Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Many HACCP systems in meat plants have died
under the weight of paper they generate. If, after
implementation has occurred, it is discovered that too
many CCPs were identified and that the monitoring
process is unnecessarily complicated or cumbersome,
there must be sufficient flexibility in the system to
allow adjustments to be made. Another risk with cum-
bersome documentation is that the completion of the
form can rapidly become the monitoring personnel's
primary objective rather than merely a tool to meet
the overall objective of safe food.
An HACCP system is not something which should,
or can, be imposed by either the in-house quality
assurance staff or the regulatory authority, though
both bodies must be intimately involved. For the sys-
tem to work properly, the entire workforce within the
food factory, including all managers, supervisors,
operatives, fitters and cleaning staff, must be dedi-
cated to the success of the system and involved in its
operation. This requires a considerable investment of
time in training for all staff.
ownership of the quality assurance by the workers are
important aspects of a successful system. The meth-
ods selected for monitoring must give immediate
results so that any problems detected can be corrected
immediately. Traditional microbiological checks,
where the results may not be available for 36 hours or
more, are therefore of little value.
A number of new approaches to microbiological
monitoring are, however, becoming commercially
available. Some of these techniques are suitable for
determining total counts of bacteria, while others
determine the presence of specific pathogens.
Techniques utilising monoclonal antibodies and DNA
probes in combination with automatic instruments
are being developed which can give results in hours.
A microbial ATP bioluminescence assay has been
shown to be an accurate and rapid method for deter-
mining the levels of generic bacterial contamination
on beef and pork carcases (Siragusa
et al.
, 1995). The
technique can distinguish between microbial and
non-microbial ATP, but sensitivity is variable at
microbial levels below 10
4
(Siragusa and Cutter, 1995).
The entire test, including sampling, takes only 5
minutes to complete.
5
Corrective action:
Establish the corrective action to
be taken when monitoring indicates that a particular
CCP is not under control.
Procedures must be established so that immediate
action can be taken upon detection of deviation from
the established criteria. This may involve rectifying an
out-of-control situation before an operation is allowed
to commence or halting the manufacturing process.
Consideration must always be given to the action that
needs to be taken to rectify the food that has been pro-
duced during the period that the CCP was not fully
or partially controlled. This decision may result in an
adjustment to the frequency of monitoring in order
to reduce the volume of potentially non-compliant
product.
6
Verification:
Establish procedures for verification to
confirm that the HACCP system is working effectively.
Verification checks
are carried out systematically by
the quality assurance staff and the veterinary inspec-
tion team. It is important that duplication of effort by
the in-house and regulatory inspectors is avoided and
that all checks are complementary. Verification may
involve some microbiological checks of end product,
structures and equipment. All checks should be car-
ried out at a statistically significant frequency and in a
systematic, targeted manner.
7
Documentation:
Establish documentation concern-
ing all procedures and records appropriate to these
principles and their application.
Worldwide food safety standards
The worldwide standards for food safety are established
and described by the Codex Alimentarius Commission,
established in 1963 by the FAO and WHO. The commis-
sion's science-based standards, guidelines and recom-
mendations are used as a legal reference point by the
World Trade Organisation in international trade agree-
ments and disputes.
In addition to these standards, there are a wide range
of private food standards whose requirements are
demanded by retailers and customers. Some seek to pro-
vide assurance on quality including safety, while others
merely seek to exploit a niche market or gain marketing
advantage over competitors. However, all have a ten-
dency to cloud and confuse the regulatory environment
as to what is legal requirement versus what is voluntary
and to add increased costs to the processor and conse-
quently the final consumer.
The primary private standard is arguably ISO 22000
entitled 'Food safety management systems - Require-
ments for any organisation in the food chain. Other
major certification schemes include EurepGAP, the
British Retail Consortium (BRC), the International Food
Standard (IFS), the Safe Food Quality Standard (SQF)
and the Dutch Code. All have differing requirements
and apply to all or specific sectors of the food
chain. All have their own systems of verification and
third-party audit.
While most private and regulatory standards are now
based on Codex Alimentarius standards, there are sig-
nificant differences that can act as a barrier to export and
