Text Food Safety Feb 2011
-
Upload
ace-vincent-b-flandez -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Text Food Safety Feb 2011
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 1/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
Food Safety
Introduction (part 0)Microbiological hazards (part 1)
Chemical hazards (part 2)
Physical hazards (part 3)Quality Assurance Systems (part 4)Risk Analysis (part 5)
AJ 2010 - 2011
Prof. Dr. Ir. Mieke UyttendaeleProf. Dr. IR. Bruno De Meulenaer
Dr. Ir. Liesbeth Jacxsens
Department of Food Safety and Food QualityFaculty of Bio Science Engineering
Ghent University
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 2/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
Overview of Food Safety :
0. Introduction
1. Microbiological and hygienic aspects of food safety
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Bacteria - foodborne illness
1.2.1. Bacteria causing food infections
Salmonella
Campylobacter
Escherichia coli O157
Listeria monocytogenes Others
1.2.2. Food intoxicating bacteria
Staphylococcus aureus
Bacillus cereus
Clostridium perfringens
Clostridium botulinum
1.3. Viruses
1.4. Fungi
1.5. Protozoa and parasites
2. Chemical aspects of food safety
2.1. Basic principles about human toxicology
2.2. Food sensitivities
2.3. Food intoxications
2.3.1. Food additives
2.3.2. Residues
Veterinary drugs
Crop protection agents
Desinfectants
Migration from food contact materials
2.3.3. Contaminants
Environmental contaminants
Process contaminants
Mycotoxins
Marine and related toxins
2.3.4. Endogenous components
3. Physical aspects of food safety3.1 Definitions
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 3/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
3.2 Preventive measures and detection of foreign bodies
4. Quality assurance systems assuring food safety
4.1. Principles of Codex Alimentarius
4.2 Key elements of quality
4.3. Integrated approach4.4 ISO 9000: 2008
4.5. Quality assurance standards in the agricultural sector
4.6. Quality assurance standards in the food industry
5. Risk analysis in relation to food
5.1. Definitions
5.2. Risk assessment
5.2.1. Chemical risk assessment in foods
5.2.2. Microbial risk assessment in foods
5.3. Risk management and communication
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 4/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
4
0. Introduction
0.1. Definition of food safety
Food safety became last decades very important for both governments, producers of foodproducts and consumers as well. These issues are playing on international, European and
national level.
Food safety is considering different types of hazards:
a) (Micro)biological hazards (see part 1): only these (micro)-organisms which are
pathogenic will be considered, which are causing a food infection or an intoxication.
The spoilage causing micro-organisms are not related to food safety but to food
quality.
b) Physical hazards (see part 3) : hard, sharp foreign objects which are not expected to be
present in the food product can provoke injuries in the mouth, teeth, pharynx, throat or
can lead to asphyxiation.
c) Chemical hazards (see part 2) : chemical products or contaminants can be of different
nature e.g. residues of pesticides or other phyto-products applied during the
production of crops, fruits and vegetables, antibiotics applied in the animal production,
environmental contaminants such as heavy metals or dioxins. The chemical hazards
are mostly inducing long term health problems for consumers of food products. In this
group as well the allergens are considered. This are mostly natural food components
e.g. proteins, which are provoking an allergic reaction with sensitive persons.
Examples of allergens are gluten (in wheat products), milk, egg, fish, nuts, mustard.
Problems with food safety can be very divers and in Europe an inventory is made by the
European Commission via the Rapid Alert System. See :
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/rapidalert/index_en.htm
Food safety must be differentiated from food quality. Food safety is the basic requirement fora food product. Consumers may not become ill from eating a food product. Food quality on
the other hand, is more as food safety alone, secondary issues are playing here a role:
1) legally demanded quality aspects e.g. composition of bread, composition of chocolate,
nutritive value of milk,… : not for all types of food products these compositions or nutritive
values are described by international documents or on national level – this can impose
differences in the same type of a food product placed on the market by different suppliers or
in different countries. Some names of products are protected and can only be applied if the
composition or the region of production is respected e.g. chocolate (max. 5% of other plantfats as cacao butter), e.g. champagne (sparkling wine from a specific region in France). Also
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 5/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
5
the application of genetically modified organisms for producing foodstuffs must be seen as a
legally organised quality aspect (in Europe only a very strict application of the GGO’s in
foodstuffs is possible).
2) sensorial quality aspects e.g. taste, odour, visual quality, texture,… : are important becausefood is associated with a nice feeling, consumers are judging food products severe when
buying them. Discolorations, abnormal proportions, abnormal visual aspect, … will influence
the behaviour of the consumer
3) commercial quality aspects : customers can have more demands regarding food products
e.g. packaging design, labelling,… . These are extra quality demands.
Figure 1. Relation food safety and food quality of a food product
The complete agro-food chain need to consider and need to take responsibility towards food
safety : agricultural sector – transformation and distribution as well. This will be further
discussed in the part of the legislation. But also the consumer can play an important role in
contributing towards food safety by respecting refrigerating temperatures during storage,
respecting shelf-life, preventing cross contamination during preparation of the food and
provided no undercooking of raw meat, fish, vegetables,… .
Food safey
Legal quality
Sensorial quality
Commercial quality
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 6/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
6
0.2. The basic document: ‘General principles of food hygiene’
(CAC/RCP 1-1969) of the Codex Alimentarius
The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an international organisation that is responsible forthe elaboration of food standards. All these food standards together, are the Codex
Alimentarius. The Codex Alimentarius was formed in 1962 by the Food and Agricultural
Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) to protect public health and
to promote international trade of foodstuffs.
The Codex Alimentarius contains general standards (e.g. ‘General principles of food hygiene’
(CAC/RCP 1-1969)) and commodity standards (that are specific for a certain product). The
general standards have across-the board application to all foods and are not product-specific.
There are general standards or recommendations for:
• food labelling;
• food additives;
• contaminants;
• methods of analysing and sampling;
• food hygiene;
• nutrition and foods for special dietary uses;
• food import and export inspection and certification systems;
• residues of veterinary drugs in foods;
• pesticide residues in foods.
Besides the general standards, there are also product-specific standards (Codex Commodity
Standards). They can be very product specific e.g. production of dates, production of honey,
specific types of fresh fruits and vegetables,… or more industrialized processes e.g.
production of frozen vegetables, fermented product, canned thuna, canned pineapple, … .
Both food safety, food quality and international trading aspects are considered.
See as well for Appendix A.
These standards include the following categories of information:
• Scope – including the name of the standard;
• Description, essential composition and quality factors – defining the minimum
standard for the food;
• Food additives – only those cleared by FAO and WHO may be used;
• Contaminants;
• Hygiene and weights and measures;
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 7/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
7
• Labelling – in accordance with the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-
packaged Foods;
• Methods of analysis and sampling.
The structure of the Codex Alimentarius can be found on the websitewww.codexalimentarius.net.
The document ‘General principles of food hygiene’ of the Codex Alimentarius is the basic
document for the production of safe food. The document was made in 1969 and was extended
with a part on HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) in 1993, further revisions
were made in 1997, 1999 and 2003. The document includes a part on GMP (Good
Manufacturing Practices) and hygiene rules on one hand and a part on HACCP on the other
hand (see further in part 4).
Before a Codex document is finished a long discussion is proceeding with both scientists,
experts, governments,…
Figure 2. The Codex Standard Process (see : www.codexalimentarius.net >> about Codex >>
understanding Codex)
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 8/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
8
0.3. Legislation
In a many countries food safety issues are described in the (national) legislation. There is a
steady increase in the involvement of regulatory and advisory bodies in the area of food
safety.
There are a number of reasons for this, especially highly published incidents such as BSE,
Foot and Mouth outbreaks in Europe, and a myriad of problems with individual products.
Examples include benzene in water, insecticide in soft drinks, dioxins in olive oil, spent
lubricant oil in animal feeding resulting in the dioxin crisis in Belgium and deaths and
hospitalisation caused by food poisoning. Another factor can be the political fallout as nation
states impose import bans. The use of pesticides, antibiotics, genetically modified organisms
and hormones in farming has also been causing concern amongst consumers and experts.
In recent years food policy at international level has been moving in a new direction, towards
industry taking the responsibility for the control of the foodstuffs it produces, backed up by
official control systems.
The Codex Alimentarius is on international level seen as the basic instrument to make
legislation regarding food safety. This is resulting in the fact that much of the new legislation
and supporting instruments are based on the internationally developed Codex Alimentarius by
the WHO/FAO, contributing to a national and international trend towards harmonisation. (see
part 0.2).
In Europe, an European food legislation is existing, sometimes further translated into national
legislation by the member states. On the level of the European Union, the EU Regulation
178/2002 is a basic act and is called ‘the general food law’. This law lays down the general
principles and requirements of a food law and it is demanding from all actors in the agro-food
chain (primary production, transformation and distribution but as well all suppliers towards
the food chain e.g. supply of animal feeds) their contribution towards food safety, traceability
and notification when a potential risk is existing for a food product placed on the market. Thisapproach is as well defined as the ‘farm to fork’ approach.
The horizontal legislation has a more general scope and counts for all sectors. There are
horizontal legislation for hygiene, additives, contaminants, labelling, etc. The European
hygiene regulation has been revised and harmonised in 2004. The EU Regulation 852/2004
on general food hygiene requires hygiene rules for all actors in the food chain (Good
Agricultural Practices, Good Hygienic Practices, Good Manufacturing Practices and Good
Distribution Practices) and the implementation of a HACCP system (Hazard Analysis Critical
Control Point (see part 4)) for the transformation and the distribution sector. Food hygiene isdefined as the measures and conditions necessary to control hazards and to ensure fitness for
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 9/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
9
human consumption of a foodstuff taking into account its intended use. In the annex of the
EU Regulation specific demands towards infrastructure, constructions of the building,
transportation, temperature control, water quality, pest control, cleaning and disinfection,
personnel hygiene and training of the personnel, control of waste,…. are defined.
Vertical legislation is specific for a certain food sector. For example hygiene requirements for
the dairy industry, meat industry,… . The vertical regulation regarding food hygiene in the
animal sector in nowadays in Europe the EU Regulation 853/2004 regarding food hygiene
for animal products. In total 15 sections are defined for a very specific type of animal product
(e.g. slaughterhouses, production of meat product, production of dairy products, egg
products,…). This vertical hygiene regulation is primarily aimed at controlling hygiene but
include as well other rules that target the control of quality and the provision of information to
a purchaser through labelling. Also for the production of animal feed there is a hygiene
regulation EU Regulation 854/2004.
More information : http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/
In the United States the USDA is making food legislation. The USA has a long tradition in
organisation of food safety and has a very vertical legislation. It means that for specific type
of products a specific legislation is published. The plant inspections and product controls are
conducted by the FDA.
More information : http://www.ba.ars.usda.gov/
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 10/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
10
1. Microbiological and hygienic aspects of foodsafety (prof. M. Uyttendaele)
The presence of pathogens in food products may cause food poisoning.There are two kinds of food poisoning: food intoxications and food infections.
1.1. FOOD INTOXICATIONS
Food intoxications are caused by consumption of food containing a microbial pre-formed toxin
as a result of a prior growth of a pathogen. Food intoxication does not require growth of the
organism in the host. The major food intoxications are caused by Staphylococcus aureus,
Clostridium perfringens, Clostridium botulinum, Bacillus cereus. Table 1 presents an overview
of the characteristics of the toxins. A summary of the growth conditions of these bacteria is given
in table 2.
1.1.1. STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS
A. Classification
Staphylococcus aureus is a nonmotile, non-sporeforming Gram positive, spherical bacterium
(coccus) which occurs in pairs, short chains or bunched, grape-like clusters. They are catalasepositive and facultative anaerobe. They were placed in the family of the Micrococcaceae despite
their distinct difference in their mol% G+C content of DNA (65-75% for micrococci and 30-39%
for staphylococci). The genus Staphylococcus currently involves 32 species (including 6
subspecies).
Although several species have the potential to produce enterotoxin that causes gastroenteritis ,
nearly all cases of staphylococcus food poisoning can be attributed to coagulase positive St.
aureus and led to the use of coagulase-positive St. aureus in specifications in food.
B. Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxins (SE)
Staphylococcus aureus is capable of producing enterotoxins. These toxins are proteinaceous and
have a M.W. between 26.000 and 34.000 Da. By serology they can be divided into seven
antigenic types SEA, SEB, SEC, SED, SEE and recently discovered G and H Several SECs have
been identified (SEC1, SEC2, SEC3). Most food poisoning outbreaks involve enterotoxins A
and D.
The enterotoxins are single polypeptide chains. Protein sequencing have resulted in the current
detailed knowledge of the primary sequences of all the classical SEs.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 11/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
11
The enterotoxin production depends on a series of factors summed up in table 1.1.
TABLE 1.1. Factors that influence enterotoxin production
Factor Optimum Limits
aw
pH
t°
O2
0,98
7-8
40-45
aerobic
0,87-0,99(1)
4,5-9,6(2)
10-45
aerobic-anaerobic
(1) Aerobic (anaerobic aw 0.92 - 0.99)
(2) Aerobic (anaerobic lower pH limit is 5.0)
In food products containing glucose, the production of enterotoxins will be inhibited by growth
of lactic acid bacteria, which lower the pH of food products as a result of acid formation (pH <
5.0).
The St. aureus enterotoxins are in many respects more stable than other proteins. They are
resistant to proteolytic enzymes such as trypsin, chymotrypsin, renin and pepsin. Irradiation
doses applied for pasteurization and sterilization of food are not sufficient to inactivate SE.
Enterotoxins are remarkably resistant to heat-inactivation (resistant to heating for 100 min at
100°C and 20 min at 121°C. Common boiling processes do not suffice to destroy toxicity. The
time/temperature combinations that are applied for treatment of canned food are sufficient to
denaturize the amounts of toxin usually present with food intoxication (< 1 to 50ng/g).
A number of ELISA methods are commercially available for detection of the enterotoxins in
foods.
1.1.2. CLOSTRIDIUM PERFRINGENS
A. Classification
Clostridium perfringens is a Gram-positive, rod-shaped, encapsulated, nonmotile, spore-forming
(subterminal) bacterium occurring in couples or in chains. It is an anaerobic bacterium although
it tolerates some exposure to air. They are usually catalase negative. Hydrogen sulphide is
produced.
While at least 13 different toxins are known to be expressed by Cl. perfringens, individual Cl.
perfringens cells will produce only a defined subset of these toxins. Cl. perfringens is classified
into 5 types, namely A,B,C,D,E, according to each isolate's ability to express 4 (alpha, beta,
epsilon and iota) of the 13 Cl. perfringens toxins. All strains produce alpha toxin (lecithinase or
phospholipase C and also responsible for hemolytic activity).
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 12/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
12
Food poisoning is almost always associated with type A isolates. The isolates produce an
enterotoxin which is a spore-specific protein (its production occurs together with that of
sporulation).
Clostridium perfringens type A is responsible both for "gas gangrene" as for food poisoning.
However, there is a substantial difference between strains causing "gas gangrene" and strainscausing food intoxications (table 1.2).
TABLE 1.2. Difference between Clostridium perfringens type A causing "gas gangrene"
and that causing food intoxiation
"Gas-gangrene" Food intoxication
High alpha-toxin production (a)Always epsilon-toxin production (b)
Always iota-toxin production (c)
Heat-sensitive spores
Low alpha-toxin productionSeldom epsilon-toxin production
Variable iota-toxin production
Thermoresistant spores (5h/100°C)
B. Clostridium perfringens enterotoxin (CPE)
CPE is a protein with a molecular weight of 36.000 Da. CPE is inactivated by pronase and
protease (produced by Bacillus subtilis) but not by chymotrypsine or carboxypeptidase.
CPE is thermolabile.
CPE has an antigen structure, which means that a specific antibody can be formed, that will not
react with other toxins produced by Clostridium perfringens type A. CPE usually is produced inthe intestines, seldom in food products. This is explained by the fact that CPE production takes
place at the moment of sporulation. However sporulation in food products and in laboratory
media is extremely difficult, if not impossible whereas Clostridium perfringens sporulates easily
in the intestine. Duncan and Strong medium was optimized to promote sporulation of Cl.
perfringens strains. The sporulated culture is centrifuged and the cell-free culture supernatant is
tested for the presence of enterotoxin by using reversed passive latex agglutination (RPLA). The
RPLA technique involves the use of sensitized (antiserum to enterotoxin treated) latex beads that
are exposed to serial dilutions of enterotoxin. The agglutination titer is determined after
overnight incubation. Several ELISA techniques have been proposed for the detection of the Cl.
perfringens enterotoxin (sensitivity of ELISA is 5-500 ng/g in faeces samples)
1.1.3. CLOSTRIDIUM BOTULINUM
Botulism is rare compared to many other foodborne microbial diseases but has a relatively high
fatality rate.
