HACCP question-cantaloupe
30 views
Skip to first unread message
Roy Costa
May 22, 2012, 8:00:55 PM5/22/12
to foodsa...@googlegroups.com
Dear group:
A very interesting scientific problem has come to the fore as an outgrowth of the Listeria on cantaloupe problem.
In building a HACCP plan for washed cantaloupe, one must realize that Dr. Suslow, at UC Davis, with a large portfolio of reliable information on produce safety has gone on record that a CCP (a must do step) occurs when cantaloupe is washed in a packinghouse. The problem is validating the critical limit values when using a wash step to reduce human pathogens to safe levels on a variety of produce types.
The literature is not consistent concerning produce washing as an effective reducer of human pathogens, or its status as a CCP generally recognized. USDA warns us that reliable log reductions with any wash system cannot always be expected and may depend on operating conditions and the nature of products.
G. M. SAPERS: Efficacy of Washing and Sanitizing Methods, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 39 (4) 305–311 (2001)
www.ftb.com.hr/39/39-305.pdf
Furthermore, the research I have found has shown that log reductions may vary in lab situations from 2 log to almost 5 log with the typical levels of approved washes at about 2 minutes, these are chlorine as hypochlorite, hypochlorous acid, peroxy acidic acid, and chlorine dioxide.
It is clear to me that in circulated systems, with brush beds and the like, that safe water quality is a necessary and achievable CCP. Most of the products typically used commercially, have a pattern of use recognizing hard surface sanitizing, water process treatment and phytosanitary approvals. Some manufacturers are not attesting to destruction of human pathogens, on fruits and vegetables which makes me wonder who and how they can sell these products as product washes for food safety. Maybe its because the sceince is not strong and they do not want to go out on a limb?
A very interesting scientific problem has come to the fore as an outgrowth of the Listeria on cantaloupe problem.
In building a HACCP plan for washed cantaloupe, one must realize that Dr. Suslow, at UC Davis, with a large portfolio of reliable information on produce safety has gone on record that a CCP (a must do step) occurs when cantaloupe is washed in a packinghouse. The problem is validating the critical limit values when using a wash step to reduce human pathogens to safe levels on a variety of produce types.
The literature is not consistent concerning produce washing as an effective reducer of human pathogens, or its status as a CCP generally recognized. USDA warns us that reliable log reductions with any wash system cannot always be expected and may depend on operating conditions and the nature of products.
G. M. SAPERS: Efficacy of Washing and Sanitizing Methods, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 39 (4) 305–311 (2001)
www.ftb.com.hr/39/39-305.pdf
Furthermore, the research I have found has shown that log reductions may vary in lab situations from 2 log to almost 5 log with the typical levels of approved washes at about 2 minutes, these are chlorine as hypochlorite, hypochlorous acid, peroxy acidic acid, and chlorine dioxide.
ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-982.pdf
It is clear to me that in circulated systems, with brush beds and the like, that safe water quality is a necessary and achievable CCP. Most of the products typically used commercially, have a pattern of use recognizing hard surface sanitizing, water process treatment and phytosanitary approvals. Some manufacturers are not attesting to destruction of human pathogens, on fruits and vegetables which makes me wonder who and how they can sell these products as product washes for food safety. Maybe its because the sceince is not strong and they do not want to go out on a limb?
I am having difficulty with specific studies to rely on for PPM and contact time for PAA, FEW, FAC and CLO2 in cantaloupe wash treatments to achieve at least a 3-4 log reduction.
If you know of something in the literature or something being worked on along this line, please let me know.
Thanks.
Roy E Costa R.S., M.S.(M.B.A.)
Public Health Sanitarian and Consultant
Environ Health Associates, Inc.
1.877.734.5187
skype: environ.health.associates
rco...@cfl.rr.com
www.haccptraining.org
www.safefoods.tv
www.HACCPprinciples.com
www.safefoodsblog.com
Carl Custer
May 22, 2012, 10:11:36 PM5/22/12
to Roy Costa, foodsa...@googlegroups.com, Trevor Suslow
I think you have two questions:
1. Should there be an intervention for harvested fruits and vegetables?
2. What are the critical limits for an effective intervention (cuz the
literature varies)?
I'll pass on 1 and address 2.
Yeah, the literature varies. Some of the publications do a poor job
of requiring authors to spell out what they did. Too often, I've read
"proprietary". That shouldn't be permitted. How can others compare
or duplicate results like that. <insert rant about culture prep>
But even when there are studies to compare, results sometimes vary.
Good example is a recent paper:
J.D. Greig et alia. 2012 The efficacy of interventions applied during
primary processing on contamination of beef carcasses with Escherichia
coli: meta-analysis of the published research. Food Control, Volume
27, Issue 2, October 2012, Pages 385–397
Maybe that's why there have been several "meta-analysis" of
interventions in the past year or so.
Maybe we need new edition of Meynell & Meynell.
> --
> You received this message because you subscribed to the "Foodsafe" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Foodsa...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> Foodsafe-lis...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/foodsafe-list
> If you're having problems with the list, contact Cindy Roberts at
> foodsa...@gmail.com
1. Should there be an intervention for harvested fruits and vegetables?
2. What are the critical limits for an effective intervention (cuz the
literature varies)?
I'll pass on 1 and address 2.
Yeah, the literature varies. Some of the publications do a poor job
of requiring authors to spell out what they did. Too often, I've read
"proprietary". That shouldn't be permitted. How can others compare
or duplicate results like that. <insert rant about culture prep>
But even when there are studies to compare, results sometimes vary.
Good example is a recent paper:
J.D. Greig et alia. 2012 The efficacy of interventions applied during
primary processing on contamination of beef carcasses with Escherichia
coli: meta-analysis of the published research. Food Control, Volume
27, Issue 2, October 2012, Pages 385–397
Maybe that's why there have been several "meta-analysis" of
interventions in the past year or so.
Maybe we need new edition of Meynell & Meynell.
> You received this message because you subscribed to the "Foodsafe" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Foodsa...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> Foodsafe-lis...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/foodsafe-list
> If you're having problems with the list, contact Cindy Roberts at
> foodsa...@gmail.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages