WE PROTECT
PRODUCTS &
REPUTATIONS
Innovators in
Food Safety
& Marination
{ Let us show you how to }
r;*OIJCJU;QBUIPHFO;PVUHSPXUI;
r;&YUFOE;QSPEVDU;TIFMG;MJGF;
;r;3FEVDF;TPEJVN;DPOUFOU;
r;&OIBODF;QSPEVDU;óBWPS;
;r;*ODSFBTF;ZJFMET;
Call us at 877-758-1745
Or visit www.wtiinc.com
the latter three strains from 5), (c) multi-strain inoculation cocktails of the ‘top
six’ non-O157 STEC organisms (Table
1) and (d) non-pathogenic ‘surrogate’ E.
coli strains that have been shown in the
literature to behave similarly to E. coli
O157:H7 and Salmonella (strains of
ATCC BAA-1427, ATCC BAA-1428,
ATCC BAA-1429, ATCC BAA-1430,
and ATCC BAA-1431). 6–9 These latter
surrogate strains were recently ‘
approved’ by FSIS for plant validation use
under appropriate inoculation and
control conditions.
Once data are collected using the described laboratory experimental protocols, plants will know—under their
respective operating parameters—the effects of decontamination treatments on
the pathogens themselves, as well as the
corresponding impact on enumerated
generic counts and on surrogates. These
results can then be used to contrast results generated in any in-plant validation
studies conducted using measures of one
or all of these organisms. The obvious
downsides of generating “scientific or
technical support” for the efficacy of interventions against contamination with
E. coli O157:H7 or the non-O157
STECs using this approach are that (a)
the protocol is relatively expensive when
one considers the sheer number of independent interventions and the number
of operating parameters used in most
plant multiple-hurdle food safety systems (i.e., this may have an impact on
the ability of small or very small facilities to develop such information); (b) a
mechanism for addressing results that
differ among differing institutions is
needed if the institutions applied decon-taminants under similar or the same operational parameters; and (c) results may
or may not reflect effectiveness on some
public health pathogen that is yet to be
identified.
Conclusions
Stay tuned...controversy and scien-
tific debate is bound to continue into
2011 and beyond as companies strive to
understand and meet clarified validation
expectations for FSIS regulatory compli-
ance and to satisfy large-volume cus-
tomer requirements. One thing is
certain—transparency among regulatory
bodies, scientists and industry will con-
tinue to be of paramount importance as
food safety controls evolve. n
Keith E. Belk, Ph.D. is a professor with
the Center for Meat Safety & Quality in the
Department of Animal Sciences at
Colorado State University and is the consulting director of scientific affairs for
Food Safety Net Services, LLC.
References
1. academy.asm.org/images/stories/
documents/Global_Food_Safety.pdf.
2. Salvage, B. 2010. NAMP conference begins with food-safety focus. Oct 29.
www.meatpoultry.com/News, accessed
December 4, 2010.
3. Neuman, W. 2010. Beef recall heats up
fight to tighten rules. New York Times Sept. 2.
4. Kay, S. 2010. Wal-Mart raises the food
safety bar. Beef Magazine June 2.
5. Carlson, B. A, K. K. Nightingale, G. L.
Mason, J. R. Ruby, W. T. Choat, G. H. Lonera-gan, G. C. Smith, J. N. Sofos and K. E. Belk.
2009. Escherichia coli O157:H7 strains that
persist in feedlot cattle are genetically related
and demonstrate an enhanced ability to adhere to intestinal epithelial cells. Appl Environ
Microbiol 75:5927–5937.
6. Cabrera-Diaz, E., T. M. Moseley, L. M.
Lucia, J. S. Dickson, A. Castillo and G. R.
Acuff. 2009. Fluorescent protein-marked
Escherichia coli biotype I strains as surrogates
for enteric pathogens in validation of beef carcass interventions. J Food Prot 72:295–303.
7. Keeling, C., S. E. Niebuhr, G. R. Acuff and
J. S. Dickson. 2008. Evaluation of Escherichia
coli biotype 1 as a surrogate for Escherichia
coli O157:H7 for cooking, fermentation, freezing, and refrigerated storage in meat
processes. J Food Prot 72:728.
8. Marshall, K. M., S. E. Niebuhr, G. R. Acuff,
L. M. Lucia, and J. S. Dickson. 2005. Identification of Escherichia coli O157:H7 meat processing indicators for fresh meat through
comparison of the effects of selected antimicrobial interventions. J Food Prot 68:2580–
2586.
9. Niebuhr, S. E., A. Laury, G. R. Acuff and J.
S. Dickson. 2007. Evaluation of nonpathogenic
surrogate bacteria as process validation indicators for Salmonella enterica for selected antimicrobial treatments, cold storage, and
fermentation in meat. J Food Prot 71:714–718.