A. Classification
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 13/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
13
Clostridium botulinum is a Gram-positive motile (peritrichous flagella), spore-forming
(subterminal) rod, that occurs alone, in couples or in chains. The spores swell the rod giving the
characteristic 'tennis-racket' shaped cells. Spores of most pathogenic species can be produced in
complex laboratory media.
They are usually catalase negative and strictly anaerobic.Cl. botulinum is a very diverse species comprising organisms differing widely in physiological
properties and genetic relatedness. They all share the ability to produce botulinum neurotoxin
(BoNT).
The strains of Cl.botulinum are classified into 7 serological types, deducted from the different
antigen structures of the formed neurotoxins and designated as types A,B,C,D,E,F and G. Types
A,B and E most commonly cause botulism in humans. The incidence varies according to
geographic region.
Cl. botulinum consists of four physiological groups (I to IV) with diverse physiological and
genetic characteristics. Group IV is the only group that has not been demonstrated to cause
botulism and has been assigned to the species Cl. argense. Groups I and II are the cause of
human botulism whereas group III causes botulism in various animals. Properties of Cl.
botulinum group I and II are given in table 2. Organisms in group I are proteolytic and may
produce type A, B, or F BoNT. Organisms in group II are commonly referred to as non-
proteolytic, require sugars for growth, and may produce either type B, E, or F BoNT.
B. Botulinal toxins
Cl. botulinum produces the moist poisonous substance known; it is estimated that 0.1-1.0 µg of
BoNT is sufficient to kill a human and the lethal dose for most animals is ca. 1 ng/kg body
weight.
Botulinal toxins consist of two components, one of them being toxic.
The toxic component is a neurotoxin. The nontoxic component of the complexes have been
shown to impart stability to the neurotoxin and to prevent inactivation by digestive enzymes in
the gut. Since in most food products pH < 7.0, the botulinal toxin will be present in its most
stable form. Moreover, there are no substances that influence toxicity in food products. Salts and
acid pH do not influence stability. Yet, botulinal toxins are thermolabile. Heating at 80°C (during
10 minutes is sufficient to inactivate the botulinal toxins present in food products. A similar
effect is obtained by treating at 86°C (during 1 minute).
BoNT is preferably detected using a bioassay (the mouse bioassay). Immunological methods
have been developed but are not as sensitive as the mouse bioassay.
1.1.4. BACILLUS CEREUS
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 14/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
14
A. Classification
Bacillus cereus is a Gram-positive, motile, spore-forming (central, ellipsoid) rod with a granular
internal structure. At present the genus Bacillus encompasses more than 60 species. Owing to theenormous genetic diversity of this genus, it is difficult to define it concisely. Based on the wide
variation of G+C % and variation in rRNA sequences Bacillus encompasses more than one
genus. Bacilli are defined into groups based on spore and sporangium morphology. Group I
bacilli (which includes B. cereus) are defined as having a sporangium that is not swollen by the
spore. Within the group, subdivision of the species may be made on the basis of cell diameter.
The large-celled species (including B. cereus) have cell diameters > 0.9 µm. The other large-
celled Group I bacilli are B. anthracis (non-motile), B. mycoides (rhizoid growth) and B.
thuringiensis (parasporal crystal). On the basis of both phenotypic and genetic properties, the
latter three species should be considered as subspecies of B. cereus. Psychrotolerant strains of B.
cereus have been assigned to a new species, B. weihenstephanensis. Strains of this species may
also produce toxins and will be identified as B. cereus in the standard microbiological tests.
The inherent diversity within the B. cereus group raises the question on the presence of similar, if
not identical, toxin genes in a number of other members of the B. cereus group, especially B.
thuringiensis and their implication in food intoxications.
B. toxins
Two forms of clinical symptoms are raised by B. cereus: one is a diarrheal version while the
other is an emetic version.
A number of toxins are responsible for the diarrheal response including a haemolysin and a
cereolysin. The haemolysin designated haemolysin BL comprises three distinct peptides B, L1
and L2. Each of the genes coding for the three components has been cloned and the sequences
determined. A RPLA test for the detection of the L2 component of the enterotoxin complex is
available. Cereolysin is also a three-component enterotoxin,however non-hemolytic. One of the
components of the complex is recognized by an ELISA kit. The enteroxins are thermolabile
The emetic toxin (cerreulide) has been isolated and is a small dodecadepsipeptide. It is cycliccomprimising a three repeat of D-O-Leu-D-Ala-L-O-Val-L-Ala. No genes coding for cereulide
have been identified. No commercial kit for detection of the emetic toxin is available. The emetic
toxin is thermostable.
In a survey of B. cereus strains, a significant proportion (74%) were enterotoxin producers, but
only 5% produced the emetic toxin. Strains of the H1-serovar were most likely to produce
cereulide.
1.1.5. Mycotoxins
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 15/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
15
Numerous molds are capable of producing toxic metabolites in food products. The major group
is the aflatoxin-group, produced by some strains of Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus
parasiticus. Each food product on which Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus can grow
and produce toxin is suitable substrate. Especially dry food products (still having aw > 0.85) are
qualified. One strain can only form 2 or 3 aflatoxins, at least one of them being B1. The mostsensitive food products are cereals and nuts. In milk B1 and B2, that may be present in feed as a
result of mold growth, are converted into M1 and M2.
Information on aflatoxins and other mycotoxins is summarized in table 5
Differentiation of aflatoxin-producing and non-producing strains of the Aspergillus flavus group
is possible using a multiplex PCR.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 16/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
16
1.2. FOOD INFECTIONS
Food infection is caused by consumption of food contaminated with the ethological agent, in
other words, the pathogenic microorganism. The pathogen develops in the gastro-intestinal
system, accompanied or not by toxin production, causing food infection. Food infection can be
caused by low numbers of the pathogen. Low numbers can be expected in foods that are
correctly processed for safety and not recontaminated or recolonised subsequently. Virtually all
pathogens in foods are sublethally stressed. Therefore the detection method of infectious agents
encompasses four subsequent steps:
- A resuscitation procedure lasting between 0.5 and > 8h in a non or half selective medium to
enable recovery and limited outgrowth (102-10
4cfu/ml) of the stressed target organism.
- A period of enrichment in a selective medium to suppress the competitive flora and enabling
multiplication of the target organism to attain detectable levels of the order 105-10
6 /ml
- Isolation of the pathogen on a selective differential agar medium
- Purification of suspected colonies and identification using a number of biochemical/
physiological tests
The growth conditions of the most important foodborne bacterial infectious agents are
summarized in table 6.
1.2.1. SALMONELLA
A. Classification
Salmonella are facultatively anaerobic gram-negative, non-sporeforming rods belonging to the
family Enterobacteriaceae. Although members of this genus are motile, nonflagellated variants,
such as S. Pullorum and S. Gallinarum do occur. Salmonellae are oxidase-negative and catalase
positive.
Nomenclature of the Salmonella group has progressed through a succession of taxonomical
schemes based on biochemical and serological characteristics and on principles of numerical
taxonomy and DNA homology. The present situation is that Salmonella contains 2 species, S.
bongori and S. enterica, the latter being divided in 6 subspecies . S. enterica subspecies enterica
is the most important subspecies containing most of the > 2300 serovars. These serovars should
not be considered as species and should be designated as S. enterica subsp. enterica ser.
Enteritidis or (more practically) S. Enteritidis.
The biochemical identification of foodborne and clinical Salmonella spp. isolates is generally
coupled to serological information, a complex and labour-intensive technique involving the
agglutination of bacterial surface antigens with Salmonella-specific antibodies. These include O
lipopolysaccharides (LPS) on the external surface of the bacterial outer membrane, H antigens
associated with the peritrichous flagella, and the capsular (Vi) antigen, which occurs only in S.typhi, S. paratyphi C and S. dublin.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 17/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
17
1.2.2 CAMPYLOBACTER
A. ClassificationCampylobacter is a small non-spore-forming, Gram-negative rod, curved or spiral
shaped bacterium. They may form spherical or coccoid bodies in old cultures or cultures exposed
to air for prolonged periods. They are motile by a typically cork-screw motion. They are
microaerophilic (5% O2 - 10% CO2 - 85% N2) and oxidase-positive.
The genus Campylobacter belongs to the family of the Campylobacteriaceae and the taxonomy
has recently been reviewed. The family includes 20 species and subspecies within the genus
Campylobacter and four species in the genus Arcobacter (aerotolerant campylobacters). Former
species in the genus Campylobacter are now classified in the genus Helicobacter.
The thermotolerant species of Campylobacter spp. (optimum temperature 42°C) may cause food
infections: predominantly C. jejuni, C. coli and C. lari (to a smaller degree) and C. upsaliensis
(sporadic).
1.2.3. ESCHERICHIA COLI O157
A. Classification
The genus Escherichia is classified in the family Enterobacteriaceae. Escherichia coli is a Gram-
negative, oxidase-negative, motile (peritrichous) or sometimes nonmotile, non-spore-formingrod. It is a lactose-fermenting fecal microorganism. Isolates are serologically differentiated on
the basis of three major surface antigens: the O (somatic), H (flagella), and K (capsule) antigens.
At present, a total of 174 O antigens, 56 H antigens, and 80 K antigens have been identified.
Typical E. coli O157 possess several characteristics uncommon to most other E. coli: inability to
ferment sorbitol, inability to produce beta-glucuronidase and inability to grow well at 44°C.
Escherichia coli strains are a common part of the normal facultative anaerobic microflora of the
intestinal tract . E. coli strains that cause diarrheal illness are categorized into specific groups
based on virulence properties, mechanisms of pathogenicity, clinical syndromes and distint O:H
serogroups. These categories include:- enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC): induce attaching and effacing (AE) lesions, some produce
one or more toxins.
- enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC): produce a heat-labile or heat-stable enterotoxin
- enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC): invasive capacity related to a large plasmid (cfr. Shigella)
- diffuse-adhering E. coli (DAEC)
- entero-aggregative E. coli (EaggEC)
- enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC): associated with hemorrhagic colitis. All EHEC produce
the following virulence factors: verotoxins (VTs) or Shiga-like toxins (STs). Many serotypes
of E. coli have been subsequently shown to produce VTs, hence they have been named VT-
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 18/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
18
producing E. coli (VTEC) or SLT-producing E. coli (SLTEC). However, only strains that
cause hemorrhagic colitis are considered to be EHEC. Other virulence factors of EHEC are
the attaching and effacing (eae) gene and a 60 MDa plasmid. Since E. coli O157:H7 is the
most common serotype of the EHEC associated with large foodborne outbreaks and being
the single serotype to be differentiated by classical methodology this serotype is most oftenstudied in food microbiology. E. coli O157 is an example of a new emerging pathogen.
1.2.4. LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES
A. Classification
L. monocytogenes is a small, short Gram-positive non-spore-forming rod, catalase-positive and
facultatively anaerobic. They are motile at 25°C showing a characteristic 'tumbling' motility, but
non-motile at 35°C.
The genus Listeria belongs to the Clostridium subbranch together with Staphylococcus,
Streptococcus, Lactobacillus, and Brochothrix. The genus Listeria presently comprises six
species (1) L. monocytogenes and the closely related species L. innocua, L. ivanovii, L.
welshimeri and L. seeligeri and (2) L. grayi (including the formerly L. murrayi). Within the
genus Listeria, only L. monocytogenes and L. ivanovii are considered virulent. Only one species,
L. monocytogenes is of public health concern.
The identification of Listeria species is based on a limited number of biochemical markers,
among which hemolysis is used to differentiate between L. monocytogenes and the mostfrequently encounterd nonpathogenic Listeria species, L. innocua.
1.2.5. LESS FREQUENTLY OCCURING FOOD INFECTIONS
Other bacteria may cause food infections, e.g. Yersinia enterocolitica (a zoonoses), Vibrio
cholerae and Vibrio parahaemolyticus (aquatic organisms, marine environment)
A Yersinia enterocolitica
Yersinia enterocolitica belongs to the family of the Enterobacteriaceae. It is a highlyheterogenous species, being divisible into a large number of subgroups, chiefly according to
biochemical activity (biotypes) and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) O antigens (serotypes). The
virulence determinants are classified into those which are chromosomally encoded (inv-gene
(invasion), ail-locus (attachment-ivasion), yst -gene (heat-stable enterotoxin)) and those specified
by a 70-75 kb virulence plasmid termed pYV (plasmid for Yersinia virulence)
B Vibrio cholerae and Vibrio parahaemolyticus
Phenotypic traits are routinely used for the species differentiation of vibrios. However, strain
variation is common and phenotypic testing is often insufficient for identification of species.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 19/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
19
Vibrio cholera is well defined on the basis of biochemical tests and DNA homology studies but
this species is not homogenous with regard to pathogenic potential. Distinction is made on the
basis of production of cholera toxin (CT), encoded by the ctx-genes, and the serogroup (O1 and
O139 have been associated with epidemic disease).
V. parahaemolyticus can be serotyped, however, there appears to be no correlation betweenserotype and virulence. The ability of some strains to produce a hemolysin termed TDH
(thermostable direct hemolysin) or Kanagawa hemolysin, is correlated with virulence in this
species and can be determined now by in vitro DNA amplification.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 20/95
Department of Food Safety and Foo
20
TABLE A Characteristics of toxins produced by Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, Clostridium perfringens and Cl. botu
Staphylococcus aureus
emetic toxin
Bacillus cereus
emetic toxin
Bacillus cereus
diarrhea toxin
Clost
diarr
Toxin type Enterotoxin
(single chain polypeptide,
with cystine-lus)
MW 26-34 kDa
Enterotoxin
Cereulide (cyclic
dodecapsipeptide)
Enterotoxin
a) Haemolysin BL: tripartite
protein complex B, L1, L2
b) Non-haemolytic tripartite proteincomplex
Enter
Singl
36 kD
Formation of toxin In the food, during
vegetative growth
In the food during the late
exponential or stationary
phase
During vegetative growth in the food
or in the intestines after ingestion of
high numbers of cells
In the
of hig
form
Effect of proteolysis Resistent Resistent Activity loss Incretreatm
Heat stability Resistent to 100-120°C Resistent to 90 min at
121°C
Inactivation by 5 min at 56°C Inact
Symptoms Nausea, vomiting
(sometimes diarrhea)
Nausea, vomiting Cramps, diarrhea Cram
Incubation period 1-5h(recovery after 24-48h)
1-5h(recovery after 6-24h)
8-16 h(recovery after 12-24h)
8-24 (reco
Toxicity (LD50) LD50 (monkeys): 25 µg/kgdose causing symptoms in
humans: 100-200 ng
unknown 100 x more toxic than Cl.perfr. 1.5 µ
Detection methods - immunological detection
(Oxoïd BCET RPLA, Vidas(Biomérieux), Tecria
immunoassay,..)
- no immunological
detection method- cytotoxicity
- animal feed trials
- Oxoïd BCET RPLA ( L2 component
Haemolysin BL)- Tecra immunoassay (Non-
haemolytic protein complex)
- cytotoxicity
RPLA
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 21/95
Department of Food Safety and Foo
TABLE B Growth conditions of Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, Clostridium perfringens and Cl. botulinum
Staphylococcus aureus Bacillus cereus Clostridium perfringens
morphology G+, non-motile coc
non sporeforming
G+, motile rod
sporeforming
G+, nonmotile rod
sporeforming
toxin-producing types Type A, B, C1, C2, C3, D, E
Type A en D cause food
intoxication
- Type A, B, C, D, E
Type A responsible for food
intoxicationtemperatuur 10-45°C
optimum 35-37°C
10-50°C
optimum 28-35°C
rem: psychrotrophic strains,
growth at 4-10°C
15-55°C
optimum: 37-45°C
pH 4.5-9.3 4.9-9.3 5.0-8.3
Aw 0.83 0.91 0.95
atmosphere facultative anaerobe facultative anaerobe anaerobe (microaerophilic)
thermoresistent spores only vegetative cells, destroyed
by pasteurisation
D100= 2-8 min variable
heat resistant (5h-100°C) linke
to intoxication
conditions for toxin production min. Aw = 0.87
pH 5.1-9.0
optimum temp. 25-30°C during sporulation in the
intestines
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 22/95
Department of Food Safety and Foo
22
TABLE C. Mycotoxin producing molds in foods
Mycotoxin Mold Clinical aspects Toxicity
Aflatoxin B1 en B2
Aflatoxin B1, B2, G1
and G2
Aspergillus flavus
Aspergillus parasiticus
- acute toxicity
- liver cancer
- Carcinogenic
- Mutagenic
- Terratogenic
- Toxic (AflatoxineLD50 7.2 mg/kg)
Ochratoxin A Aspergillus ochraceus
Penicillium verrucosum
- kidney disease 'Balkan
endemic nephropathy'
- Nephrotoxic
- Carcinogenic for
animals (possibly fo
humans)
- LD50 22 mg/kg)
Zearalenone Fusarium graminearum
F. culmorum, F. crookwellense
-reproduction system of
pigs
- breast cancer?
