolerance). Example: The presence of some E. coli in Cheese would be acceptable, depending on just how much

10 Finding 100 cfu/g in one sub-sample would result in a satisfactory assessment But…finding 10,000 cfu/g in one sub-sample would result in an unsatisfactory assessment For 3 Class Plans, the assessment depends on the levels, not just the presence or absence of an organism

11 As a very general rule of thumb, testing of pathogens is usually 2- Class, while testing of indicator organisms is generally 3-Class. Indicator organisms, while at low levels are not considered harmful, can at higher levels indicate sanitation or spoilage concerns.

12 The Tables…Making Sense of the Jargon

13 When assessing microbiology results, the following parameters are considered…. n : number of samples of the product lot Did the testing include enough samples? If not, then assessment is not possible and an assessment of No decision is made. (The one exception: If a 2 class test is done on only 1 sample, and you detect the pathogen…it would still be appropriate to assess as Unsatisfactory!)

14 When assessing microbiology results, the following parameters are considered…. m : acceptable concentration of microbes (usually expressed as CFU/g or mL of the food). For a presence/absence test…m is 0 For a 3- class plan m is based on levels achievable under GMP and is used to distinguish between samples of acceptable quality and those with marginal quality.

15 When assessing microbiology results, the following parameters are considered…. c : The maximum allowable number of marginally acceptable samples (How many of my 5 samples are allowed to have levels before I have a problem?)

16 When assessing microbiology results, the following parameters are considered…. M: (For 3 class plans only) Is the concentration of the microbe that indicate a (potential) hazard, imminent spoilage, or gross insanitation. If any of my samples have levels in excess of M, the lot is unsatisfactory.

17 Some Practical Help…Examples!!! I submitted 5 pints of my latest lot of Double Chocolate Swirl Ice Cream to the laboratory. The lab tested for a total aerobic colony count, and provided me with the following results: Sample 1 : 400 CFU/g Sample 2: 200 CFU/g Sample 3: 1,200,000 CFU/g Sample 4: 1000 CFU/g Sample 5: 3,000 CFU/g How would I assess this Ice Cream?

18 Example 1: How’s My Ice Cream? Step 1: Did I submit enough samples? Yes…n=5 Step 2: Did any samples exceed m? Yes, Sample 3 is 1,200,000, while m is only 100,000. Step 3: Did any samples exceed M? Yes, Sample 3 is 1,200,000, while M is 1,000,000. You can stop right here! Since I’ve exceeded M its clear to me that this Ice Cream is Unsatisfactory. Time to go back and find out what went wrong!

19 Now, I decided to get out of the Ice Cream business, and became an oyster farmer! I submitted 5 samples from a lot of Raw Oysters. The lab tested for E. coli and gave me back the following results: Sample 1: 200 MPN/100g Sample 2: 78 MPN/100g Sample 3: < 18 MPN/100g Sample 4: 250 MPN/100g Sample 5: 20 MPN/100g How would I assess this lot of oysters?

20 Example 2: Oh those Oysters! Step 1: Did I submit enough samples? Yes…n=5 Step 2: Did any samples exceed m? Yes, Sample 4 is 250, while m is 230. Step 3: Did any samples exceed M? No, all samples were less than 330. Step 4: Did the number of samples exceeding m, exceed c? (Are too many of my samples at the marginal line?) No…c= 1 Therefore, this product can be assessed as Satisfactory for E. coli

21 Example 3: What about these Oysters? What if instead of 200 MPN/100g, Sample 1 had 300 MPN/100g? Sample 1: 300 MPN/100g Sample 2: 78 MPN/100g Sample 3: < 18 MPN/100g Sample 4: 250 MPN/100g Sample 5: 20 MPN/100g In this case you now have 2 samples with marginally acceptable levels, which exceeds c=1. This product would now be assessed as Unsatisfactory for E.coli levels.

