1 The Food Safety Journey Steve Tsuyuki Senior Director – Food Safety November, 2009.

1

The Food SafetyJourney

Steve TsuyukiSenior Director – Food Safety

November, 2009

Outline

Listeria 101

Regulatory Environment

Maple Leaf’s Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP)

Best Practices and Emerging Technologies

Q & A

Listeria 101: Background

Six species – only Listeria monocytogenes causes human illness

Can be found almost everywhere including soil, water and foods

First recognized as a human pathogen in 1929, but not associated with food until 1981- there have been 16 recalls in 2009

1-10% of certain ready-to-eat foods contain low levels of Listeria monocytogenes

Survives/grows in vacuum-packed refrigerated meats unless an inhibitor is introduced

Grows at refrigeration temperatures and withstands freezing

Easily destroyed by cooking processes

Listeria 101: A Cause of Foodborne Illness

Listeriosis is a serious infection caused by eating food contaminated by Listeria monocytogenes

Listeriosis is rare, affecting 1-5 in one million people per year

High risk individuals – need to consume a large number of Listeria monocytogenes cells to develop a clinical infection

Pregnant woman

Newborns

People with weakened immune systems ie. elderly, cancer, AIDs etc.

Healthy people, including children are normally resistant

1. Isolated case

2. Cases due to a single event or lot of food

3. Clusters and isolated cases scattered by time and location.

Source: Tompkin, R.B. (2002) J. Food Prot. 65:709-725

Listeria 101: Three Scenarios of Food Borne Listeriosis

1. Prevent conditions that lead to extended outbreaks (scenario 3).

2. Control conditions to minimize the risk of isolated cases and clusters (scenarios 1 and 2).

3. Control conditions to satisfy regulatory requirements.

Source: Tompkin, R.B. (2002) J. Food Prot. 65:709-725

Listeria 101: Industry Priorities

Listeria 101: Seek and Destroy

Listeria Management

The keys to Listeria control in the food processing plant:

Aggressive environmental testing for Listeria – FIND IT!

Aggressive corrective actions when positives detected – FIX IT!

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

*FSIS results of routine regulatory testing of finished RTE products analyzed for Listeria monocytogenes. Approx. 4,000-10,000 samples taken annually.

Perc

en

t P

osit

ives

Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in RTE Meat and Poultry Products in U.S.*

Product TestingM200

Food Contact M205

Product Testing

Operator

Food ContactOperator

Environmental Monitoring Program

Investigational Swab Testing

CFIAMandated

CFIA

Industry Voluntary Programs

OperatorMandated

Product Testing

+

Regulatory Environment: CFIA Listeria Policy Effective April 1, 2009

Which Type of Testing is Better?

Environmental Testing Designed to find positives – these are treated as a success!

Cast widest possible net by focusing on Listeria spp, not Listeria monocytogenes

Results obtained 2-3 days sooner than Listeria monocytogenes results, allowing much more expedient reaction times

Product TestingAnother tool to assess whether a system is working as designed

Not as useful as environmental – limitations exist but it does play an important role

Used as a verification of the food safety system

13

Over 2,000 environmental tests weekly across 24 RTE plants comprised of 120 production lines

Over 105,000 routine test samples taken annually

Positive incident rate of less than 1%, well within U.S. FSIS reported data

Additional targeted sampling allows for in-depth line root cause analysis to eliminate harbourage points

Product testing (verification of the monitoring program)

Approximately 1,300 routine product samples annually, excluding additional targeted samples as part of ‘hold and release’

Daily senior management call to review testing results

Discuss positive results daily

Plants discuss their “seek and destroy” activities

“New” Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP)

Swab Sites: What Surfaces Are Tested

Required Sites (Surfaces that come in direct contact with food)Level 1 (L1): Food Contact Surface (FCS) with potential harborage and product build-up conditions: e.g. slicer blades and rollers, product conveyors, multivac surfaces, product contact hands/gloves, pipeline interiors, product storage vessels, fillers, utensils, scrapers, worktables, shredders, grinders, recirculated brine etc.

Investigative Sites (Surfaces that if contaminated, could result in the transfer of contamination onto a FCS)

Level 2 (L2): Indirect and non food contact surfaces which may have indirect or potential contact with exposed RTE product. Areas and surfaces adjacent to product: e.g. exterior of equipment; chill units; slicer and conveyor framework; equipment housing, panels, operator control buttons, weight control data input, weight scales, aprons, broom handles, gloves, etc.

Level 3 (L3): Non food contact surfaces within the processing room that are more remote from product contact surfaces: e.g., phones; mules; forklifts; walls; drains; floors, equipment legs, wheels, employee foot traffic, etc.

Level 4 (L4): Areas remote outside the processing room: e.g., bathroom doors, cafeteria, halls, cooler floors, plant entrances, refuse/recycle areas, etc.

The assumption is that Listeria is present in the production environment. It is our responsibility to mitigate the risk of contamination on food through an effective monitoring program AND a response that is predictive in its approach and focused on finding and eliminating sources of contamination when they are detected.