Oestrogenic activity
Deoxynivalenol (=
DON, vomitoxin)
(trichoticeen)
Fusarium graminearum
F. culmorum, F. crookwellense
- gastro-intestinal
- immune-system
domestic animals
Not carcinogenic fo
humans
T-2 toxin
(trichoticeen)
Fusarium spp. - alimentary toxic aleukia
(Russia WWII)
Not carcinogenic fo
humans
Fumonisins Fusarium moniliforme
F. proliferatum, F. subglutinans
- oesophageal cancer Carcinogenic for
animals (possibly fo
humans)
Patulin Penicillium expansum, other
Penicillium sp., some Aspergillus sp
no toxicity,
spoilage
Cyclopiazonic acid Aspergillus flavus and other species
Penicillium sp. e.g. P. camemberti
- anorexia, diarrhea
- muscural breakdownMoniliformin Fusarium proliferatum,
F. subglutinans - heart diseases
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 23/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
TABLE D : GROWTH CONDITIONS AND HEAT RESISTANCE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT FOODBORNE BACTERIAL INFECTIOUS AGENTS
minimum atmosphere Heat-resistance
temp. pH aw
Salmonella sp. 7°C 4.0 0.94 Fac. anaerobe D58 0.63 minCampylobacter jejuni 32°C 4.9 0.99 Microaerophilel D55 0.6-2.3min
Escherichia coli 7-8°C 4.4 0.95 Fac. anaerobe D60 0.75min
Yersinia
enterocolitica
-1.3°C 4.2 0.96
5% NaCl
Fac. anaerobe D60 0.4-05 min
Listeria
monocytogenes
0°C 4.4 0.92 Fac.anaerobec D60 2.54min
D65 0.75min
Vibrio cholerae 10°C 5.0 0.97
4% NaCl
Fac. anaerobe D49 8.15 min
D60 2.65 min
Vibrio
parahaemolyticus
5°C 4.8 0.94
8-10 %NaCl
Fac. anaerobe D49 0.35-0.72 min
D55 0.02-0.29 min
Shigella sp. 6-8°C 4.8-5.0 3.8-5.2% NaCl Fac. anaerobe Rapid inactivation
(2-5min) at 60°C
Aeromonas sp. 0-4°C 4.5 6% NaCl Fac. anaerobe D45 29.5 min
D51 2.3 min
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 24/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
24
2. Chemical aspects of food safety
See lectures by prof dr ir Bruno De Meulenaer
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 25/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
3. Physical hazards related to food safety
3.1 Definition
Physical hazards can be defined as hard, sharp foreign objects which are not expected to be
present in the food product. Physical dangers can provoke injuries in the mouth, teeth,pharynx, throat or can lead to asphyxiation in worse case.
Foreign bodies are the biggest single source of customer complaints for many food
manufacturers, retailers and enforcement authorities. The accidental inclusion of unwanted
items can sometimes occur in even the best-managed processes. The perception of the
consumer is important, since not all foreign bodies are in fact alien to the food, though all
have the potential to give rise to a consumer complaint.
A study of the USDA demonstrated that a difference must be made between hard, sharp
foreign objects with a certain size range and others:
The U.S. FDA concluded a study that evaluated a) 190 reports of foreign objects in food
received by FDA’s Health Hazard Evaluation Board over a period of 25 years; and b) a
review of the scientific literature concerning physical hazards in food products.
A product should be considered adulterated if it contains:
- a hard or sharp foreign object that measures 7 to 25 mm in length and the product is
ready-to-eat or requires only minimal preparation steps that would not eliminate,
invalidate or neutralize the hazard prior to consumption.
A product may be considered adulterated, after review of the hazard by FDA, if it contains:
- a hard or sharp foreign object that measures 7 to 25 mm in length and the product
requires preparation or processing that may have an effect on the presence of the
foreign object in the finished food;
- a hard or sharp foreign object less than 7 mm in length and a special risk group such as
infants, surgery patients or the elderly is among the intended consumers of the
product;
- a hard or sharp foreign object over 25 mm in length.
A difference can be made between food product related foreign objects (intrinsic foreign
bodies) or product strange objects (extrinsic foreign bodies).
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 26/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
26
The first category can be present by the nature of the raw material which is applied for
producing the food product. These are typically stones in dried stone fruits as dates, plums or
a bone from fish, bone in meat products, crystals in sugar or salt which are mistaken for glass.
The second category will occur in the food product due to presence in raw material or duringthe production process. Materials are glass, metal, hard plastic, wood,… . Typical examples
are:
a) related to the production environment: e.g. wood, glass, small animals (insects),
stones,…
b) related to machines/apparatus e.g. metal, pins, other parts from machines
c) related to materials/packaging materials applied e.g. metal from cans, rope, elastic,…
d) due to technical interventions during processing e.g. metal sliver, electricity cable,
rope,…
e) due to contamination by the personnel e.g. jewellery, personal possessions,…
3.2 Preventive measures and detection of foreign objects
Methods involved in controlling physical hazards include raw material specifications and
inspections. Even for products on the field, a visual field control can prevent already a high
amount of foreign objects to enter the production of the food product. Also inspections of the
food product when entering the storage device or the production site can prevent the presence
of foreign objects.
For the environmental contaminations, preventions can be made by the food processor :
a) pest control in other to avoid insects and rodents in the production or storage area
b) preventive maintenance programmes for machines, conveyor belts and visual
inspection of the production and storage areas
c) guidelines regarding personal hygiene in order to avoid that personal possessions are
entering the food product e.g. no jewellery can be carried, hair must be in a net,…
d) strict working procedures in order to avoid errors that can be made (e.g. packaginginstructions to avoid that packaging material is in the food product)
Next to these general, preventive measures also in some production processes detection steps
can be introduced. Approaches to the technical methods of combating foreign bodies on the
food production line fall into two main categories:
a) detection and removal systems : are systems designed specifically to detect the
presence of a foreign body and remove it as a consequence of having discovered it.
The oldest method is manual sorting, while the newest methods included verysophisticated electronic technology. However, all rely on some physical difference
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 27/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
between the food and the foreign body, be it colour, shape, density, electrical
properties or another characteristic. Many of the more established techniques such as
sieving or magnets or metal detectors (used to locate ferrous and non ferrous metals)
use physical differences that are relatively obvious. Some of the more advance
methods, such as colour sorters have been devised to allow a machine to make judgements regarding a sample that may be obvious to human eye but to do so
extremely quickly. These methods have relied upon microprocessors to process the
information at speeds suitable for a modern production or packaging line. The most
recent method is scanning by X-rays. Overview of the most common techniques : e.g.
metal detection (both ferrous and non ferrous metals), magnets (only ferrous metals),
optical sorting machines. Future techniques are microwave reflectance, Nuclear
magnetic resonance imaging, X-ray scanning.
The basic principle of metal detection is based on the transmission and reception of
electrical impulses much like radio waves. All metals have characteristics that will cause
an alteration in a transmitted signal, because of their conductivity and magnetic properties.
What metal detectors do in food processing lines is to compare the signal received with
the expected signal and identify the presence of a contaminant if a variation is observed.
Magnetic separators are applied in wide range of industries. Magnets provide a simple and
inexpensive method of removing the unwanted ferrous particles. At the same time, the
removal by magnetic separators of ferrous contaminants reduces potential damage and
wear to the subsequent processing machines. Tube magnets can be applied which is
constructed of cylindrical permanent magnets contained within a thin stainless steel tube,
generally 25 mm, the length depends on the application. The tube magnet can be installed
single or in multiples within the process. Plate magnets are a rectangular box that contains
a permanent magnet. Plate magnets are installed above conveyors or in pipelines etc.
Drum magnetic separator comprises a rotating drum that contains a fixed permanent
magnet unit inside. These are applied for dry free flowing ingredients or products such as
grain, tea, rice and sugar. Magnetic pulleys comprises on a shaft to which permanent
magnets have been fixed and surround the entire periphery. As the material approachesthe magnetic pulley any items of ferrous contamination are attached to it.
b) separation systems : are mechanical methods such as sieving and flotation and
filtering that aim to separate foreign bodies from the food as a result of basic physical
differences. In many cases these methods are intrinsic to the production system itself.
Possibly the most ancient is the process of winnowing to separate wheat from chaff.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 28/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
28
These techniques can be applied in homogenous liquid processes (e.g. fruit juice,
milk,…) or for powder systems (e.g. grains, flours,…).
Air separation systems are dry cleaning methods that are rarely used in isolation but
normally being combined with other removal systems. Air separation methods arerelatively cheap and convenient but care must be taken that they do not generated
excessive levels of dust that might cause a fire or explosion. They are 2 main types:
Aspirators : usually have specific applications for the separation of materials
with different densities or weights such as the separation of the chaff from
wheat or the shell fragments from nuts. A strong current of air passing though
the product carries lighter materials off, separating it from the heavier material.
Abraders and graders are useful for removing surface contaminants of food
materials such as soil or husk. Dry scouring by friction or impaction using
tumblers, vibrators and rotating brushes are all variants of this general type.
They are usually in conjunction with aspirators to remove the loosened
material.
Liquid separation systems involve a wide range of wet cleaning methods, which are
usually used in conjunction with other separation techniques. The washing of food is
frequently one of the first stages of processing particularly on agricultural crops.
Common methods include:
Washers and sprayers : in which the product is carried in or through clean
water to remove light or surface contamination e.g. soil. It can be both batch or
a continuous system.
Centrifuges work by separating food material with different phases and
different densities by centrifugal force. By clarifiers the content s rotates in a
rotating drum, and hydrocyclones, in which the rotation is achieved by a
tangential supply to the stationary status.
Sieves and filters remove foreign bodies on the basis of size and are equally applicable
to both wet and dry systems, to the full spectrum of food materials and to all levels of manufacturing output. They range from simple mobile hand-operated systems to
integrated in-line installations. The simplest sieves are static grids with meshes of any
size, depending on the separation required. Other systems include perforated plates
with square or round holes, which can be made from materials such as steel, copper,...
. More complex systems can be built up, consisting of a series of meshes arranged
vertically, horizontally or inclined. The sieving efficiency can be assisted by any
combination of rotary movement, aeration,… .
However, wet sieving or filtering can give rise to bacteriological and/or corrosion
problems whilst dry sieving or filtering can present a fire and explosion hazard.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 29/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
Some foreign bodies are difficult to detect, generally because of a lack of a readily detectable
physical difference between them and the food product itself. Examples are stones and dirt or
small insects related to field crops, while fragments of bones are sometimes found in meat
products. However, some overall pattern can be detected, plastic fragments of packagingmaterials and insects are one of the greatest challenges to developers of detection equipment.
In the framework of the legal aspect of food safety and the responsibility of the food producer
it is necessary that a food producer can demonstrate that is has :
considered what foreign boy hazards might arise;
judged the likelihood of the occurrence, the risk, the concern and the potential danger
to the consumer;
selected and installed controls which are demonstrably effective;
integrated the controls into a whole plan;
set up a review system for continuous improvement;
maintained a full record above.
3.3. References for part 3
Edwards, M. 2004. Detecting foreign bodies in food. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA, 306p.
ISBN 0-8493-2546-3
Lelieveld, H, Mostert,M., Holah, J. and White, B. 2003. Hygiene in food processing –
EHEDG. CRC Press, Boca Rotaon, USA, 392p. ISBN 0-8493-1212-4
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 30/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
30
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 31/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
4. Quality assurance systems assuring food safety
4.1 Principles of Codex Alimentarius
The document ‘General principles of food hygiene’ of the Codex Alimentarius is the basicdocument for the production of safe food. The document was made in 1969 and was extended
with a part on HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) in 1993, further revisions
were made in 1997, 1999 and 2003. The document includes a part on GMP (Good
Manufacturing Practices) and hygiene rules on one hand and a part on HACCP on the other
hand.
Important to note is that also hygiene measures are demanded on the agricultural level.
4.1.1. Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)
GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) can be defined as a package of requirements and
procedures by which the work methodology takes place under controlled conditions and by
which surrounding conditions are created that allow the production of hygienic and safe
products. The objective of GMP is controlling the different hazards for food safety
(microbiological, physical, chemical and the allergens) and must be seen as the basic
requirements in the food producing chain. Sometimes ‘GHP or Good Hygienic Practices’ are
applied. In the primary sector ‘GAP or Good Agricultural Practices’ are used.
GMP-measures are implemented on different levels in a food company:
• the environment;
• the process and product;
• the personnel.
Since the aim of the GMP regulations is to prevent or reduce the contamination to a
minimum, the application of these regulations is very important. When these regulations
are known and observed by everybody, hygienic working has a central place on every level inthe company (see part 0.3 legislation).
The most important GMP’s that need to be elaborated en implemented are (according to the
Codex Alimentarius on food hygiene):
GMP 1: cleaning and disinfection;
GMP 2: pest control;
GMP 3: water and air quality;
GMP 4: temperature control;
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 32/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
32
GMP 5: personnel (facilities, hygienic way of working, health, education);
GMP 6: structure and infrastructure (surrounding area, building, materials, equipment)
GMP 7: technical maintenance ;
GMP 8: waste management ;
GMP 9: control of raw material;GMP 10: work methodology;
GMP 11 : management and supervision
GMP 12 : Documentation and registration
GMP 13 : Recall procedures
4.1.2. PreRequisite Program (PRP)
Recently, the term ‘Pre-Requisite Program (PRP)’ is more used. PRP can be defined as every
specific and documented activity or facility that is implemented corresponding to the ‘Codex
General Requirements of Food Hygiene’, the ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’ and the
legislation, with the purpose to create basic requirements that are necessary for the
production and processing of safe foods in all stages of the food chain.
With other words PRP covers GHP (Good Hygienic Practices), GMP, GAP and the
legislation. The term ‘program’ refers to the fact that PRP’s are more than a working
instruction, a plan or a regulation. They are general control measures, which need to be
verified on their effectiveness on a regular base. The word ‘program’ indicates that in a PRP
there is more than an instruction, scheme or procedure that needs to be followed. The plan-do-
check-act circle or Deming circle should be present.
The PRP’s are divided into 14 groups:
PRP 1: cleaning and disinfection;
PRP 2: pest control;
PRP 3: water and air quality;
PRP 4: temperature control and registration;
PRP 5: personnel (facilities, hygienic way of working, health, education);
PRP 6: structure and infrastructure (surrounding area, building, materials, equipment);PRP 7: technical maintenance and calibration;
PRP 8: waste management;
PRP 9: control of raw material;
PRP 10: traceability, recall, goods returned, rejections/non-conform products;
PRP 11: allergens;
PRP 12: physical and chemical contamination;
PRP 13: management of product information;
PRP 14: work methodology.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 33/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
4.1.3. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)
4.1.3.1. Definition
HACCP is a methodology that identifies, evaluates, and controls hazards that are significant
for food safety.
4.1.3.2. History
The HACCP system arose in 1960 through the efforts of The Pillsbury Co., the Army Natick
Research and Development Laboratories and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) to develop a completely safe diet for astronauts. Pillsbury presented
the HACCP-concept on the first conference for Food Protection in 1971 and organised the
next year a workshop for inspectors of the FDA. This resulted in the use of the HACCP-
principles when drafting the Low Acid Canned Foods regulation in 1974.
In the seventies and in the beginning of the eighties, other important food companies adopted
the HACCP-approach. Reports of the International Commission on Microbiological
Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) created an international interest for the HACCP-concept
and for its usefulness in the production of safe food products. A sub commission of the
National Academy of Sciences proclaimed in 1985 that the HACCP-concept was accepted by
controlling authorities, resulting in 1987 to the National Advisory Committee on
Microbiological criteria for Foods. This committee extended the HACCP-protocol from 3 to
7 principles. In 1993 HACCP was included in the Codex Alimentarius and in 1997 and 1999
some adaptations were made. In 2003 some changes were made for small and/or less
developed businesses.
4.1.3.3. Objective of the HACCP system
The HACCP concept is a systematic approach to hazard identification, assessment and
control. From the moment something goes wrong, it is possible to act and react quickly
and efficiently. This prevents that large sets of products are rejected and public health isendangered. This system eliminates disadvantages inherent to control by inspectors and
microbial end product control. By concentrating only on these factors, which have a direct
effect on the safety of the food product, no energy and money should be spent on less
important factors. This system is cheaper and more effective compared to the traditional
control systems.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 34/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
34
By focussing on the critical points, which influence the safety and quality of food products
over the complete production line, producers now can show that they are controlling the
production conditions and that safe products are provided. Moreover, inspectors are now
able to check the effect of the measures on the long term, where earlier inspections gave a
picture at a given moment.
The HACCP system is a preventive, company specific, quality system starting at the
selection and purchase of raw materials, ingredients and packaging materials, following the
complete production process and ending at the final product, ready for consumption.
