Development of microbiological criteria to assess the acceptability of a food lot – An example for milk powder

Scott, Virginia N.; Powell, Mark R.; Cabrera, J.; Carullo, Maria E.; Martínez, Inés; Lohachoompol, Virachnee

doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.09.026

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An example of using the ICMSF tool to determine the performance characteristics of sampling plans in the framework of development of microbiological criteria was described by Scott et al. () in the Special Issue of Food Control on the development of illustrative examples for the establishment and application of microbiological criteria for foods (Caipo et al., ).…”

Section: Technical Tools To Operationalise Microbiological Criteria (mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the illustrative example of development of microbiological criteria to assess the acceptability of milk powder, Scott et al. () used epidemiological data, information from the literature and expert opinion to define significant hazards and levels of concern. Example criteria (size of analytical unit, sampling plan and limits) were specified for mesophilic aerobic colony count and Enterobacteriaceae as indicators of the adequacy of Good Hygienic Practices and for Salmonella spp.…”

Section: Technical Tools To Operationalise Microbiological Criteria (mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scott et al. () assumed that the average concentration of the microorganism of concern in the milk powder is lognormally distributed and in case of a pathogen such as Salmonella spp. in milk powder (expected to be present at low levels) that the number of CFU in an analytical unit varies randomly according to the Poisson distribution (i.e.…”

Section: Technical Tools To Operationalise Microbiological Criteria (mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Guidance on the requirements for the development of microbiological criteria

Ricci¹,

Allende²,

Bolton³

et al. 2017

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Food Safety Authority asked the Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) to deliver a scientific opinion providing: (i) a review of the approaches used by the BIOHAZ Panel to address requests from risk managers to suggest the establishment of microbiological criteria; (ii) guidance on the required scientific evidence, data and methods/tools necessary for considering the development of microbiological criteria for pathogenic microorganisms and indicator microorganisms; (iii) recommendations on methods/tools to design microbiological criteria and (iv) guidelines for the requirements and tasks of risk assessors, compared to risk managers, in relation to microbiological criteria. This document provides guidance on approaches when: (i) a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) is available, (ii) prevalence and concentration data are available, but not a QMRA model, and (iii) neither a QMRA nor prevalence and/or concentration data are available. The role of risk assessors should be focused on assessing the impact of different microbiological criteria on public health and on product compliance. It is the task of the risk managers to: (1) formulate unambiguous questions, preferably in consultation with risk assessors, (2) decide on the establishment of a microbiological criterion, or target in primary production sectors, and to formulate the specific intended purpose for using such criteria, (3) consider the uncertainties in impact assessments on public health and on product compliance and (4) decide the point in the food chain where the microbiological criteria are intended to be applied and decide on the actions which should be taken in case of noncompliance. It is the task of the risk assessors to support risk managers to ensure that questions are formulated in a way that a precise answer can be given, if sufficient information is available, and to ensure clear and unambiguous answers, including the assessment of uncertainties, based on available scientific evidence.

show abstract

Section: Technical Tools To Operationalise Microbiological Criteria (mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Technical Tools To Operationalise Microbiological Criteria (mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Technical Tools To Operationalise Microbiological Criteria (mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Guidance on the requirements for the development of microbiological criteria

Ricci¹,

Allende²,

Bolton³

et al. 2017

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Microbiological contamination is one aspect considered in the control of the food processing environment, once the enumeration of specific groups indicates the hygienic conditions of production (Capita et al, 2003;Ghafir et al, 2008;Scott et al, 2015). With regards to the self-monitoring approach, microbiological contamination through a food processing step is not only assessed by comparing recorded counts with recognized reference values recommended by food hygiene official organs and commissions; self-monitoring systems also consider the historical record of microbiological contamination in a food processing environment to estimate some reference values, usually calculated as the mean count of a specific hygiene indicator added to its standard deviation.…”

Section: Self-monitoring Microbiological Criteria For the Assessment mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So, a specific reference value is calculated for a specific target hygiene microorganism in a specific facility, allowing proper comparison with subsequent data obtained during the hygiene monitoring of this same food industry. This approach allows the companies to identify fluctuations of the hygienic procedures during slaughtering, based not only on reference values, but on self-monitoring reference values in accordance with proper hygienic goals (Sala et al, 2015;Milios et al, 2014;Potter et al, 2012;Scott et al, 2015;Stannard, 1997).…”

Section: Self-monitoring Microbiological Criteria For the Assessment mentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Monitoring Microbiological Criteria for the Assessment of Hygienic Procedures During Chicken Slaughtering

Dias

Dianin

Bersot

et al. 2017

Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-monitoring procedures are adopted by food industries to ensure the quality and safety of final products, considering hygiene and processing criteria. This study aimed to evaluate contamination in chicken processing, considering the microbiological criteria proposed by self-monitoring systems. Environmental samples from reception, slaughtering and processing were collected from three chicken slaughterhouses (Sl1, Sl2, Sl3), and subjected to microbiological analysis to enumerate hygiene indicators microorganisms: mesophilic aerobes, enterobacteriaceae, coliforms and Escherichia coli. The obtained counts were converted to log 10 , compared by ANOVA (p<0.05) and self-monitoring microbiological criteria for each slaughterhouse were considered. In reception, the mean counts of hygiene indicator microorganisms in Sl3 were significantly higher than mean counts observed in Sl1 and Sl2 (p<0.05). During slaughtering, the chilling was enough to decrease the mean counts of all hygiene indicator microorganisms in Sl1, Sl2 and Sl3 (p<0.05). Based on self-monitoring criteria, in the first stages of slaughtering the facilities presented higher frequencies of chicken carcasses with counts above their respective reference values. Sl02 presented carcasses with higher counts after final washing, resulting in environmental samples with higher counts when compared to Sl1 and Sl3 (p<0.05). Even considering the high counts observed in the initial steps of chicken processing and slaughtering, the results indicated the efficacy of hygienic procedures in providing chicken carcasses and cuts with low microbiological contamination. Self-monitoring criteria supported these results, and the high levels of microbial contamination during the initial steps of slaughtering require subsequent antimicrobial hygienic procedures.

show abstract