This type of question can certainly be
discussed using calculation tools as presented above. Such tools will enable
users to calculate alternative but equivalent sampling plans. However, care must
be taken in considering the underlying
assumptions related to the distributions
of contamination and mean concentrations within the lot.
Another frequent question is related
to dilution effects from additions of
small quantities of ingredients. While
the question is certainly legitimate, the
application of a “corrective factor” to
microbiological specifications to take
into account an addition rate is usually
not possible, as numerous elements
would need to be taken into consideration for which the data are not often
available. Such elements include a thorough understanding of the microbiological status of a raw material and the
effectiveness of control measures influ-
CATEGORY
(continued from page 51)
; ; ;;; ;;;
encing it, such as processing conditions,
contamination from processing environment and food contact surfaces, the variability within individual or between
subsequent lots, the distribution of contamination within a lot as well as other
elements related to sampling, handling
and testing.
Conclusions
Microbiological specifications used in
the frame of commercial agreements fulfill a specific and important role in ensuring the safety of finished products.
They should be based on sound principles and the role and limitations understood by the different stakeholders in
the food chain. n
Jean-Louis Cordier, Ph.D. is the food
safety manager of Quality Manage-ment/Operations at Nestlé Nutrition. He
received his Ph.D. at ETH Zürich, Institute
for Microbiology and can be contacted at
jean-louis.cordier@nestle.com. ;;; ;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
TandD US, LLC.
;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;
References
1. Gästrin, B., Å. Kämpe, K. G. Nyström, B.
Odén-Johanson, G. Wessel and B. Zetterberg.
1972. Salmonella durham-epidemi spridd
genom kakaopulver. Läkartidningen 69:5335–8.
2. Lehmacher, A., J. Bockemühl and S. Alek-sic. 1995. Nationwide outbreak of human sal-monellosis in Germany due to contaminated
paprika and paprika-powdered potato chips.
Epidemiol Infect 115:501– 11.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2009. Multistate outbreak of Salmonella
infections associated with peanut butter and
peanut butter-containing products – United
States, 2008–2009. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
58:1– 6.
4. Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2007.
Principles and guidelines for the conduct of
microbiological risk management (MRM).
CAC/GL- 63. FAO: Rome.
5. Codex Alimentarius Commission 1997.
Principles for the establishment and application of microbiological criteria for foods.
CAC/GL- 21. FAO: Rome.
6. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods. 2002.
Microorganisms in Food 7. Microbiological testing in
food safety management. Kluwer Academic-Plenum: NY.
7. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods. 1986.
Microorganisms in Foods 2: Sampling for microbiological analysis: Principles and specific applications (2nd ed). University of Toronto Press:
Toronto.
8. Hildebrandt G., L. Böhmer and S. Dahms.
1995. Three-class attributes plans in microbiological quality control: Contribution to the discussion. J Food Prot 58:784–90.
9. Legan, J.D., M. H. Vandeven, S. Dahms
and M. B. Cole. 2001. Determining the concentration of microorganisms controlled by attributes sampling plans. Food Control
12:137–47.
10. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods. In Press.
Microorganisms in food 8. The use of data for
assessing process control and product
acceptance.
11. Van Schothorst, M., M. H. Zwietering, T.
Ross, R. L. Buchanan, M. B. Cole and International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods. 2009. Relating
microbiological criteria to food safety objectives and performance objectives. Food
Control 20:967–79.