4.1.3.4. The 7 principles of the HACCP-concept
The HACCP system consists of the following 7 basic principles:
Principle 1: Conduct a hazard analysis
Principle 2: Determine the Critical Control Points (CCP's)
Principle 3: Establish critical limit(s)
Principle 4: Establish a system to monitor control of the CCP
Principle 5: Establish the corrective action to be taken when monitoring indicates that a
particular CCP is not under control
Principle 6: Establish procedures for verification to confirm that the HACCP system is
working effectively
Principle 7: Establish documentation concerning all procedures and records appropriate to
these principles and their application
4.1.3.5. The fourteen stages of HACCP
To establish a HACCP plan, it is recommended to follow a logically structured sequence of
steps. In several books and articles, different types of plans with 12 or 14 stages can be
found. However, most of them are based on the internationally accepted system as described
in the Codex Alimentarius, which includes 12 stages (appendix B).
The plan that will be used in this course consists of 14 stages and is based on the FLAIR-document (Food Linked Agro Industrial Research):
Step 0: Policy statement
Step 1: Assemble a HACCP team
Step 2: Define the scope of the study
Step 3 Describe the product
Step 4 Identify the intended use of product
Step 5 Construct a flow diagram
Step 6 Confirm flow diagram on site
Step 7 Identify and list all relevant hazards and preventive measuresStep 8 Identify the CCP's
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 35/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
Step 9 Establish critical limits for the CCP's
Step 10 Establish a monitoring system for the CCP's
Step 11 Establish a corrective action plan
Step 12 Establish a documentation system
Step 13 Verify the HACCP planStep 14 Review the HACCP plan
4.1.4. Relation GMP, PRP and HACCP
GMP, PRP and HACCP are different systems but are closely related. GMP’s are general
hygiene measures, not specific for a sector or a type of production process (e.g. meat –
vegetable - … type of industry). While the PRP’s are programs in which these general
hygiene measures are translated into an effective, practical and company specific monitoring
system. Next to this, HACCP analysis very specific the company hazards which are
monitored by the CCP’s.
GMP and PRP are the required and necessary fundaments for the HACCP system.
Figure 3 : Relation between PRP and HACCP in a Food Safety Management System of a
company in the agri-food chain.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 36/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
36
4.2. The key elements of quality
4.2.1 Definitions
QualityQuality has been defined in many ways. Some link quality as superiority or innate
excellence, whereas others view it as a lack of manufacturing or service defects. Today
most managers agree that the main reason to pursue quality is to satisfy customer
demands. A common definition of quality is “the total of features and characteristics
of a product or service that bears on its ability to satisfy given needs”. The view of
quality as the satisfaction of customer needs is often called fitness for use. In highly
competitive markets, merely satisfying the needs of customer expectations. Most
progressive organisations now define quality as follows “quality is meeting or
exceeding customer expectations”.
Quality policy
The intentions of the organisation with regard to quality and the ways to reach this,
formal expressed in a statement from the top management. The quality policy has to
be in accordance with the global policy of the organisation and has to be a basis for the
formulation of the quality objectives.
Quality control (QC)
Quality control refers to the operational techniques and activities, which are used to
fulfil the requirements for quality, e.g. monitoring of a process, control steps in the
process, weighing the final weight of a food in a package,…
Quality assurance (QA)
All the planned and systematic activities implemented within the quality system, and
demonstrated as needed, to provide adequate confidence that an entity will fulfil
requirements for quality. Examples are training, instrument maintenance and auditing.
Quality management (QA+QC)
All activities of the overall management function that determine the quality policy,
objectives and responsibilities and that implement them by means such as quality
planning, quality control, quality assurance and quality improvement within the
quality system.
Total quality management (TQM)
An organisation’s management approach centred on quality, based on the participation
of all the members and aimed at long-term success through customer satisfaction andbenefits to the members of the organisation and the society.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 37/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
Quality management system (QMS) – food safety management system (FSMS)
The system (the organisational structure, competences, responsibilities, procedures,
processes and provisions) necessary for the arrangement of the quality policy and the
quality objectives and to reach the objectives. A management system is translated andimplemented into a company own setting (eg. Procedures, instructions, registrations
are followed by the personal). If the system is only focussed on food safety
(microbiological – chemical – physical hazards and allergens) we use the term ‘food
safety management system’. If the system is as well taking into account quality, we
use the term ‘quality management system’.
Quality Assurance standard
A Quality Assurance (QA) standard is defining requirements to which a quality
management or food safety management system in a company needs to attend. It can
be developed by different stakeholders e.g. retail organisations, governments. A
company can obtain a certificate after a positive audit.
Quality Assurance guideline
A quality Assurance guideline is explaining different aspects of required legislation or
quality assurance standards. Companies can use these guidelines to implement the
requirements in their company own management system. No certification is possible.
4.2.2. The Deming cycle
Deming emphasised that everyone learned a common method of describing and attacking
problems. This commonality is an absolute requirement if personnel from different parts of
the company must work together on company-wide quality improvement. Deming therefore
introduced a framework: the Deming cycle, where all parties can discuss problems and
suggest improvements.
The plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle, also referred to as either Stewart cycle or Deming
wheel, is the conceptual basis for continuous improvement activities. Representing theprocess with a cycle underscores its continuing nature. The use of the PDCA cycle is to co-
ordinate continual improvement efforts. It both emphasises and demonstrates that
improvement programs must start with careful planning, must result in effective action, and
must move on again to careful planning in a continuous cycle. The activities, which can be
developed in each stage, are explained below:
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 38/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
38
Figure 4 : The Deming cycle
Plan: Begin by studying the current process and document that process. Then collect data to
identify problems. Next, survey data and develop a plan for improvement. Specify measures
for evaluating the plan.
Do: Implement the plan, on a small scale if possible. Document changes made during this
phase. Collect data systematically for evaluation.
Check (study): Evaluate the data collected during the ‘do’ phase. Check how closely the
results match original goals of the plan phase.
Act: If the results are successful, standardise the new method and communicate the new
method to all people associated with the process. Implement training for the new method. If
results are unsuccessful, revise the plan and repeat the process or cease the project.
In replicating successful results elsewhere in the organisation, the cycle is repeated. Similarly,
if the plan was unsuccessful and you still wish to make further modifications, repeat the cycle.
Employing this sequence of steps provides, according to Deming, a systematic approach to
continuous improvement.
PLAN DO
CHECKACT
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 39/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
4.3. Integrated approach
In chapter 4.5 and 4.6, an overview is given of the different quality systems that have been
developed over the years in the primary production and in the food industry. During this
development there is a clear evolution to an integrated approach where 3 aspects are always
present:• Good Hygienic Practices (GHP) / Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) / Good
Agricultural Practices (GAP) as a basis for a hygienic work methodology and a
foundation for HACCP;
• the HACCP methodology to guarantee food safety; (not for the primary sector !)
• a quality management system based on the principles of ISO 9000:2008 (see chapter 4.4).
Depending on the scope of the quality system a distinction can be made between systems that
focus only on food safety and hygiene and systems that guarantee general quality aspects or
that are a combination of other management systems than those for quality.
Different levels can be distinguished:
1. A limited number of quality management elements to support the HACCP plan. The scope
is limited to food safety and hygiene.
2. The elaboration of a quality management system with an extended scope to general
product quality.
3. Elaboration of a quality management system that is focussed on general customer
satisfaction. The scope is extended to deliver quality on the level of customer
expectations.
4. The elaboration of a global management strategy, by which the participation of all the
collaborators of the organisation is necessary in order to achieve continuous improvement.
5. Besides quality concern, there is also concern for working conditions, environment and
safety. Such a system is described as Total Quality Management (TQM).
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 40/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
40
Figure 5: Integrated approach of several quality systems
Food Safety Assurance plan(product/processpecific)
= HACCP-plan
Long-term manageralstrategy
e.g. TQM, ISO 9004
Quality ManagementSystem
e.g. BRC, ISO 9001Food Safety Management System
GMP/GHP= basic requirement
Quality ManagementSystem
General requirements Specific requirements
Legal requirements related to quality and product quality,
all quality aspects and all customer expectations
All quality aspects +
environment, safety and well-being of the personnel
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 41/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
4.4 ISO 9000:2008
ISO standards are international standards in order to achieve uniformity and to prevent
technical barriers to trade throughout the world. The essence of an ISO-based quality system
is that all activities and handlings must be established in procedures, which must be followedby ensuring clear assignment of responsibilities and authority.
The international Quality Assurance (QA) standards are developed by the technical
committees. Most used and probably best known of all ISO standards is the ISO 9000 series
for quality.
4.4.1. History
During World War II, approximately 200 thousand soldiers were killed simply because their
ammunition malfunctioned. This problem plagued the armed forces of many countries until a
military tribunal authorized the adoption of military standards for all ammunition
manufacturers. Since then, these military standards have spread to most applications of
products and services for both military and government agencies. The North American Treaty
Organization (NATO) was the first group of countries to adopt shared standards in 1945;
these quality assurance standards continued to evolve, with a global organization of standards
issuers. In 1975 the British Standard Organization developed the British Standard (BS) 5750
which became known as the “mother document” for the ISO 9000 series.
In 1987, the Technical Committee TC/176 developed the 9000 series, which provided a
framework for quality management and quality assurance. These standards were generic and
independent on any specific industry or economic sector. The ISO 9000 family comprises
standards providing requirements, guidance, terminology and vocabulary for quality
management systems (QMS), and supporting standards addressing specific issues, such as
auditing.
• ISO 9000:2000 Quality Management Systems - Fundamentals and vocabulary
• ISO 9001:2000 Quality Management Systems – Requirements• ISO 9004:2000 Quality Management Systems - Guidelines for Performance
Improvements
In 2008 a small revision is made regarding the audit protocols and now ISO 9001:2008 is
available. ISO 9001:2008 has been developed in order to introduce clarifications to the
existing requirements of ISO 9001:2000 and to improve compatibility with ISO
14001:2004 (environmental system). ISO 9001:2008 does not introduce additional
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 42/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
42
requirements nor does it change the intent of the ISO 9001:2000 standard. No new
requirements were introduced in ISO 9001:2008 edition but, in order to benefit from the
clarifications of ISO 9001:2008, users of the former version will need to take into
consideration whether the clarifications introduced have an impact on their current
interpretation of ISO 9001:2000, as changes may be necessary to their QMS.
Important remark: ISO 9000 family can be applied in all (industrial) sector, not only for
companies/organization in the agri-food chain.
More information is available on www.iso.org.
4.4.2. Objectives and principles of the ISO 9000 series
The primary objectives of ISO 9001:2008 are to achieve customer satisfaction by meeting
customer requirements through application of the system, continuous improvement of the
system and prevention of non-conformity. To achieve these goals, all activities are described
in procedures that have to be executed and controlled by assignment of responsibilities and
competences.
The international standards of the ISO 9000 family describe which elements should be part of
quality systems, but they do not describe how a specific organization can implement these
elements. The company or organization has to ‘translate’ the standard to the own
organization, since every organization is unique.
4.4.3. Structure
The revised ISO 9001 is structured and organized according to the process model. A process
is considered as any activity or operation, which receives inputs and converts it to outputs.
Characteristics of the model are shown in Figure 6:
Managementresponsibility
Productrealisation
Measurement,analysis, improvement
Resource
management
Product
Customer Customer
Satis-faction
Require-ments
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 43/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
Figure 6 : Model of a Process-Based Quality Management System
Characteristics of the model are:
• The four major topics of the QMS are represented:
- Management responsibility
- Resource management
- Product and/or service realization- Measurement, analysis and improvement
• The continuous improvement aspect and measuring of customer satisfaction are
clearly expressed.
• The model shows interaction between processes, and processes are closed loops. For
example, the input for product realization is customer-driven. Subsequently, the output
is measured by customer satisfaction measurements. This information is used as a
feedback to evaluate and validate whether customer requirements are achieved. The
management on its turn shall ensure that customer requirements are fully understood
and met.
ISO 9001:2008 starts with requirements with respect to the quality management system.
The organization must define and manage processes that are necessary to ensure that products
and/or service conform to customer requirements. For implementation and demonstration of
such processes, the organization must develop, document and maintain a quality management
system according to the international standard.
In the topic management responsibility (1), requirements are set on commitment and
responsibility of (top) management.
In the topic resource management (2), requirements are set with respect to
• human resources, such as assignment of appropriate personnel, development of
procedures to determine training needs and evaluate its effectiveness;
• information, like procedures for managing information on e.g. process, product,
suppliers etc.;
Value adding activities
Information flux
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 44/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
44
• infrastructure, like workspace, associated facilities, equipment, but also supporting
services;
• work environment , such as health and safety conditions, work methods and ethics.
The topic product and/or service realization (3) consists of general requirements and fivesubtopics. The general requirements refer to determination, planning and implementation of
realization processes (e.g. criteria and methods to control processes, arrangements of
measuring, monitoring and corrective actions, and maintenance of quality records). The five
subtopics are:
1. customer-related processes;
2. design and development;
3. purchasing;
4. product and service operations;
5. control of measuring and monitoring devices.
In the topic measurement, analysis and improvement (4) general requirements refer to
planning and implementation of these measuring, analysis and improvement processes to
ensure that the quality management system, processes and products and/or services comply
with requirements.
4.4.4. Benefits of ISO 9000
Pursuing ISO certification helps a company to standardize its processes and provides a better
platform for productivity analysis. Thus, companies should gain better control of their quality
virtue of applying the discipline required for ISO 9000 certification, even if they later decide
not to register. Another important reason for considering ISO 9000 certification is that more
and more companies worldwide are requiring their suppliers to become ISO 9000 registered,
as the whole world is moving toward standards. ISO 9000 is fast becoming an admission
ticket to compete in the global marketplace. ISO standards also provide a universally accepted
method to communicate an organization’s quality concepts and its processes for serving the
customer. Once this system is accepted and certified by ISO representatives during an ISO
audit, company adherence to those standards provides a sense of confidence and assurance toboth the company’s management and personnel and the company’s customers. Finally, one
important reason for adopting ISO standards is the potential impact that it has from a
marketing standpoint. Most companies that are ISO certified today use that certification as an
image-building tool.
4.4.5. Drawbacks of ISO 9000
The cost of implementing and maintaining ISO 9000 is significant. Smaller companies may
not be able to justify the investment in this award. This is a particularly acute problem for new
firms struggling to create a customer base; without ISO 9000 certification they may not winbusiness away from established competitors. In addition, ISO 9000 is costly to obtain and
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 45/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
maintain, lengthy time-scale to obtain certification, time-consuming to develop, difficult to
implement, organizational resistant to change, staff resistant to change, it is hard to maintain
enthusiasm for the system and more documentation is needed.
4.4.6. HACCP System and ISO 9000ISO 9000 is a QMS aimed primarily at preventing and detecting any non-conform product
during production and distribution to the customer, and by taking corrective action to ensure
that the non-conformance does not occur again. ISO 9000 means that the product meets its
specification 100% of the time. There is obviously the danger here in that if an unsafe product
is specified, the QMS will ensure that you make an unsafe product every time.
ISO 9000 standards are constraint to describe the elements of the organization that have to be
taken into account to guarantee obtaining the expected quality, establishing requirements or
recommendations in relation with each of them, meaning that the organizations should define
their own standards and demonstrate that they observe them. One of the methodologies
proposed for these aims is that of the HACCP system.
Each of the requirements of the ISO 9000 standard has relevance to HACCP and in many
instances it is vital that HACCP is supported by such procedures. For example, HACCP can
be very effective but only if:
- calibrated equipment is used;
- people are properly trained;
- documentation is controlled;
- the system is verified through audits and so on.
This does not mean that the organization needs to have a complete company quality system,
certified to ISO 9001 before starting with HACCP, but there is a relationship between the two
of them and how to use ISO 9000 as a guideline for installing the procedures which will make
the HACCP system secure.
4.5. Overview of different quality assurance standards in primaryproduction
The primary production is as well included in the Codex Alimentarius documents (e.g.
‘general principles of food hygiene ‘) where Good Agricultural Practices and registrations are
demanded for this sector (see part 0.2 and 4.1). Next to this, the primary production is more
and more taken into consideration as well in legislation regarding food safety and food
hygiene (see part 0.3), where a ‘farm to fork’ approach is included. So food safety is starting
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 46/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
46
actually already in the primary sector where contaminations with micro-organisms, chemical
agents or physical foreign bodies can happen.
Therefore, also on the level of the primary sector quality management systems are demanded
by government or customers. The retail has again played an important role in the developmentof quality assurance standards and is requiring often the certification against these standards
as a basic demand for delivering to the retail facilities of both fresh plant crops or fresh
meat/fish/animal products. Not only the retail is demanding on its fresh delivered products but
also the food industry is demanding requirements of food safety, food hygiene and food
quality to the primary sector, which is supplying them from raw materials.
In this part several important standards on international level are discussed.
