1. www.mpi.govt.nz New Zealand-led Drafting team Example 3b: MC for verifying the performance of a food safety control system

2. Drafting team Costa Rica – Amanda Lasso Cruz Kenya – Moses Gichia Kiribati – Tebikau Noran New Zealand – Judi Lee, Marion Castle and colleagues Samoa – Ualesi Silva

3. Campylobacteriosis in New Zealand 2006 15,873 notifications (379 / 100,000) 1,179 hospitalisations

4. Source of human cases 2008

5. 50% reduction in the incidence of foodborne campylobacteriosis after five years Regulator’s commitment to our Minister: Regulator’s Goal - 2008

7. Industry performance target Target: 3.78 log 10 CFU Campylobacter per carcass Purpose: to verify whether a food safety control system applied to the slaughter and dressing of broiler chicken achieves a regulated performance target for Campylobacter

8. Who should establish/who should apply Established: by regulator in consultation with industry Applied: by processors of broiler chickens. GHP and hazard-based measures are selected by individual processors that best meet the target.

9. Hazard-based measures

10. Point in food chain – food/food process Food: fresh raw broiler chicken carcasses Point of food chain: after slaughter, dressing and initial chilling to check status at the end of primary processing

11. Sampling plan /method of analysis Sampling plan: tailored to size of industry 3 whole carcasses selected randomly details provided in technical manual Method of analysis: direct plate enumeration (mCCDA)

12. Addition of latest processing period displaces the results from the oldest processing period samples 3 random samples per processing day Processing period = 5 processing days 15 samples/processing period = 45 samples per moving window Moving Window MW = 3 latest processing periods Interpretation: CPT moving window /failure description Each MWF scores 1. These are cumulative until reset to zero after the next compliant moving window 7 or more/ 45 samples from MW are greater than 3.78 log10CFU/carcass (Standard Throughput) Moving Window Failure (MWF) MW = 3 successive processing periods

13. Sanctions 58 or more Regulatory visit +/- sanctions 46-7 Sampling, + interventions 34-5 Processing Equip WOF, Farm review 22-3 GHP and HACCP review 11 Escalating ResponseHighest Cumulative Total (HCF or MWF) CPT failure: escalating response

14. Industry progress

15. Prevalence: in 2 nd quarter 2007 was 57% in 4 th quarter 2011 was 40%

16. Quarterly progress – all human campylobacteriosis cases

17. Notifications and hospitalisations Sourced from Ann Sears 2009, Otago University