|
Food Protection Trends
Abstracts - April 2004
Overview of the FDA Juice HACCP Rule
Iowa High School Students’ Perceptions of Food Safety
Microbial Food Safety Considerations for Organic Produce
Production: An Analysis of Canadian Organic Production Standards Compared
with US FDA Guidelines for Microbial Food Safety
Manual
Shaking as an Alternative to Mechanical Stomaching in Preparing Ground Meats
for Microbiological Analysis
Overview of the FDA Juice HACCP
Rule
Fadwa Al-Taher* and Kathy Knutson
The National Center for Food Safety and Technology, 6502 S. Archer Rd.,
Summit-Argo, IL 60501, USA
SUMMARY
The Juice HACCP regulation published January19, 2001 requires most juice processors
to comply with safety standards through implementation of a HACCP program.
This article is designed to help industry understand the events that led up
to this regulation and the key points of the HACCP regulation. It is divided
into three sections. The first addresses the outbreak history and microbial,
physical and chemical hazards associated with juice. The Juice HACCP rule was
enacted because of an increase in the number of foodborne illness outbreaks
caused by consumption of fresh juices during the past decade. The second section
discusses the development of juice regulations such as the HACCP rule and the
requirement of a warning label on all unpasteurized or untreated packaged juice
products, advising consumers of the potential risk of consuming these products.
The last section deals with new or emerging processing technologies, such as
ultraviolet radiation and high-pressure processing, and measures taken to ensure
that juice processors abide by the Juice HACCP rule. One approach to help
increase the safety of fresh juice products is to develop a standardized training
curriculum for inspectors, which the National Center for Food Safety and Technology
(NCFST) has developed. This is readily available at the Center’s web site in
pdf format or may be purchased in bound form from NCFST.
Iowa High School Students’ Perceptions
of Food Safety
Jason D. Ellis,1,2* Joseph G. Sebranek,1 and Jeannie
Sneed2
1-Animal Science, Iowa State University, 215 Meat Lab, Ames, IA 50011
2-Hotel, Restaurant, and Institution Management, Iowa State University, 1055
LeBaron Hall, Ames, IA 50011, USA
SUMMARY
Food safety perceptions and practices of adults have been researched extensively,
yet little research exists about high school students’ perceived foodborne illness
risks or their food safety concerns. The goal of this study was to determine
Iowa high school students’ perceptions of food safety by measuring awareness
of foodborne illness sources; determining perceived risk of foodborne illness
from various foods; assessing food safety attitudes associated with home, restaurants,
and school; and assessing demographic influences on perceptions. This
research provides a basis for educational material and program development with
potentially great impact on future adult consumers.
Students were familiar with
Salmonella (90.7%), E. coli
(88.9%), and Hepatitis A (83.7%), but few were aware of Campylobacter (4.8%), Listeria
(12.8%), or Clostridium (14.2%).
Students were more concerned about getting sick from eating meat
and eggs than about getting sick from eating fruits and vegetables. Food
processors/manufacturers were considered the most likely source of food safety
problems (75.8%), followed by restaurants (64.4%), transportation (58.1%),
supermarkets (47.1%), home (40.5%), and farms (38.4%). Students were more
confident of the safety of food eaten at home than of that eaten at school and
were least confident of food from restaurants.
Nearly a third of students (32.5%) had foodservice work experience
and 62.3% of students had received some food safety education in school.
Nevertheless, students reported a limited awareness of common foodborne illness
sources and perceived risk of foodborne illness.
Microbial Food Safety Considerations
for Organic Produce Production: An Analysis of Canadian Organic Production
Standards Compared with US FDA Guidelines for Microbial Food Safety
Katija A. Blaineand Douglas A. Powell*
Food Safety Network, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph,
Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
SUMMARY
Increased attention has been focused on fresh fruits and vegetables, especially
raw or minimally processed, as a significant source of foodborne illness. Outbreaks
have been linked to both conventionally and organically grown produce. This
paper outlines the risks associated with fresh produce, common pathways of contamination,
and current trends in organic agriculture. The primary objective was to determine
whether the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) organic standard is consistent
with the production of microbiologically safe produce and to examine the potential
for the CGSB organic standard to include considerations for microbial food safety.
This objective was achieved by examining information gaps between the US Food
and Drug Administration on-farm food safety guidelines and the organic standard
developed by the CGSB. This examination showed a significant degree of
commonality and, in some cases, it was demonstrated that microbial food safety
standards are achieved indirectly under organic production. The main difference
between the US guidelines and the CGSB standard is the focus on the process
rather than the safety of the final product and the lack of discussion of microbial
considerations in the CGSB standard. Specific omissions include worker hygiene
and recommendations for safe use of processing and irrigation water. The production
of safe food is the responsibility of everyone in the farm-to-fork chain. With
established relationships between growers and regulatory infrastructure, the
CGSB organic standard would be an ideal vehicle for providing organic growers
with information and guidelines on identifying and controlling microbial hazards
on their produce.
Manual Shaking as an Alternative to
Mechanical Stomaching in Preparing Ground Meats for Microbiological Analysis
Steven C. Ingham,1* Laura L. Vivio,1 Jill A. Losinski,1 andJun
Zhu2
1-Department of Food Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1605 Linden
Drive, Madison, WI 53706-1565, USA
2-Department of Statistics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1605 Linden Drive,
Madison, WI 53706-1565, USA
SUMMARY
This study compared manual shaking with mechanical stomaching for preparing
ground meats for microbiological analysis. Manual shaking is simple and inexpensive
compared to use of a mechanical stomacher. However, it may not sufficiently
homogenize a sample to allow for accurate detection (qualitative methods) or
quantitation of particular microbes or microbial groups. Packages of ground
beef (n = 38) and poultry (n = 37) were purchased from a local market.
Using a split-plot experimental design, 25-g samples of each package were prepared
by mechanical stomaching and manual shaking for enumeration of Escherichia
coli by use of the Petrifilm E. coli/
coliform count plate method. Statistical analysis using the Mixed procedure
(SAS, version 8) showed that the two sample preparation methods were not interchangeable
(P = 0.0058). In terms of
E. coli recovery, ground beef and
ground poultry were almost significantly different (P = 0.085), but there was no statistically significant interaction
between sample preparation method and type of ground meat. Manual shaking
cannot be used instead of mechanical stomaching for ground meat sample preparation.
|