4.5.1. GLOBALG.A.P. as retail initiative
4.5.1.1. Objective and history
Eurep-GAP started in 1997 as an initiative of a group of European retailers, the Euro-Retailer
Produce Working Group (EUREP). The goal was to elaborate standards and procedures for
the development of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), in other words a quality management
system for primary production. The following sectors are included: fruit and vegetables,
flower and ornamentals, integrated farm assurance, integrated aquaculture assurance, green
coffee.
In 2007 the EUREP-GAP standard was extended both in scope and became internationally
recognised by the retailers. The name changed into GlobalGap. The GlobalGap standard is
primarily designed to reassure consumers about how food is produced on the farm by
minimising detrimental environmental impacts of farming operations, reducing the use of
chemical inputs and ensuring a responsible approach to worker health and safety as well as
animal welfare.
The most important point of interest of the standards that are developed within GlobalGap isfood safety, closely related to traceability. The starting point is legislation. However, it is not
enough to focus on food safety, the consumer has also other demands towards food quality.
Aspects that are related to sustainable agriculture are also included. Therefore, attention is
given to environment and well-being and safety of the workers. Also technical aspects of the
cultivation are included in the standards. Elements of quality management systems are limited
and include registrations, training of the personnel and forms for complaints.
4.5.1.2. Structure of GlobalGap
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 47/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
The new GlobalGap standard version integrates all agricultural products into a single farm
audit. Producers of different crops and livestock can now avoid multiple audits to meet
various market and consumer requirements.
There are modular applications (see Figure 7) for the different product groups, ranging fromplant and livestock production to plant propagation materials and compound feed
manufacturing.
I n t e g r a t e d
f a r m a
s s u r a n c e s t a n d
a r d
Crops base Fruit & vegetables
Flowers &
ornamentals
Combinable crops
Green coffee
Tea
Cotton
Others
Livestock base Cattle & sheep
Dairy
Pigs
Poultry
Others
Aquaculture base Salmon & troutPangasius
Shrimp
Tilapia
Others
Figure 7. Structure of GlobalGap
4.5.1.3. Content of GlobalGap
The documentation of the system is organised in major blocks, which is available for each
type of activity, giving:
a) system rules referred as General Regulations (GR) : in this chapter rules for
auditing and combination of audits are given. There are recommendations, major
must and minor must. The major and minor musts must be fulfilled for obtained
the certification.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 48/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
48
b) global G.A.P. requirements referred to as Control Points and Compliance
Criteria (CPCC) : in here we can find the actual requirements for the specific
activity in the primary sector.
These are including e.g. (see further in figure 8)
i) all farm base: (section AF)
o record keeping and internal self-assessment/internal
inspection
o site history and site management
o workers health, safety and welfare
o waste and pollution management, recycling and re-use
o environment
o complaints
o traceability
ii) crops base (section CB)
o traceability
o propagation material
o site history and site management
o soil management
o fertiliser use
o irrigation
o integrated pest management
o plant protection products
iii) fruit and vegetables (section FV)
o propagation material
o soil and substrate management
o irrigation
o is there a written justification for the use of soil
fumigants ?
o product handling (post harvest)iv) continuing for the other activities
Important to note is that there is always a general starting point for all activities ‘section AF’ ,
followed by a general part for crops ‘section CB’ or livestock ‘section LB’ or aquaculture
‘section AB’, and finally the activity specific requirements ‘section FV, CC, CO, TE, FO, CS,
DY, PG, PY, SN (see figure 8).
c) Inspection documents referred as checklists (CL) : which are applied during
the audit, to check whether all requirements or CPCC are fulfilled
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 49/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
AF
All farms base
CB
Crops base
FV Fruit & vegetables
FO Flowers & ornamentals
CC Combinable crops
CO Green coffee
TE Tea
Cotton
Others
LB
Livestock base
CS Cattle & sheep
DY Dairy
PG Pigs
PY Poultry
Others
AB
Aquaculture base
SN Salmon & troutPangasius
Shrimp
Tilapia
Others
Figure 8: structure of the documentation and requirements of Global Gap
More information : www.globalgap.org
4.5.2. Qualität und Sicherheid für Lebensmittel vom Erzeuger bis zum
Verbraucher (QS)
The QS standard was developed in Germany by all those that are involved in the production
and marketing of meat/meat products and fruit, vegetables and potatoes. It is a quality
assurance standard (with possibility of certification) to ensure the quality and origin of food
products. In the mean time this standard became more important in Europe and over the world
because of the strength of the German retailers and the fact that it was the first standard that
was combining both plant production and livestock production.
Moreover, the QS standard combined as well primary production with further food production
(e.g. slaughterhouse, …) and retail/distribution (full agro-food chain approach).
In order to achieve this goal QS:
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 50/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
50
• installed a system for quality management and control which covers all stages from
birth through to (slaughtering), cutting and processing and including transportation
and storage;
• creates transparency at all stages of production, from birth through to point of sale;
• makes it possible to trace the origins of the raw materials;• takes account the consumer interests to a degree which exceeds legal stipulations as
early as the specification stage when laying down requirements for QS-approved
products;
• pays due attention to considerations of animal welfare.
The QS standard apply to both domestic and imported products. Within QS, professional
associations and organisations from the feedstuff industry, the farming industry, the meat
industry, the meat production industry, the fruit/vegetable and potato retailing, the food
retailing industry and CMA (Centrale Marketing Gesellschaft der deutschen Agrarwirtschaft
mbH – the central association for marketing for the German agriculture).
Additional information can be found on http://www.q-s.info/
4.5.4. Other international quality assurance standards for primary production
Two standards are developed both for the primary sector and for further
processing/distribution of food products. These standards will be discussed in detail in part
4.6.
ISO22000:2005 is aiming to the complete agro-food chain including primary production and
even suppliers to the agro-food chain (e.g. producers of fertilizers, producers of
pesticides,….).
SQF 1000 is a standard from USA/Australia as well aiming at the complete agro-food sector.
4.5.5. Other national quality assurance standards for primary production
Besides these GlobalGAP and QS standards there are also a lot of other quality assurance
standards, that are used more on national level (e.g. Integrated quality assurance milk (IKM,
Belgium), environmental project ornamental plant cultivation (MPS, the Netherlands),
Integrated chain quality control system (IKKB, Belgium), etc.). Most of these standards are
based on the international ones (e.g. GlobalGap or QS) and are combining national practices
or legislation.
Mostly a benchmarking is conducted towards these international standards so that a combinedaudit can take place.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 51/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
51
4.6. Overview of the different quality assurance standards in the
food industry
In this chapter an overview is given of the most relevant standards with respect to quality,hygiene and safety of foods in the transformation and or distribution of foodstuffs. See as well
appendix C.
4.6.1. Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)
In April 2000, a group of international retailers, international manufacturers and food service
companies identified the need to enhance food safety, ensure consumer protection, strengthen
consumer confidence, to set requirements for food safety schemes and to improve cost
efficiency throughout the food supply chain. Following their lead, the Global Food Safety
Initiative was launched in May 2000. The initiative is facilitated by CIES – The Food
Business Forum. CIES is the organization of the 200 biggest retailers in the world. The
initiative is based on the principle that food safety is a non-competitive issue, as any potential
problem arising may cause problems in the whole sector.
GFSI has developed a Guidance Document (Fifth Edition) (see http://www.mygfsi.com/),
against which quality assurance standards focussing on food safety for food processing
companies can be benchmarked. The benchmark requirements in the Guidance Document are
made up of three key elements:
• Food Safety Management Systems;
• Good Practices for Agriculture, Manufacturing
and Distribution (GAP, GMP, GDP);
• HACCP.
Compliance with all components of the key elements will lead to endorsement of a submitted
QA standard through the Initiative framework and subsequent acceptance by retailers. Once a
QA standard has been benchmarked successfully, the standard is “acknowledged”. Theconforming benchmarked QA standard can be applied by food suppliers throughout the whole
supply chain, upon agreement with retailers, when defining contracts for sourcing of products.
GFSI does not undertake any certification or accreditation activities. Instead, GFSI
encourages the use of third-party audits for benchmarked QA standards, with the goal of
enabling suppliers to work more effectively through less audits and reducing travel costs for
retailers, so that resources can be redirected to continually ensure the quality of food produced
and sold worldwide.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 52/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
52
More information is available on www.ciesnet.com en www.mygfsi.com.
4.6.2. BRC
4.6.2.1. History In supermarkets in the United Kingdom, about 50% of all foods are sold as private label. This
implies that the retailers are responsible for these products. In the Food Safety Act 1990
concerning product responsibility, a new principle was introduced: the “Due Diligence”
principle.
“It shall …. be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable
precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence by himself
or by the person under his control”
A consequence of this principle was that for every private label the technical execution like
production methods of all suppliers has to be verified demonstrably. During the period 1990-
1995 this resulted in a situation where every retailer made his own standard and had an
extensive quality department with a lot of auditors to audit their suppliers. Consequently,
there were high costs for the producer (specific requirements for every retailer, for every
retailer an audit, …) and for the retailer (extended quality department to make the standards
and to audit the suppliers).
To resolve these problems the BRC standard was developed in 1998. BRC stands for British
Retail Consortium and represents the biggest British retailers (e.g. Tesco, Safeway,
Somerfield, Sainsbury,…). Together they compiled the requirements that the suppliers have to
meet in the BRC-technical standard. As a consequence the supplier can comply with the
requirements of the different retailers with only one certificate and limit the audits. The BRC-
technical standard is made by the retailers themselves, without involvement of the
government, consumers or experts. In 2000 a first revision of the BRC standard was executed
(=2nd
version).
The development of GFSI and the need for continuous improvement and a number of
problems that occurred in the first version of 2000, leaded to a revision of the BRC-technical
standard (=3th
version). In December 2004 the 4th
version was lanced with changes regarding
the new hygiene demands by EU legislation and a chapter regarding allergen policy of a food
company. At the beginning of 2008 the latest version is published (version 5), which will be
implemented from 1st
of July 2008. This contains 326 very detailed requirements.
Although it was a British initiative, other countries, particularly Belgium and the Netherlands,
also wanted to use the system. Some retailers in the Netherlands and Belgium demand an
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 53/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
53
audit report of the suppliers of their private labels. Moreover, it is expected that the suppliers
can demonstrate a continuous improvement.
4.6.2.2. Objective
The aim of the BRC-technical standard is twofold.1. For the retailers:
• limit the costs concerning supplier control;
• the objective report gives the retailer insight in the way on which the suppliers
controls food safety and quality;
• meet the due diligence principle.
2. For the producers:
• limit the costs: 1 report for several retailers;
• the result of the BRC inspection can motivate the producer to improve
continuously and in this way shift from the basic level to the higher level.
4.6.2.3. Structure
The BRC standard consists of a technical standard for companies supplying retailer branded
food products and an evaluation protocol. The evaluation protocol provides the specific
requirements for the certification bodies that will evaluate against the BRC technical standard.
The technical standard is an enumeration of more than 300 requirements that the suppliers
have to meet.
The BRC-technical standard requires:
• the adoption and implementation of HACCP;
• a documented and effective quality management system;
• control of product, process, personnel and the factory environment.
The BRC-technical standard is divided in 7 chapters;
1. Senior management requirements
2. the food safety plan : HACCP system;
3. Management commitment and continual improvement : quality management system;4. Factory environment standards;
5. Product control;
6. Process control;
7. Personnel.
Each section of the Technical standard begins with a highlighted paragraph in bold text,
which is the statement of intent, which all suppliers must comply with in order to gain
certification.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 54/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
54
Below the statement of intent, there are specific criteria regarding this subject. With the latest
version of BRC there is no difference made anymore between higher or lower level, all
demands are on the same level.
There are as well some FUNDAMENTALS defined (since version 4) which are important,when a critical or major non conformity is defined during auditing, no certificate will be
delivered. Examples of fundamentals are:
• chapter 1: HACCP-system
• chapter 2.1 : Quality Management System
• chapter 2.9 : internal auditing
• chapter 2.12 : corrective actions
• chapter 2.13 : traceability
• chapter 3.2.1 : lay out, product flow, cross contamination
• chapter 3.8 : cleaning and disinfection
• chapter 4.2 : measures for specific materials (e.g. allergens)
• chapter 5.1 : process control
• chapter 6.1 : training
4.6.3. International Featured Standard-FOOD (IFS)
4.6.3.1. History
In 1999 the German retailers, united by the ‘Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Handelsverbände
(BDH)’, started with the development of a quality assurance standard to check their suppliers
of private labels. The bases and aims were:
• Develop one standard with a uniform rating system, by which the interpretation of the
auditor is limited.
• The control of the standard should be carried out by qualified certification bodies and
auditors.
• The audit report should give a truthful view on the company and the used food safety
systems.• The audit should be a part of a continuous process of improvement and problems that
occurred during the audit as non conform should be handled.
• Critical non-conformities should be known.
• The standard and the audit protocol should be in accordance with GFSI.
The Germans came to the conclusion that they did not want to make a national, German
standard, but an international standard. A working group was elaborated and started with the
making of the first draft in October 2001. The content of the BRC standard was used as a base
and the structure was derived from ISO 9001:2008.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 55/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
55
In the beginning it was a German initiative, but in the meanwhile the French retailers also got
involved and German and French retailers support the standard now. Therefore, it is becoming
more important in Continental Europe. From the 1st
of January 2007 the latest version 5 is
effective where also the Italian retailers have been working on and new European legislation
(e.g. legislation regarding food contact materials) is included.
4.6.3.2. Structure and content
The IFS standard is an enumeration of requirements on 3 levels: foundation level, higher level
and recommendations on good practice. The standard contains 5 chapters:
1. Management of the quality system;
2. Management responsibility;
3. Resource Management;
4. Product realisation;
5. Measurements, analyses, improvements.
4.6.3.3. Rating system
In order to determine whether compliance with a clause in the International Food Standard
has been met, the auditor has to check every item in the standard. The auditor can rank his
finding as follows:
A: In full compliance with the criteria of the standard.
B: Almost full compliance with the criteria in the standard but a small deviation was
found.
C: Only a small part of the criteria is implemented.
D: The criteria in the standard are not implemented.
The auditor has to explain all B, C, and D non-conformities in the audit report.
For each rating a number of points are assigned depending on the level. The total number of
points will determine whether or not a certificate will be gained. With the version 5 > 95%
must be obtained before a certificate is obtained. Moreover, no difference is made anymore
between the different demands (all demands are on 1 level in version 5).
Besides the ranking, the auditor can decide to give the auditee a “KO” (knock-out) or a
“major non-conformance” that will subtract points from the total amount. The KO criteria in
the standard are e.g.:
1.2.3 HACCP analysis;
2.2.2 Management commitment;
4.18 General traceability;
5.11 Corrective actions.
More information : http://www.ifs-certification.com/
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 56/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
56
4.6.4. SQF 2000
In 1995 the Australian government and some farmer organisations developed a system to
control the complete chain with 1 system. This system was based on a chain scan: SQF (Safe
Quality Food). Later this system was translated to a standard; SQF 2000. The bases for thisstandard are the HACCP requirements, of the Codex Alimentarius, and the requirements of
the ISO 9000 series. Since, representatives of agriculture were involved in the development of
the standard, it is directly applicable in primary production. Since the summer of 2003, SQF is
managed by the Food and Marketing Institute (FMI) in Washington.
Because of the big diversity in size, processes and products, it was not possible to use 1
standard for all the companies of the food chain. Therefore, 3 different standards were
developed:
• SQF 1000: for primary production and small-scaled processors and service providers (so
called “low-risk” companies).
• SQF 2000: for bigger industry (so called “high risk” companies).
• SQF 3000 is still in development and is focussed on retail.
More information: http://www.sqfi.com/
4.6.5. Approval by GFSI
Five quality assurance standards from retailers are approved by GFSI:
• BRC Technical standard;
• Dutch HACCP code;
• EFSIS standard;
• IFS food;
• SQF 2000 code.
This means that the standards can use the GFSI logo and that the certificates for these
standards are considered as equal by 65% of the retailers over the world.
Benchmarking of farm assurance standards for agricultural produce started in 2004.
4.6.6. ISO 22000:2005
Since national initiatives for HACCP-certification (e.g. the Netherlands, Denmark) did not
have international success, Denmark launched the proposition for an international food
standard. Therefore, ISO started in 2001 with the elaboration of a standard with requirements
for a management system for food safety based on HACCP.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 57/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
57
The international standard specifies the requirements for a food safety management system
that combines the following generally recognized key elements to ensure food safety along
the food chain, up to the point of final consumption:
• interactive communication;
• system management;• process control;
• HACCP principles;
• Prerequisite programs.
The first version is from September 2005. The difference with the retailer and GFSI approved
standards are – and are as well the reason why ISO 22000 is not GFSI approved and not
accepted by the retailers in Europe:
• No explicit demands regarding pre requisite programs
• Quality is not in the scope only food safety
Positive regarding this standard is the international acceptance and the application in the
whole food chain (not restricted to food transformation as the ones approved by GFSI).