22 What about composite testing??? To help save time and resources it is quite common for laboratories to pool multiple samples into one composite sample. This can change how a final lab result is assessed. When 3 –class plan sample are pooled, determining m and M for the individual sub-sample is no longer possible. For these samples, a new set of assessment criteria are applied. AnalysisAssessment (per g) SatisfactoryInvestigativeUnsatisfactory ACC≤ 6 x x10 4 <x ≤ 4.6 x10 5 >4.6 x10 5

23 Example 4 : More Ice Cream! In the previous case of Ice Cream for ACC testing, Let’s say I submitted a second lot, this time for composite testing. When the 5 pints of Ice Cream were tested all together as a composite, the laboratory gave me the following result: Pooled Sample: 72,000 CFU/g How do I apply the table to a pooled result?

24 Example 4 : More Ice Cream continued There are multiple scenarios to arrive at 72,000 cfu/g pooled: Possibility A: Sample 1: 0 CFU/g Sample 2: 0 CFU/g Sample 3: 360,000 CFU/g Sample 4: 0 CFU/g Sample 5: 0 CFU/g Possibility B: Sample 1: 0 CFU/g Sample 2: 120,000 CFU/g Sample 3: 120,000 CFU/g Sample 4: 0 CFU/g Sample 5: 120,000 CFU/g

25 Example 4 : More Ice Cream continued For Possibility A: Looking back at my original assessment criteria of n=5, c=2, m=100,000, M=1,000,000, this sample would be Satisfactory. While m is exceeded, c and M are not. For Possibility B: Again looking at the original assessment criteria,this lot would be Unsatisfactory. This is because m is exceeded in 3 samples, while c=2.

26 Example 4 : More Ice Cream continued As both scenarios are possible for my pooled sample, I cannot make this determination without re-testing the separate samples, and the composite result is Investigative.

27 Assessing Presence /Absence Testing Luckily, assessing a 2- Class plan is much simpler! It really comes down to only two items to consider… Did I test the right amount of samples? and Did we find the target organism or not?

28 Example 5: Froglegs For my next food production venture, I’ve decided to get more exotic and I’m now selling Froglegs. But, since they are so expensive, for my first lab submission I only submitted 3 packages for testing. The good news is that the tests came back negative for Salmonella, but the lab wouldn’t give me the Satisfactory assessment I was after? What gives?

29 Example 5: Froglegs Continued Step 1: Did I submit enough samples? No…n=5, but I only submitted 3 packages. Right away I understand why my sample was assessed as No Decision. Without testing the full amount of samples, the product cannot be assessed as satisfactory.

30 Example 5: Froglegs Continued For my second lab submission, I made sure to send in the full 5 samples. This time the lab found low levels of Salmonella. Once again I didn’t get the Satisfactory decision I was after, in fact its even worse; they called it Unsatisfactory. Why? Step 1: Did I submit enough samples? Yes…n=5 Step 2: What the product free of the target organism? No

31 More to consider…. In addition to the standards and guidelines outlined by the Health Canada Health Products and Food Branch Interpretive Summary, Additional Polices are listed for the following commodities: Sprouts Raw Ground Beef Fermented Sausages Unpasteurized Fruit Juice/Cider Ready to Eat Foods You need to be aware of their details if you are assessing results for these food products

32 Policy on Listeria monocytogenes in RTE Foods RTE Foods are divided into 3 Categories as they relate to their risk for L. mono: Category 1: RTE foods causally linked to documented outbreaks of listeriosis and or to any RTE food that is rated as “high risk”. These foods require 50 g samples tested as a 2- Class plan ( Presence/Absence).

33 Policy on Listeria monocytogenes in RTE Foods Category 2: All other RTE foods supporting growth of L. mono with refrigerated shelf life greater than 10 days These foods require 25 g samples tested as a 2- Class plan ( Presence/Absence).

34 Policy on Listeria monocytogenes in RTE Foods Category 3: RTE foods supporting the growth of L. mono with refrigerated shelf life of fewer than 10 days, and all RTE foods not supporting growth. Assessment is based on counts <= 100 cfu/g is satisfactory > 100 cfu/g is unsatisfactory

35 So to Summarize….. When assessing a microbiology laboratory sample Check that the sample size was appropriate Verify that the appropriate test was conducted Use m, M, and c from Health Canada and CFIA websites Remember that the rules change for composite samples Be aware of any additional policies for the foods you are assessing

36