Food Protection Trends - June 2009 - 349

TABLE 4. Examples of “Salmonella-sensitive” ingredients used in low-moisture products* chocolate, chocolate liquor, cocoa powder, chocolate chips, cocoa products nuts/nut products coconuts Seeds/seed products grains/grain products (excluding starches) dried egg products Fruits/fruit products (excluding candied or alcohol-packed fruits, jams or jellies) dairy ingredients and blends Spices/herbs (excluding extracts), blended seasonings Soy products gums/thickeners (excluding xanthan gum) Yeast/yeast extract gelatin dry vegetables enzymes/rennets dry meat or meat byproducts * this list is not inclusive of all sensitive ingredients. Salmonella ConTRoL ELEMEnT 5: ESTABLISH A RAW MATERIALS/InGREdIEnTS ConTRoL PRoGRAM low-moisture products may be manufactured in such a way that some ingredients are added after an inactivation step in the process or none of the ingredients are subjected to an inactivation step. For example, seasoning may be added to an extruded product after the heating step, ingredients for fortification may be added after milk pasteurization and spray drying, or products such as cold-pressed bars (e.g., nutrition bars) or dry blends may be produced by combining ingredients without an inactivation step. in order to prevent finished product contamination, it is essential not only to protect products from environmental contamination after the Salmonella inactivation step, but also to avoid introducing Salmonella from ingredients that are added without an inactivation step. the addition of contaminated ingredients after the inactivation step has contributed to Salmonella contamination in finished products. For example, according to results from investigations of the 2007 Salmonella outbreak (13) associated with children’s snacks, Fda found Salmonella Wandsworth in the broccoli powder used for seasoning the product after the inactivation step. product samples obtained from the processing plant also tested positive for Salmonella Wandsworth and Salmonella typhimurium, while samples taken from the plant environment tested negative (58, 82). the manufacturer sourced ingredients from both domestic and international suppliers. an outbreak associated with potato chips in germany (57) was traced to the use of contaminated paprika seasoning added after the inactivation step. in another instance, contaminated dried milk powder added to chocolate liquor after the Salmonella inactivation step (cocoa bean roasting) contributed to Salmonella in the finished milk chocolate. In the 2008–2009 outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium attributed to peanut butter and peanut butter paste originating from a single processing plant (17, 34), the potentially contaminated peanut butter and paste were distributed to more than 70 companies for use as an ingredient in hundreds of different products, including low-moisture products such as cookies, crackers, snack bars, cereal and candies. because the peanut butter or paste was used in many products without a further inactivation step (e.g., peanut butter crackers, peanut butter snack bars) or the inactivation step was not fully validated (such as in peanut butter cookies subjected to baking), hundreds of product recalls by dozens of companies ensued (17, 34). the latest outbreak and its cascade effects clearly illustrate the need to have knowledge about ingredient suppliers and their control programs and the need to verify that these programs are effective in controlling Salmonella. Fda’s inspection of the processing facility implicated in the Salmonella typhimurium outbreak found a number of deficiencies (35), including deficiencies in process control, e.g., lack of validation of the roasting step, and in gmps, e.g., deficiencies in facility integrity and maintenance, plant construction and design, protection of equipment/containers/ product against contamination, separation of raw and finished products, pest control, and sanitation program. notably, Fda indicated that the plant did not clean a peanut paste line after Salmonella typhimurium was isolated from the product, and continued manufacturing on the line for over three months (35). Fda inspectors found that, in approximately a dozen instances, the plant released a product that had initially tested positive for Salmonella after retesting yielded negative results. environmental samples collected by Fda inspectors at the facility tested positive for Salmonella Senftenberg and mbandaka (35). Such deficiencies can be uncovered by a robust supplier qualification and requalification process. Common industry practices outlined in the seven Salmonella control elements in this guidance may be used in evaluating whether a supplier has a comprehensive Salmonella control program in place. “Salmonella-sensitive” ingredients are ingredients that have been historically associated with Salmonella (tested positive for the pathogen), have been implicated in past outbreaks, or are used to make products that are intended for at-risk individuals. When such ingredients are added to the finished product without further lethality, procedures should be in place to assure the control of Salmonella in these ingredients to avoid finished product contamination. a supplier approval program should be developed to assess the adequacy of control measures the supplier has implemented for Salmonella control in sensitive ingredients. it is well known that the absence of Salmonella in sensitive ingredients, dry-mixed ingredients, or finished products cannot be assured through testing alone (30, 32). absence of Salmonella cannot be assured through acceptance or rejection of a lot according to requirements stated in a specification. the supplier approval program may include initial approval of the supplier; supplier audits; periodic requalification that takes into consideration key factors such as whether the supplier has a validated process and conducts microbiological monitoring of their process environment; and periodic raw material/ingredient testing upon receipt. JUNE 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 349
Food Protection Trends - June 2009

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - June 2009