In the following chapters the demands are formulated:
Chapter 4 : management system for food safety
Chapter 5 : responsibility of the management
Chapter 6 : Measure of resources
Chapter 7 : Planning and realisation of safe products (e.g. demands regarding PRP’s and
HACCP)
Chapter 8 : validation, verification and improvement of the management system for food
safety
The difference with the retailer standards are
• No explicit demands regarding pre requisite programs• Quality is not in the scope only food safety
In order to overcome the problem of non acceptance by retailers, a technical document (PAS
220) is worked out to explain the PRPs (prerequisite programs) by the British Food
Association. This document is detailed explaining which PRPs need to be established in the
food chain. GFSI and the retailers accept now ISO 22000 and the PAS 220 document. The
ISO22000 requirements combined with PAS 220 requirements is called FSSC (FOOD
SAFETY SYSTEM CERTIFICATION) 22000. This latest standard is recognised last year by
GFSI and consequently, as well by the retailers.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 58/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
58
Positive regarding this standard is the international acceptance and the application in the
whole food chain (not restricted to food transformation/processing as the other ones approved
by GFSI).
4.7. References for part 4
British retail consortium. 2007. Technical standard. Technical standard and protocol for
companies supplying retailer branded food products, issue 5.
Codex Alimentarius. 1969. Recommended international code of practice – General principles
of food hygiene, CAC/RCP 1-1969, Rev.4-2003, 31 p.
Flair Linked Agro Industrial Research (FLAIR). 1993. HACCP user guide, concerted action
N°7, 53 p.
International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF). 1990.
HACCP in microbiological safety and quality, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 357
p.
International Food Standard; 2007. International Food Standard. Standard for auditing retailer
and wholesaler branded food products, version 5
International Standards Organization. 2000. ISO 9000. Quality management systems –
Requirements, 34 p.
International Standards Organization. 2008. ISO 9001. Quality management systems –
Fundamentals and vocabulary, 35 p.
International Standards Organization. 2004. ISO/CD 22000. Food safety management systems
– requirements for organizations throughout the food chain, draft, 43 p.
Jouve J.L., Stringer M.F. & Baird-Parker A.C. 1998. Food safety management tools, ILSI
Europe, Brussels, 20 p.
Luning P.A., Marcelis W.J. & Jongen W.M.F. 2002. Food quality management. A techno-
managerial approach, Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, 323 p.
Mortimore S. & Wallace C. 1994. HACCP a practical approach, Chapman & Hall, London,
296 p.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 59/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
59
Mortimore S. & Wallace C. 2001. HACCP, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 136 p.
Pierson M.D. & Corlett D.A. 1992. HACCP principles and applications, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, 212 p.
Postmus E. & Guldemeester H.P. 1995. Handboek HACCP, Kluwer, Deventer, 270p.
The Global Food Safety Initiative. 2004. GFSI Guidance document, Fourth edition, 28 p.
van den Berg M.G. 1993. Kwaliteit van levensmiddelen, Kluwer, Deventer, 360p.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 60/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
60
Appendix A Structure of the Codex Alimentarius
• Volume 1A – General requirements
• Volume 1B – General requirements (food hygiene)
• Volume 2A – Pesticide residues in foods (general texts)• Volume 2B – Pesticide residues in foods (maximum residue limits)
• Volume 3 – Residues of veterinary drugs in foods
• Volume 4 – Foods for special dietary uses (including foods for infants and children)
• Volume 5A – Processed and quick-frozen fruits and vegetables
• Volume 5B – Fresh fruits and vegetables
• Volume 6 – Fruit juices
• Volume 7 – Cereals, pulses (legumes) and derived products and vegetable proteins
• Volume 8 – Fats and oils and related products
• Volume 9 – Fish and fishery products
• Volume 10 – Meat and meat products; soups and broths
• Volume 11 – Sugars, cocoa products and chocolate and miscellaneous products
• Volume 12 – Milk and milk products
• Volume 13 – Methods of analysis and sampling
Volume 1A – General requirements
1. General principles of the Codex Alimentarius
2. Definitions for the purpose of Codex Alimentarius
3. Code of ethics for international trade in foods
4. Food labelling
5. Food additives – including the General Standard for Food Additives
6. Contaminants in food – including the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins
in Foods
7. Irradiated foods
8. Food import and export food inspection and certification systems
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 61/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
61
Appendix B The 12 stages of the Codex Alimentarius
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 62/95
Department of Food Safety and Foo
Appendix C An overview of the different standards in food indFeatures Codex principles ISO
9001:2008
ISO
15161:2001
ISO
22000:2005
+ PAS 220
BRC GL
GAPRP HACCP
Focus Food safety Food safety Product or
service quality
&
organisational
quality
Food safety
& organisat-
ional quality
Food safety Food safety,
food quality
& organisat-
ional quality
Fo
&
qu
Scope Whole agri-food chain
Processing &distribution
stages
Whole chain(i.e. food and
non-food
products)
Processing &distribution
stages
Whole agri-food chain
Processingstages
Aglev
an
aq
Legislative
Status
Compulsory Compulsory Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary
(retailers’
demand)
Vo
(re
de
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 63/95
Department of Food Safety and Foo
Features Codex principles ISO 9001:2008 ISO
15161:2001
ISO
22000:2005 +
PAS 220
BRC G
GPRP HACCP
Combined –key
elements I GMP, II
HACCP , III
management
system
I (PRP) II (HACCP) III
(Management
system)
I, II, & III I, II, & III I, II, & III I
GFSI status Not
benchmarked
but PRPs are
used in GFSI
Not
benchmarked
but its
principles are
used in GFSI
Not
benchmarked
but its
principles are
used in GFSI
Not
benchmarked
Not (yet?) Yes N
Acknowledgement Worldwide Worldwide Worldwide Worldwide Worldwide Europe W
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 64/95
Department of Food Safety and Foo
Features Codex principles ISO
9001:2000
ISO
15161:2001
ISO
22000:2005
+ PAS 220
BRC Global
GAP
IFS
PRP HACCP
Certification? No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Scope of
certification
Not
applic-
able
(NA)
NA ISO/IEC
17021:2006
(company’s
certification)
NA ISO/IEC
17021:2006
EN 45011 (food and
non-food or service
certification)
EN
45011
EN 4
Gradation in
certification
NA NA No gradation NA No
gradation
Three gradations:
• A
• B
• C
No
gradation
Two
Frequency of
audit
NA NA Annual NA Every 3
years
• Annually for
grade A & B
certificates
• 6 months for
grade C
certificate
Annual Ann
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 65/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
65
5. Risk analysis in relation to food
5.1. Definitions
Risks can have different sources and can be from different nature. In the past, the mainattention was given to the direct risks for human but more and more people are realizing
that ecological consequences of pollution needs more quantitative attention. At this time,
people are aware that ecological effects provoked by e.g. intensive agriculture, high use of
energy or production and application of chemical products can interact with the biological
diversity and the integrity of ecosystems and like this threat the continuation of humans. The
scope and the type of risk assessments are very divers, from broad scientific based
assessments regarding air pollution which are interacting the whole population towards site
specific studies regarding the presence of specific chemicals in the local water resources.
Some assessments are retrospective and are looking at the consequences of a specific incident,
e.g. the consequence of illegal dumping of chemical waste. While others are more related to
the future and try to measure the damage in the future for human welfare or the environment
e.g. evaluation of authorization of a new pesticide.
In this lectures we will focus on risks associated with food safety e.g. microbiological, chemical
agents.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 66/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
66
The following definitions are important in risk analysis :
Hazard: the inherent capacity of a biological, chemical or physical agent to cause,
under the conditions of the exposure, an adverse health effect on human or negative
effects on environment.
Risk: a function of the probability of an adverse health effect and the severity of that
effect, consequential to a hazard.
Risk-analysis: the process of 3 distinct but closely connected components : risk
assessment, risk management and risk communication.
Risk assessment: is an independent, scientific process, consisting of the following 4
steps : hazard identification, hazard characterization, exposure assessment and risk
characterization
Risk management: is the process, distinct from risk assessment, of weighing policy
alternatives, in consultation with all interested parties, considering risk assessment
and other factors relevant for the health protection of environmental protection and if
needed selecting appropriate prevention and control options.
Risk communication: an interactive exchange of information and opinions throughout
the risk analysis process concerning risk , risk related factors and risk perceptions
among risk assessors, risk managers, consumers, industry, the academic community
and other interested parties, including the explanation of risk assessment findings
and the basis of risk management decisions.
Hazard identification: During the hazard identification, biological, chemical, and
physical agents that may cause adverse health effects and which may be present
in a particular food or group of foods, are identified.
Exposure assessment: Exposure assessment is defined as the qualitative and/or
quantitative evaluation of the likely intake of the hazard via food or environment
as well as exposure from other sources, if relevant
Hazard characterization: in the process of the hazard characterization, the natureof the adverse health effects or negative effects on the environment associated
with the hazard is evaluated in a qualitative and/or quantitative way (dose-
response relationship)
Risk characterization: During the risk characterization, all the evidence from the
previous three steps is combined in order to obtain a risk estimate (i.e. an
estimate of the likelihood and severity of the adverse health effects / negative
effect on the environment that would occur in a given population with associated
uncertainties) and respond to the questions posed by the risk managers
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 67/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
67
Risk analysis is containing three essential parts : the risk assessment, the risk management
and the risk communication.
Figure 9 : risk analysis and its three essential parts
5.2. Risk assessment
A risk can be defined as a function of the probability of an adverse health effect and the
severity of that effect, consequential to a hazard in food [Codex Alimentarius, 1999]. During a
risk assessment an estimate of the risk is obtained. The goal is to estimate the likelihood and
the extent of adverse effects occurring to humans due to possible exposure(s) to hazards. Risk
assessment is a scientifically based process consisting of the following steps : (i) hazard
identification, (ii) hazard characterisation, (iii) exposure assessment, (iv) and risk
characterisation [Codex Alimentarius, 1999].
Risk assessment is a scientific process, conducted by scientific experts, which may begin with
a statement of purpose intended to define the reasons that the risk assessment is required and
support the aims of the subsequent stages of risk management.
Risk Assessment:
-Hazard Identification;
-Hazard Characterization;
-Exposure Assessment;-Risk Characterization.
Risk Management:
- Evaluation of the
different policy
scenarios- selection and
implementation of themost suited policy
measures.
Risk Communication:
Interactive exchange ofinformation and opinions.
Risk Assessment:
-Hazard Identification;
-Hazard Characterization;
-Exposure Assessment;-Risk Characterization.
Risk Management:
- Evaluation of the
different policy
scenarios- selection and
implementation of themost suited policy
measures.
Risk Communication:
Interactive exchange ofinformation and opinions.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 68/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
68
Figure 10 : Elements of risk assessment and risk management
During the hazard identification, biological, chemical, and physical agents that arecapable of causing adverse health effects and which may be present in a particular food or
group of foods, are identified [Codex Alimentarius, 1999].
Therefore, the aim of chemical hazard identification is to evaluate whether the chemical has
the potential to cause adverse effects in humans by reviewing all available data on toxicity
and the biological mechanism that leads to toxicity (Barlow et al., 2002).
In contrast, not all micro-organisms are pathogenic, but even a very small number of
pathogens has the potential to cause disease. Therefore, microbiological hazardidentification aims to identify the likelihood of the presence of known pathogenic micro-
organisms or microbial toxins in a certain food product, and to evaluate whether they have the
potential to cause harm when present in food or water (Benford, 2001).
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 69/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
69
To carry out a hazard identification different sources of information can be used:
Epidemiological data
Well-conducted epidemiologic studies that show a positive association between an agent and
a disease are accepted as the most convincing evidence about human risk. However this
evidence is often difficult to accumulate. The evidence is low, the number of persons exposed
is small, the latent period between exposure and disease is long, and exposures are mixed and
multiple. Thus, epidemiologic data require careful interpretation.
Animal-Bioassay data
The most commonly available data in hazard identification are those obtained from animal
bioassays. The inference that results from animal experiments are applicable to humans is
fundamental to toxicological research; this premise underlies much of experimental biology
and medicine and is logically extended to the experimental observation of carcinogenic
effects. Despite the apparent validity of such inferences and their acceptability by most cancer
researchers, there are no doubt occasions in which observations in animals may be of highly
uncertain relevance to humans.
Short-Term studies
Sometimes tests are used which indicate certain negative effects. A typical example is the
mutagenicity assay. These tests need to be considered as indicative and need to be
supplemented with bioassays.
Comparison of molecular structure
Comparison of an agent’s chemical or physical properties with those of known carcinogens
provides some evidence of potential carcinogenicity. Experimental data support such
associations for a few structural classes; however, such studies are best used to identify
potential carcinogens for further investigation and may be useful in priority setting for
carcinogenicity testing.
Case studies
Case studies are also an important source of information for hazard identification. Data of
outbreaks and accidents can identify the cause of an outbreak or the necessary exposure to
cause negative effects.
In the second step, the hazard characterisation, the nature of the adverse health effects
associated with the hazards are evaluated in a qualitative and/or quantitative way [Codex
Alimentarius, 1999]. Therefore a dose-response assessment should be performed. The dose-
response assessment is the determination of the relationship between the magnitude of
exposure (dose) to a chemical, biological or physical agent and the severity and/or frequency
of associated adverse health effects (response). The overall aim is to estimate the nature,
severity and duration of the adverse effects resulting from ingestion of the agent in question
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 70/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
70
[Benford, 2001]. Whereas in hazard identification, the emphasis differs for microbiological
and chemical agents, the processes of chemical risk assessment (CRA) and microbiological
risk assessment (MRA) are much more closely aligned for the hazard characterisation stage.
The aim of both chemical and microbiological hazard characterisation is to determine the
dose-response relationship.
Figure 11. A typical dose-response curve
Exposure assessment is defined as the qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation of
the likely intake of the hazard via food as well as exposure from other sources, if relevant
[Codex Alimentarius, 1999]. For food, the level ingested will be determined by the levels of the agent in the food and the consumed amount.
When the exposure is determined it is necessary to take into account that the (sub)population
is not always equally exposed and that the exposure can vary in time. When for example the
risk of fumonisins via the consumption of maize containing foods is estimated the eating
habits of the population at research have to be taken into account. These eating habits can
differ from person to person. Also when the level of an agent in a food can be determined, the
storage conditions, the preparation, frequency and the amount of the consumed product will
lead to a high variation in the intake of the agent. This is also be the case for the applicationof a solvent in a consumer product that is applied in a bad ventilated room or in the open air.
Another important aspect of exposure assessment is the determination of which groups in the
population may be exposed to a chemical agent; some groups may be especially susceptible to
adverse health effects. Pregnant women, very young and very old people and persons with
impaired health may be particularly important in exposure assessment. The importance of
exposures to a mixture of carcinogens is another factor that needs to be considered in
assessing human exposures.
For example, exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos gives an incidence of cancer that ismuch greater than anticipated from carcinogenicity data on each substance individually.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 71/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
71
Because data detecting such synergistic effects are often unavailable, they are often ignored or
accounted for by the use of various safety factors.
The last step, risk characterisation, integrates the information collected in thepreceding three steps. It interprets the qualitative and quantitative information on the
toxicological properties of a chemical with the extent to which individuals (parts of the
population, or the population at large) are exposed to it [Kroes et al, 2002]. In other words,
estimating how likely it is that harm will be done and how severe the effects will be. The
outcome may be referred to as a risk estimate, or the probability of harm at given or expected
exposure levels [Benford, 2001].
Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is characterised by assigning a numerical value to the
risk, in contrast with qualitative risk analysis, that is typified by risk ranking or separationinto descriptive categories of risk [Codex Alimentarius, 1999]. During QRA a model is used
to calculate (estimate) the risk based on the exposure and the dose-response. Besides the
QRA model, the exposure and the dose-response can also be described by a model. To
calculate the exposure to a microbiological hazard for example, a model can be used that
predicts the growth during storage. Several methods can be used to estimate the risk, namely :
(i) point estimates or deterministic modelling; (ii) simple distributions and (iii) probabilistic
analysis [Kroes et al, 2002]. In a deterministic framework inputs to the exposure and effect
prediction models are single values. In a probabilistic framework, inputs are treated as random
variables coming from probability distributions. The outcome is a risk distribution [Verdonck et al, 2001]. The method chosen will usually depend on a number of factors, including the
degree of required accuracy and the availability of data [Parmar et al, 1997]. No single
method can meet all the choice criteria that refer to cost, accuracy, time frame, etc. Therefore,
the methods have to be selected and combined on a case-by-case basis [Kroes et al, 2002].
Chemical and microbiological hazards are fundamentally different and demand a
different risk assessment approach. Allergens, as a special group within the chemical
hazards, will not be discussed in the presented text.