EMP Testing Protocol

EMP Swabs10 – Level 1 Sites

(composite adjacent sites to

make 5 test samples)

Test Results for Listeria spp

Seek & Destroy and

Quarantine Production

Operations as normal

3 consecutive days of enhanced

swabbing of Level 1 sties

3 consecutive days of N60

sampling and implement HOLD

procedures

Test Results for Lm

Destroy product and Initiate N60 product testing

for Lm

Request product release on a day

by day basis. Request line

release

Positive

Negative

Positive

Negative

Drive for Continuous Improvement

AUDIT INTERPRET

ACTREMEDIATE

Analysis of consolidated plant data, as well as individual analysis, to reveal root cause; supported by trending analysis & results tracking

Continual improvement of protocols based on lessons learned and rolled out ensuring appropriate accountability and training. Learnings shared immediately across the network through technical bulletins.

Increased number of testing sites and frequency of sampling on every line across our 24 RTE plants. Audit teams for support.

Prescriptive protocols to address positive test results (first, second and third level responses) which include increased forensic sampling, supplementary and intensive sanitations, and holding of finished product pending further test results

EMP High Level Results

Listeria L1 Regular Protocol - By Week % Positive - Average with a 95% Confidence Interval

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

39383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111098765432152515049484746454443424140 Week

% p

osi

tive

Grand Total

5 w eek moving average

Linear (Grand Total)

2008 2009

Steady progress in Listeria control across all RTE plants through: aggressive swab sampling, investigative root cause analysis, and

verified corrective actions


Diacetate/LactateSodium diacetate was approved for use by Health Canada in September 2008 as a recognized method for providing an additional level of food safety in ready-to-eat food products

Widely used as a growth inhibitor by food manufacturers in the United States since 2001Blend of sodium or potassium lactate and sodium diacetate (40% acetic acid, 60% sodium acetate) – Maple Leaf uses potassium and sodium to balance performance and levels.

Lactate (weak acid) and diacetate (half neutralized vinegar) are simple chemical compounds, which occur frequently in nature and are completely absorbed by the human metabolism

Lactate/Diacetate is a unique blend of flavour and effectiveness with a neutral pHBacteriostatic properties (ongoing suppression of pathogen growth)


Diacetate/Lactate

Sodium diacetate/Potassium lactate have recently been added to:

Sure Slice Deli Meats

Main Street Deli Meats

Healthy Selections line


Ultra High Pressure (UHP)The application of high pressures to food products in the range of 50,000 to 90,000 psi for the purposes of microbial destruction and extended shelf life under refrigeration

87000 psi

= 2 ½ elephants standing on a

piston the diameter of a dime


UHPAbility of UHP to destroy food borne pathogens and spoilage microorganisms has been recognized since the 1890’s

Denaturation of enzymes and possible creation of ‘pores’ in the cell wall of the organism

Cell then loses ability to control the inflow of nutrients or outflow of waste materials- hence cell death

Since pressure effect is on macro-molecules, smaller molecules responsible for color, flavor and nutrition are less affected - hence, improved sensory performance

Pressure is applied isostatically (evenly from all sides)

At this point, no products in the foodservice line-up undergo UHP

Benefit of Diacetate and/or UHPImpact to Listeria monocytogenes growth in relation to CFIA

product classification

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

100000000

1000000000

0 30 60 90

time - days

cfu

/g Alt 3

Alt 2B

Alt 2A

ALT 1

Alt 3

Alt 1

Alt 2A

Alt 2B

Alt 3 (Sanitation) – Bacteria growth not impactedAlt 2B (Diacetate) – Suppresses bacterial growth throughout product shelf lifeAlt 2A (UHP) – Kills bacteria. Some cells may revive and growth can occur.Alt 1 (Diacetate and UHP) – Kills bacteria AND suppresses growth of any cells that may revive over time.

Multiple Hurdle Intervention

‘Firewalls for Microbial Control’

Equipment / Facility Re-Design

Alt 1 / Alt 2 (Antimicrobial

or lethality treatment)

Cooking

Sanitation / Equipment

Disassembly

Environmental Monitoring

Program (EMP)

Janell Kause, DirectorRisk Assessment and Residue DivisionOffice of Public Health Science

June 30, 2008 IFT Annual Meeting

Listeria monocytogenes:

Risk Assessments to Inform Food Safety Decisions

What is the comparative risk between ready-to-eat products sliced & packaged at retail versus by the manufacturer?

Information Sources

• FSIS Comparative Risk Assessment for Lm in Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Products (2008)

• Evaluated the risk of listeriosis between deli meat sliced at retail vs. manufacturer

• Built from FDA/FSIS Listeria risk assessment

• Retail-to-table comparative risk assessment

− NFPA/GMA & NAFSS data used

Evidence of cross contamination at retail establishments (time of day and site visit)

Greater prevalence and concentrations for retail sliced

Retail sliced causes ~80% of deaths, and is over 4x riskier on per annum basis.

Comparative Risk Assessment: Findings

Thank YouThank You

Follow-up Questions…

Please contact:

Steve Tsuyuki, Senior Director – Food Safety

(905) 285-1643 Office

(905) 251-0617 Mobile

[email protected]

1 The Food Safety Journey Steve Tsuyuki Senior Director – Food Safety November, 2009.

Documents

Transcript of 1 The Food Safety Journey Steve Tsuyuki Senior Director – Food Safety November, 2009.