|
Food Protection Trends
Abstracts - September 2004
Opinion Survey of Wisconsin Dairy Professionals
about Milk Quality
Evaluating Food Safety Needs in the Food Industry
Using a “Worker-experience Protocol”
Microbiological Evaluation of Food Contact Surfaces in Iowa
Schools
Opinion Survey of Wisconsin
Dairy Professionals about Milk Quality
na C. O. Rodrigues and Pamela L. Ruegg*
Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin, 1675
Observatory Dr., Madison, WI 53706, USA
SUMMARY
Wisconsin dairy professionals (n = 165) were surveyed during late 2001, using a
mailed questionnaire. The survey was composed of questions regarding personal
work characteristics, impression of a team-based milk quality improvement
program (Milk Money) and opinions about milk quality issues. The response rate was high (78.8%), and respondents comprised
veterinarians (n = 42), extension agents (n = 35), dairy plant field
representatives (n = 21), vocational agricultural instructors (n = 17) and
others (n = 15). Responders were experienced and worked with herds that were
representative of Wisconsin
dairies. Most (66.7%) dairy plant field representatives spent more than 50% of
their professional time working on milk quality issues, whereas the majority of
other responders spent < 10% of their professional time working with this
issue. Most responders (88.3%) agreed that working with other consultants is an
effective way to improve milk quality. Common barriers to improvement of milk
quality on farm were the existence of too many other problems (54.6%) and few
incentives for production of high quality milk (47.7%).
Additional on-farm training programs (23.9%) and “more time” (21.5%)
were cited as resources needed for implementation of farm-based milk quality
programs. All responders agreed
that bulk milk somatic cell counts (BMSCC) and milk quality premiums were
important for dairy farm profitability. Most (78.5%) responders agreed that the current U.S. BMSCC
regulatory limit was too high. Responder groups differed in their opinions
regarding critical issues for improvement in milk quality and the willingness of
farmers to pay for specific milk quality services.
Evaluating Food Safety Needs
in the Food Industry Using a “Worker-experience Protocol”
Sergio Nieto-Montenegro, j. Lynne Brown, andLuke F. LaBorde
8F Borland Lab, Dept. of Food Science, Penn State University,
University Park, PA 16802, USA
SUMMARY
Company food safety needs must be evaluated in order to implement successful
food safety training. Customizing a program to address unique situations and
needs in the food industry requires studying day-to-day food safety operations
and worker food safety behaviors. One
problem with most inspection methods is that they alter the behaviors being
studied. To develop a less obtrusive approach, we examined the useful-ness of an
observation method called the Worker-Experience Protocol (WEP) in conducting a
needs assessment in a food production setting. The objectives of this paper are
to (1) outline the steps in the WEP, in which a person unconnected to either the
regulatory system or the food company served as a ‘worker’ in order to make direct
observations of company operations and worker behaviors; (2) compare the
findings from this observation protocol with those of focus groups conducted
with workers at the same companies; and (3) outline the unique insights that WEP
provides for food safety needs assessment. Both methods highlighted current
strengths and weaknesses that are reported under the following major themes:
Implementing proper food safety practices; adequate plant/farm sanitation;
worker food safety behavior; and communication channels. Whereas the WEP
identified the physical situation and personal behaviors and interactions that
might contribute to problems, the focus groups illuminated the workers’
attitudes and commitment and reasons why problems occur.
Although both methods provide valuable information for designing food
safety programs, the WEP offers a fast, inexpensive method of gaining a
well-rounded impression of worker and management actions and interactions
related to food safety at a given time or at repeated time points. WEP also
avoids the short-term behavior modification that often occurs during an audit or
plant inspection. Food professionals could use this protocol to obtain valuable
information regarding food safety needs in their operations.
Microbiological Evaluation of Food
Contact Surfaces in Iowa Schools
D. H. Henroid, Jr.,*1 A. F. Mendonca,2andJ. Sneed1
1-Iowa State University, Hotel, Restaurant, and Institution
Management, 1055 LeBaron Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1120, USA
2-Iowa State University, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition,
2312 Food Sciences Bldg.,
Ames, IA 50011, USA
SUMMARY
A study of 40 school foodservice operations assessed the effectiveness of
cleaning and sanitation of five food contact surfaces, including work
tables/counters; cooking equipment such as mixing bowls or steam-jacketed
kettles; and serving trays and equipment surfaces that could cross-contaminate
food, such as refrigerator or freezer handles and handwashing sink handles.
Aerobic plate count (APC), Enterobacteriaceae,
and Staphylococcus aureus analyses
were conducted for all samples. The
following microbial counts were used as standards for cleaned and sanitized
food-contact and non food-contact surfaces:
APC < 1.3 log10 CFU, Enterobacteriaceae
count < 1.0 log10 CFU, and Staphylococcus aureus < 1.0 log10
CFU per sample. Four
facilities met standards for all five surfaces for each of the three tests.
Fewer operations met the standard for APC than for the other two tests,
and refrigerator or freezer handles failed to meet the standard for APC in
nearly two-thirds of the operations. Results suggest that microbial standards
for surface sanitation are attainable in schools and that school foodservice
employees need to receive training and supervision to ensure proper handwashing
and appropriate cleaning and sanitation procedures and to limit cross
contamination.
|