5.2.1. Chemical risk assessment in foods
5.2.1.1. Hazard identification
The emphasis of hazard identification differs for chemical and biological agents, due to the
different nature of both hazards. In fact, any chemical substance is likely to produce some
form of adverse effect if taken in sufficient quantity and a single chemical substance may
be associated with several different adverse health effects (Benford, 2001).Therefore, the
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 72/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
72
aim of chemical hazard identification is to evaluate whether the chemical has the potential to
cause adverse effects in humans by reviewing all available data on toxicity and the biological
mechanism that leads to toxicity (Barlow et al., 2002).
The different chemical hazards will be discussed by prof Bruno De Meulenaer in part 2. Butwe are dealing with additives applied in food products, contaminants (heavy metals e.g. Pb,
Cd, Hg – nitrates in vegetables – residues of pesticides or medical treatment of animals –
group of dioxins – PCB), product which are formed during the production process (e.g. PAK
during drying process, nitrosamines, oxidation of fats, ….), migration from (plastic)
packaging material, natural toxins (e.g. mycotoxins), allergens.
5.2.1.2. Hazard characterisation
For chemical agents, hazard characterisation is closely linked to hazard identification and is
often based on the same studies. Hazard identification reveals the type(s) of toxicity
associated with a particular substance, while hazard characterisation determines the
relationship between dose and response and subsequent estimation of dose levels that may
cause that response in humans.
To summarize : hazard characterization is dealing with toxicological research to the
possible adverse effects in humans, by taking into consideration:
- the different toxic effects which can be provoked : this will be discussed in part 2 by
prof Bruno De Meulenaer
- the dose-response relations that are existing
A. Dose-response relations
In fact each chemical product is intrinsic toxic. The toxicity however, is depending on
different factors, by which concentration is probably one of the most important one. The
concentration-dependency of the toxicity is demonstrated in a dose-response curve. One of
the presentations of a dose-response curve is the cumulative frequence distribution curve, see
figure 12.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 73/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
73
Figure 12. Dose-response curve (cumulative frequence distribution)
A distinction is made between threshold effects and nonthreshold effects.
Many of the non-carcinogenic adverse effects observed in animal or humans are characterised
by a threshold dose, below which no adverse effects are observed (Kuiper- Goodman, 2004).
For these effects, it is current practice to estimate the level of exposure without significant
adverse effect and to derive a health-based guidance value such as a tolerable daily intake
(TDI) or acceptable daily intake (ADI) (Barlow et al., 2006).
With regard to carcinogens, it is not possible to define a dose without a potential effect, unless
it can be clearly established that the mode of action involves an indirect mechanism that may
have a threshold (Kuiper-Goodman, 2004; Barlow et al., 2006). Both effects are treated in a
different way to extrapolate safe intake estimates as explained in the following paragraphs.
B. Chemicals with a threshold dose
Non-carcinogenic chemicals are usually characterised by a threshold dose, the no observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL), which is the highest dose that causes no toxic effects (Dybing
et al., 2002). This parameter can be derived from the dose-response curve (see figure 13).
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 74/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
74
Figure 13. Graphic presentation of NOAEL value
The NOAEL is divided by a safety or uncertainty factor of 100 or 1000 in order to calculatethe amount of a chemical, expressed on a body weight basis that can be ingested
daily over a lifetime without causing adverse health effects (Barlow, 2005). For food
chemicals, this is expressed as the ADI or TDI.
The term ADI is generally used for substances intentionally added to food, while TDI is
generally used for substances appearing in food but not intentionally added (Barlow, 2005).
The incorporation of a safety or uncertainty factor gives an additional margin of reassurance
to take account of the possibility that humans may be more sensitive than animals (inter-species variation) and that among humans some may be more sensitive than others (intra-
species variation) (Benford, 2000).
It can be stated that :
or safetyfact
NOAEL
daybodyweight
mgTDI of ADI =
•
With safety factor = 100 or 1000
For chemicals with cumulative properties (e.g. heavy metals) the tolerable weekly intake
(TWI) is calculated (Benford, 2001). The TWI is similar to the TDI, but is calculated on a
weekly base instead of a daily base.
Another measure, useful in risk assessment and management, is the acute reference dose
(RfDacute). This value is estimated to deal with situations where there is high short-term orsingle exposure with the possibility of subsequent adverse effects. The RfDacute is derived
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 75/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
75
from appropriate animal or human data and is generally 2 to 10-fold greater than the
TDI/ADI. In general, it should not be used for substances for which there is no threshold for
the observed toxic effects (Kuiper-Goodman, 2004).
C. Chemicals without a threshold dose
For carcinogenic agents, no threshold can be determined unless an indirect mechanism is
involved (Kuiper-Goodman, 2004). The mathematical analysis of the dose-response data from
an animal bioassay can be used to define the intake necessary to produce a given level of
response, such as 10% cancer incidence. The intakes of different compounds giving the same
level of response reflect the relative potencies of the compounds.
For these products or products where the toxicity is not enough know yet, the ‘threshold of
chemical concern’ is applied. This value can be defined as the maximal exposure where no
adverse effect for human can be expected. This values is based on a database of carcinogenic
products. A possibility, applied by the FDA in USA is that a cancer can be developed when
there is exposure to a carcinogenic product, is estimated to be less than 1/1.000.000 if the
concentration in the diet of that carcinogenic product is smaller than 0,5 ppb.
5.2.1.3. Exposure assessment
In chemical exposure assessment, the level of the chemical hazard is determined and together
with the consumption data, the intake of the chemical is calculated.
The low levels at which chemicals can be present in food and can cause toxicological effects,
have implications for the analytical performance of the analytical methods (O’Brien et al.,
2006). The number of samples below the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification
(LOQ) and how such ‘non-detects’ are treated can have an important influence on the
exposure estimation (Kuiper-Goodman, 2004).
For certain groups of chemical hazards (e.g. additives, pesticide residues) it can be useful to
determine first if it is necessary to perform human exposure studies. In that case a tiered
approach can be used, which is a logical stepwise approach that uses available information to
the optimum extent while reducing unnecessary requirements for human exposure surveys.
The principle of the tiered approach will be explained by the methodology elaborated by the
European Commission to evaluate the dietary intake of food additives (Figure 14) (European
Commission, 2001). The tiered approach is only executed for food additives that are
authorised at a maximum permitted level and for which an ADI is specified. Additives that
are authorised in one or few specific food categories and new additives are excluded from the
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 76/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
76
scope. In Tier 1, the intake is calculated based on theoretical food consumption data and
maximum usage levels for additives. When the ADI is not exceeded in Tier 1, the additive in
question is eliminated from further considerations. Resources can then be focused on the
remaining additives for a more refined intake estimate. In the second and third tiers, the intake
is calculated by combining actual national food consumption data with the maximumpermitted usage levels for the additive (Tier 2) or with the actual usage levels of the additive
(Tier 3). This approach enables authorities to establish priorities for monitoring and to focus
on food additives for which the ADI is probably exceeded regularly (European Commission,
2001).
Figure 14. Dietary intake of food additives
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 77/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
77
In a small number of instances, these epidemiological data permit a dose-response relation to
be developed directly from observations of exposure and health effects in humans. If
epidemiological data are available, extrapolations from the exposures observed in the study to
lower exposures experienced by the general population are often necessary. Suchextrapolations introduce uncertainty into the estimates of risk for the general population.
Uncertainties also arise because the general population includes some people, such as
children, who may be more susceptible than people in the sample from which the
epidemiologic data were developed.
It is not always possible to perform human exposure studies. Therefore, other
techniques need to be applied for the exposure assessment. By the combination of the
consumption data and the data regarding the concentration of the chemical product in
the food product, an estimation can be made of the exposure of the population to thechemical product.
The extrapolation is carried out by fitting a mathematical model to dose-response data that
were collected during animal testing or outbreaks of food borne illnesses. At present, the true
shape of the dose-response curve at doses several orders of magnitude below the observation
range cannot be determined experimentally. However regulatory agencies are often concerned
about much lower risks (1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1,000). This problem is illustrated in Figure 15
for chemical risks e.g. the risk of benzo-pyrene for carcinogenese.
In extrapolating from animals to humans, the doses used in bioassays must be adjusted to
allow for differences in size and metabolic rates. Several methods currently are used for this
adjustment and assume that animal and human risks are equivalent when doses are measured
as milligrams per kilogram per day, as milligrams per square meter of body surface area, as
parts per million in air, diet, or water, or as milligrams per kilogram per lifetime.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 78/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
78
Figure 15. Result of different extrapolation models for the same experimental datafor the dose-response relation for benzo-pyrene carcinogenese experiment with
animals (mouse)
Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is characterized by assigning a numerical value to the
risk. This in contrast with qualitative risk analysis, which is typified by risk ranking or
separation into descriptive categories of risk. During QRA a model is used to calculate
(estimate) the risk based on the exposure and the dose-response. Besides the QRA model,
the exposure and the dose-response can also be described by a model. To calculate the
exposure to a microbiological hazard for example, a model can be used that predicts the
growth during storage. Several methods can be used to estimate the risk, namely : (i) point
estimates or deterministic modeling; (ii) simple distributions and (iii) probabilistic analysis.
In a deterministic framework inputs to the exposure and effect prediction models are single
values. In a probabilistic framework, inputs are treated as random variables coming from
probability distributions. The outcome is a risk distribution.
The method chosen will usually depend on a number of factors, including the degree of required accuracy and the availability of data.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 79/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
79
Deterministic modeling (point estimates) uses a single ‘best guess’ estimate of each variable
within the model to determine the model’s outcome(s). A fixed value for food consumption
(such as the average or maximum consumption) is multiplied by a fixed value for the
concentration of the contaminant in that particular food (often the average level or permittedlevel according to the legislation) to calculate the exposure from one source (food). The
intakes from all sources are then summed to estimate the total exposure.
This method is illustrated with the calculation of the exposure to a contaminant, e.g. the
pesticide atrazine for fishes. The risk is defined by the relation between the exposure and the
adverse health effect. The exposure is defined by the concentration of the pesticide in the
rivers. This concentration will differ between different rivers, between different sampling
times, etc. In the case of a deterministic risk assessment a point estimation is applied for the
concentration of atrazine and mostly this is the average concentration. The same is used of the
adverse health effect. The adverse health effect is expressed as the concentration were no
effect is detected with animals in animal studies. This concentration differs from type of
animal and per individual animal. In the calculation of risk will also here a point estimation be
used, mostly the average.
In probabilistic analysis the variables are described in terms of distributions instead of point
estimates. In this way all possible values for each variable are taken into account and each
possible outcome is weighted by the probability of its occurrence. Therefore, the Monte Carlo
simulation can be applied. One random sample from each input distribution is selected, and
the set of samples is entered into the deterministic model. The model is then solved, as it
would be for any deterministic analysis and the result is stored. This process or iteration is
repeated several times until the specified number of iterations is completed. Instead of
obtaining a discrete number for model outputs (as in a deterministic simulation) a set of
output samples is obtained. This method is described as a first order Monte Carlo simulation
or a one - dimensional Monte Carlo simulation (Figure 16),
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 80/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
80
Figure 16 illustration of the 1ste
order Monte Carlo simulation
Within the probalistic risk assessment, the distributions that are used as a model input can be
a distribution function (parametric approach) or the data as such (non-parametric
approach). For the parametric approach the data are fitted to a distribution function, like thenormal distribution, the gamma distribution, the binomial distribution, etc. The distribution
function that gives the best fit is used as a model input. For the non-parametric approach the
original data are used as an input of the model.
The third possibility, ‘simple distributions’ is a term used to describe a method that is
combination of the deterministic and probabilistic approach. It employs a distribution for the
food consumption, but it uses a fixed value for the level of the hazard. The results are more
informative than those of the point estimates, because they take account of the variability that
exists in food consumption patterns. Nonetheless, they usually retain several conservative
assumptions (e.g. all soft drinks that an individual consumes contain a particular sweetener at
the maximum permitted level; 100% of a crop has been treated with a particular pesticide,
etc.) and therefore usually can only be considered to give an upper bound estimate of
exposure. This method is applied when there are not enough values or information of a certain
parameter.
Data
Data
Data
modelll
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 81/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
81
Both the deterministic and probabilistic methods have their pro and contras. Deterministic
models or point estimates are commonly used as a first step in exposure assessments
because they are relatively quick, simple and inexpensive to carry out. Inherent in the point
estimates models are the assumptions that all individuals consume the specified food(s) at the
same level, that the hazard (biological, chemical or physical) is always present in the food (s)and that it is always present at an average or high concentration. As a consequence, this
approach does not provide an insight into the range of possible exposures that may occur
within a population or the main factors influencing the results of the assessment. It provides
limited information for risk managers and public. The use of this method also tends to
significantly over- or under-estimate the actual exposure
An important advantage of probabilistic risk assessments (PRA) is that it permits to
consider the whole distribution of exposure, from minimum to maximum, with all modes and
percentiles. In this way more meaningful information is provided to risk managers and public.
A second important advantage is the possibility to carry out a sensitivity analysis. An
important disadvantage of the current PRA procedures is the need for accurate prediction of
the tails in a distribution (e.g. the 5- and 95-percentile). These tails are very important in
performing a PRA because the largest exposure concentrations (e.g. 95-percentile) will have
first effects on the most sensitive population (e.g. 5-percentile). Also the high degree of
complication and time-consumption are a disadvantage.
5.2.1.4. Chemical risk characterization
For chemical hazards, different approaches have been adopted for the risk characterisation of
chemicals with a threshold and without a threshold (Renwick et al., 2003). For chemicals with
a threshold effect, the results of the exposure assessment can be compared to the ADI or TDI,
in order to estimate the risk (Benford, 2001). For chemicals without a threshold, four different
approaches can be used (Barlow et al., 2006):
1. as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA);
2. low-dose extrapolation of data from rodent carcinogenicity bioassays;
3. threshold of toxicological concern (TTC);
4. margin of exposure (MOE).
The ALARA approach says that the intakes should be as low as reasonably achievable
(Barlow et al., 2006). Although the ALARA principle is an easy to understand concept, it
poses some major difficulties for the risk manager as it does not discriminate between very
potent and very weak carcinogens and does not take human exposure into account (O’Brien et
al., 2006). It does not give any estimate of risk and will not give risk managers sufficient
information to assess the degree of urgency and extent of risk reduction measures that may be
required (Barlow et al., 2006).
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 82/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
82
An estimation of the risk associated with human exposure to a low dose of a certain
chemical,
can be derived by extrapolation of the animal dose-response data or by the use of the TD50,
T25 or BMDL10 as the point of departure for simple linear extrapolation (O’Brien et al.,2006). Estimation of the possible cancer risk at the levels of human intake is based on
empirical mathematical models that however do not reflect the complexity of the underlying
biology. Using the same dose-response data but different mathematical models, can result in
intakes associated with very low risks (e.g. one in a million), that differ by orders of
magnitude (O’Brien et al., 2006). Moreover, simple linear extrapolation methods probably
greatly overestimate the real risks (Ames & Gold, 1991). Therefore, it is not recommended to
use this approach (O’Brien et al., 2006).
The TTC approach is used for risk assessment of contaminants in food in cases where thebiological data are few but the chemical structure is known and good exposure data are
available (Kroes et al., 2005). The TTC is the daily intake estimated to give a lifetime risk of
less than one in a million. This value is derived from the dose-response data of all structurally
related compounds studied in rodent cancer bioassays (Barlow, 2005). A generic threshold of
0.15 µg/person/day (or 0.0025 µg/kg bw/day) is applied for all structural alerts4, except
genotoxic and high potency carcinogens (aflatoxin-like compounds, N-nitroso-compounds,
azoxy-compounds) (Kroes et al., 2004). It is advised to use this approach when no good
hazard characterisation data are available (Barlow et al., 2006; O’Brien et al., 2006).
A fourth approach is the margin of exposure (MOE): the ratio between a dose leading to
tumors in experimental animals and the human intake. The magnitude of the MOE reflects,
but does not attempt to define the possible magnitude of the risk: the larger the MOE, the
smaller the risk posed by exposure to the compound under consideration. Calculation of the
MOE requires two decisions; defining the point on the dose-response curve and the human
intake (O’Brien et al., 2006). The TD50, T25 or BMD are often taken as comparative
estimates of the potency of genotoxic carcinogens (Sanner et al., 2001). For the human intake,
different values can be used, providing risk managers with different information, for example
the median intake provides a general picture, while the intake by the 90th or 97.5th percentileprovides information about the high consumer (O’Brien et al., 2006). The European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) Scientific Committee considered that an MOE of 10 000 or more,
based on animal cancer bioassay data, “would be of low concern from a public health point of
view and might reasonably be considered as a low priority for risk management actions”
(EFSA, 2005). The MOE is considered as the preferred approach to characterise risks without
a threshold, because it is based on the available animal dose-response data, without
extrapolation, and on human exposures. The MOE can be used for prioritisation of risk
management actions but it is recognised that the MOE is difficult to interpret in terms of
public health (Barlow et al., 2006).
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 83/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
83
5.2.2. Microbial risk assessment in food
5.2.2.1. Hazard identification
The potential pathogenic micro-organisms are discussed with prof Mieke Uyttendaele in part
1.
Typical food related pathogens are Listeria monocytogenes, E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella,
Campylobacter ,….
5.2.2.2. Microbiological hazard characterization
Ingestion of a pathogen does not necessarily mean that a person will become infected, nor that
illness or death will occur. The likelihood that an individual becomes ill from ingesting a
micro-organism is dependent on the complex interaction among the host, the food and the
pathogen. This interaction is commonly known as the ‘infectious disease triangle’ or
‘epidemiologic triad’ (Dennis et al., 2002). The components of this triangle have an influence
on the dose-response relationship and it is therefore necessary to indicate which information
has been used (Forsythe, 2002).
Until relatively recently it has been assumed that there is a threshold level of pathogens that
must be ingested to cause an infection or disease (the minimum infectious dose). However,
this idea has been replaced by the proposal that infection may result from the survival of a
single, viable, infectious pathogenic organism (single-hit concept) (Forsythe, 2002). However,
the probability that a single Listeria monocytogenes cell would cause a food-borne disease is
estimated to be one on 1014 (Benford, 2001).
In this fase, an answer need to be found on questions as: what is the probability that a human
is getting ill from the consumption of 10 cells of Salmonella and what is the adverse effect on
the health of this disease ? Important herewith is the dependency in sensitivity by (1) the own
immuno-resistance by persons, (2) the virulence of the strain of micro-organism in concern,
(3) the type of food product which is related. The virulence is depending on the growth
conditions of the micro-organisms in the food product. The dependence of the strain is
illustrated in figure 17.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 84/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
84
Figure 17 : LD50-values for different strains of L. monocytogenes in normal mice
(USDA, 2001) (LD50 = dose by which 50% of the population died)
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 85/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
85
The dependence of the risk group of a population (= the sensitivity of an individual person) is
illustrated for L. monocytogenes. In this figure 18, the mortality (per portion food product) as
a function of the degree of contamination per portion for different sub populations
Figure 18 : Listeria monocytogenes dose-response with variable strain-virulence for
different subpopulations (A : an intermediate subpopulation, B : new born baby’s, C :
elderly > 60 years)
A
B
C
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 86/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
86
De dose-response relation will also be very different for the different types of pathogens (see
figure 19).
bacterie Infection or intoxication MID (intake cells) or MTD
(intake toxin)
Bacillus cereus Infection or intoxication > 106
Campylobacter jejuni infection 500
Clostridium botulinum intoxication LD50 = 0,0005 µg/kg body
weight
Clostridium perfringens Infection and/or intoxication > 106
E. coli infection 105
- 108
E. coli O157:H7 infection 10 – 103
L. monocytogenes infection 10³ - 106
Salmonella infection 10 - 106
Shigella dysenteriae infection 10
Staphylococcus aureus Intoxication 1 – 25 µg (toxine can be
produced from 105
CFU/g)
Vibrio parahaemolyticus infection 105
Yersinia enterocolitica infection 109
Figure 19. The different pathogens and there possibility to be infective.
Besides infection, pathogens can also cause intoxication. Bacterial toxins may be formed in
food and may cause adverse health effect, when the dose is high enough. Risk assessment of
such toxins follows the same protocol as for chemicals with a threshold effect (Benford,
2001).
5.2.2.3. Microbiological exposure assessment
In microbiological exposure assessment the hazard is alive, which reorients the focus of the
exposure assessment significantly. The level of the pathogen in a food can change over time
due to growth and inactivation (FAO/WHO, 2005). Also cross and post contamination will
have an influence on the level and the prevalence of the pathogen. Moreover, a pathogen is
able to enter the food chain at many points. Therefore, it is necessary to include the complete
chain in the exposure assessment through a farm to fork approach (Figure 20) (Forsythe,
2002).
A large number of factors have an influence on the microbial population. These factors
include (modified from Forsythe, 2002):
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 87/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
87
• the microbial ecology of the food;
• the growth requirements (intrinsic and extrinsic parameters) and their influence on the
growth/inactivation;
• the initial contamination of the raw materials;
• prevalence of infection in food animals;
• the effect of the production, processing, cooking, handling, sorting, distribution steps
and preparation by the final consumer on the microbial agent (i.e. the impact of each
step on the level of the pathogenic agent of concern, including the risk for cross or
post contamination);
• the variability in processes involved and the level of process control;
• the level of sanitation, slaughter practices, rates of animal-animal transmission;
• the methods or conditions of packaging, distribution and storage of the food (e.g.
temperature of storage, relative humidity of the environment, gaseous composition of
the atmosphere) and the characteristics of the food that may influence the potential for
growth of the pathogen (and/or toxin production) in the food (e.g. pH, water activity,
nutrient content, presence of antimicrobial substances) under various conditions,
including abuse.
Figure 20 : Framework of “farm to fork” modules for microbiological exposureassessment
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 88/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
88
5.2.2.4. Risk characterization
In the microbiological risk characterisation, the output of the exposure assessment is used as
an input for the dose-response relationship and the result is the risk estimate, namely the
probability of an adverse effect (Forsythe, 2002).
It must be noted that the probability that a certain hazard is occurring never can be reduced to
zero. This has the consequence that there will be always a certain level of risk which need to
be accepted. This acceptation will depend on the resulting effect on the public health and the
considered economical problems and the legislation of concern.
5.2.2.5. Risk assessment of Salmonella enteritidis in eggs and egg products in
USA (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPHS/risk/index.htm#team)
The 'Food Safety and Inspection Service' started in December 1996 a very big risk assessment
of Salmonella enteritidis as an answer on the increase in illnesses duet o the consumption of
eggs.
In this quantitative risk assessment the whole agro food chain was included: from chicken to
the consumption of eggs or egg products. The objective was to develop a model of Salmonella
enteritidis, starting from the internal contaminated eggs until the consumption and the
infection disease.
Following results are obtained;
a) in total there are 65 billion eggs who are yearly produced, of which 47 billion are sold as
fresh eggs and are consumed and 18 billion eggs are on an industrial scale transformed to
egg products in the food industry.
b) The model estimates that of the 47 billion eggs who are consumed without an industrial
process, in average 2,3 million (0,05%) already internal are contaminated with S.
enteritidis.
c) Via dose-response curves it is estimated that out of the 2,3 million eggs which are
internal contaminated will result in average in 661.663 infections a year.
d) This means that 661.663 S. enteritidis infections a year on 207 billion individual prepared
meals (47 billion eggs who are consumed x 4,4 meals/egg). The predicted average risk is
3,1 S. enteritidis infections a year on 1 million mean containing eggs.
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 89/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
89
e) The sensitive sub populations (YOPI’s; young, old, pregnant, immuno-deficient) are 20%
of the total population in USA. The model predict that 68% of the infections will occur
with the normal healthy group of the population and 32% in the YOPI group.
5.3. Risk management and communication
Risk management is the process, distinct from risk assessment, of weighing policy
alternatives, in consultation with all interested parties, considering risk assessment and other
factors relevant for the health protection of environmental protection and if needed selecting
appropriate prevention and control options. During risk management the results of the
conducted risk assessments are evaluated in order to select policy decisions. In principle, the
executers of the risk assessment are not consulted during the risk management in order towork objectively.
Risk communication is an interactive exchange of information and opinions throughout the
risk analysis process concerning risk, risk related factors and risk perceptions among risk
assessors, risk managers, consumers, industry, the academic community and other interested
parties, including the explanation of risk assessment findings and the basis of risk
management decisions.
Risk communication is set up because there is in the total process of risk analysis a clear
necessity to inform interested groups and to communicate the assembled information between
the risk assessment and the risk management. Risk communication recognizes the importance
of behaviour and sensitivity for risks and their perception. It is a very usefull instrument to let
understand the risks and their uncertainties but also to inform the risk manager regarding the
perception of the risks by the population.
5.3.1. The use of risk assessment outputs in risk management : Chemicalrisks
When the risk assessment indicates that the proportion of consumers with the potential to
exceed the TDI/ADI is zero, there is no need to take action in order to control the risk.
However, even in these circumstances other activities, such as risk communication, might be
appropriate (Tennant, 2001).
If during the risk characterisation, it is observed that the exposure poses a possible health risk,
recommendations for risk reduction need to be formulated. Priorities for risk reduction
depend on the extent and frequency that the TDI/ADI is exceeded, or on the size of the MOE
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 90/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
90
(Kuiper-Goodman, 2004).
When it concerns a chemical for which a threshold dose can be
defined, the simplest approach is to identify the level of contamination that would cause a
high-level consumer to exceed the TDI/ADI and to use this value as maximum level inlegislation (Tennant, 2001). The maximum level is also called MRL (maximum residue
level), typically used for phytosanitary products and residues of medicines for veterinary use
(Benford, 2001; CAC, 2003b)
For non-threshold carcinogens, some jurisdictions prefer to use an approach that keeps
residue levels ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ (ALARA), but it is then difficult to derive an
appropriate maximum permitted concentration (Kuiper-Goodman, 2004). Other jurisdictions
try to ensure that maximum levels for unavoidable non-threshold carcinogens pose a
‘negligible risk’, which corresponds to a MOE of 10 000 (EFSA, 2005).
5.3.2. The use of risk assessment outputs in risk management :Microbiological risks
5.3.2.1. Appropriate level of protection
The aim of a risk assessment is to provide risk managers with answers to one or more
questions that may enable them to make better informed decisions (Van Schothorst, 2002).
Government risk managers need to decide what in the WTO-SPS agreement (WTO, 1995) is
called an appropriate level of protection (ALOP).
ALOP is defined as the level of protection deemed appropriate by the member (state)
establishing a sanitary or phytosanitary measure to protect human, animal or plant life or
health within its territory (WTO, 1995).
ALOP is a way to express, on a population level, what level of risk a society is prepared to
tolerate or is considering to be achievable (Gorris, 2005). ALOP is also called the ‘acceptable
level of risk’(ALR) or ‘tolerable level of risk’ (TLR). The latter expression is preferred
because consumers may tolerate food safety risks but they are reluctant to accept them (VanSchothorst, 2002). Discussion is actively ongoing whether in addition to scientific insights,
other factors can be considered in the decision of an ALOP. Such factors could be for instance
technological and economical (e.g. the potential damage in terms of loss of production, the
cost of control) (de Swarte & Donker, 2005).
In comparison to microbial hazards, it is more difficult to set a meaningful ALOP for
chemical hazards. With chemical hazards, often there is no proof of causality between a
chemical hazard and an individual case of food-borne disease because impacts of chemical
hazards may be more chronic in nature. A second complication regarding ALOPs forchemicals is that most chemical hazards can be found in a variety of products, both food and
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 91/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
91
non-food, and in our direct living environment (de Swarte & Donker, 2005).
5.3.2.2. Food safety objective
An ALOP, expressed for instance as a number of illnesses in a population per annum, is not a
measure that is meaningful for food safety management in practice. The food safety
professionals responsible for controlling the specific hazards need more specific guidance. To
that end, and within the current risk analysis framework, competent authorities can formulate
a so-called food safety objective (FSO) (Gorris, 2005). FSO is defined by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (CAC) as the maximum frequency and/or concentration of a
hazard in a food at the time of consumption that provides or contributes to the appropriate
level of protection (CAC, 2004). Some hypothetical examples of FSO values are given in
Table 5.1. Although the CAC considers FSOs only for microbial hazards, the concept could
also be applied to other types of hazards as well (de Swarte & Donker, 2005).
Table 5.1: Hypothetical examples of concepts used in food safety control (Gorris, 2005;
Stringer, 2005)
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 92/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
92
Food safety on an operational level is primarily the responsibility of the food industry. The
national authorities however, are responsible for controlling the process of setting, achieving
and evaluating the level of a hazard that can be tolerated (de Swarte & Donker, 2005). Within
this framework, the FSO value is an important communication tool for the overall
management of the chain as it gives the expected level of control in the food chains in order tomake a product that can be considered as safe. It is a concept that bridges from a population’s
generic requirements for safe food to specific operational measures (Figure 21) (Gorris,
2005). The implementation of an FSO as a target at the end of the food chain, leaves the food
industry more freedom and flexibility to organize their quality management tools (e.g. hazard
analysis critical control points (HACCP), Prerequisite programs (PRP)) on the condition that
this target is achieved (de Swarte & Donker, 2005; Gorris, 2005).
Figure 21: Illustration of how food safety control at a country level can link into food
safety management at the operational level through a food safety objective set by a
governmental competent authority on the basis of a public health goal (ALOP)
established following the risk analysis framework (modified from Gorris, 2005)
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 93/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
93
Achieving the given FSO depends to a large extent on the efficiency of the control measures
along the food chain. It is necessary to establish whether PRP and HACCP systems can
provide the level of technical control needed to achieve the FSO. If not, the procedures should
be re-evaluated and adapted until the FSO is achieved (Stringer, 2005).
5.3.2.3. Other food safety management targets
In order to assure that an FSO is met at consumption, it can be relevant to specify one or more
targets earlier in the food chain. These targets are called performance objectives (PO) and are
defined as the maximum frequency and/or concentration of a hazard in a food at a specified
step in the food chain before the time of consumption that provides or contributes to an FSO
or ALOP, as applicable (CAC, 2004). POs are linked to the FSO and, when proposed by
governments, can be viewed as a kind of milestones that governments provide as guidance in
order to help to meet the FSO (Gorris, 2005). However, POs can also be established by
operational food safety managers as an integral part of the design of a food safety
management system.
To comply with a PO or an FSO, at the operational level, control measures (CM) need to be
established. A control measure is any action and activity that can be used to prevent or
eliminate a food safety hazard or to reduce it to an acceptable level (it can be microbiological
specifications, guidelines on pathogen control, hygiene codes, microbiological criteria,
specific information (e.g. labelling), training, education, and others) (ICMSF, 2002).
Examples of control measures are given in Table 1. At a particular step in the chain, one or
more control measures can be implemented as part of the product and process design to
control a hazard.
The overall effect of control measures on the hazard level at a particular step, is called
performance criterion (PC). The PC is defined as the effect in frequency and/or concentration
of a hazard in a food that must be achieved by the application of one or more control
measures to provide or contribute to a PO or an FSO (CAC, 2004). PCs are the specific
operational, supply chain measures at (a) specific step(s) that result in meeting the objective
for that step, the PO or FSO. The control parameters (e.g. time, temperature, flow rate) at a
step or a combination of steps that are applied to achieve a PC are called the process criteria
(Van Schothorst, 2002). Product criteria on the other hand are the parameters of the food that
are used to prevent unacceptable growth of micro-organisms (e.g. pH, aw) (Van Schothorst,
2002). PCs in general will be decided on by food safety managers as key points in the design
of a production flow that allows the production of safe foods (Gorris, 2005). Some
hypothetical examples of PC values are given in Table 1.
Although PO and PC like the FSO are not intended to be enforced, these concepts on occasion
could lend themselves to be verified by specific testing or could be linked to specific
microbiological criteria. Figure 22 gives an overview of how various guidance milestones
and control measures relate to each other in an imaginary food supply chain (Gorris, 2005).
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 94/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
94
Figure 22 : Schematic representation of how governmental or country guidance along an
imaginary food chain links in with operational level measures at relevant points. The
guidance is given in the form of FSO or PO values stipulated by the appropriate food
control function. The operational level measures are embedded in the food safety
management systems operated in the chain, such as PRP and HACCP (Gorris, 2005)
5.3.2.4. Microbiological criteria
Establishing microbiological criteria is another risk management option to guarantee food
safety. A microbiological criteria (MC) is defined as the acceptability of a product or a food
lot, based on the absence or presence, or number of micro-organisms including parasites,
and/or quantity of their toxins/metabolites, per unit(s) of mass, volume, area or lot (CAC,
1997).
In the establishment of MC’s, FSOs or PSs can be useful and an MC for a food should berelated to its FSO. An MC that is excessively stringent relative to an FSO may result in
rejection of food even though it has been produced under conditions that provide an
appropriate level of protection (Van Schothorst, 2002). However, microbiological criteria
differ in function and content from FSOs. An FSO will normally not prescribe a
sampling plan, while for MCs it is essential that such a plan is developed, because it will
assist in achieving transparency and equivalence as mentioned in the WTO/SPS agreement
(Van Schothorst, 2002).
A two-class attribute sampling plan is used, which is characterized bythe number of samples to be tested (n), the number of samples (c) that exceed the test criteria
8/3/2019 Text Food Safety Feb 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/text-food-safety-feb-2011 95/95
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality – Ghent University - Food Safety
(in microbial testing associated with pathogenic micro-organisms, c is usually zero), the lower
limit of detection for the test (m), the upper limit of detection for the test (M) and a
confidence level (e.g., 95%) that the test will identify an unacceptable lot (Whiting et al.,
2006). The European Commission has published in 2005 a new regulation concerning
microbiological criteria (European Commission, 2005).
Table 5.2: Characteristics of FSOs and microbiological criteria (Van Schothorst, 2002)