DOCSLIB.ORG

GUIDANCE on ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING and CONTROL of LISTERIA for the FRESH PRODUCE INDUSTRY Second Edition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GUIDANCE on ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING and CONTROL of LISTERIA for the FRESH PRODUCE INDUSTRY Second Edition GUIDANCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND CONTROL OF LISTERIA FOR THE FRESH PRODUCE INDUSTRY Second Edition Developed by the United Fresh Food Safety & Technology Council ACKNOWLEDGMENT This guidance is a publication of the United Fresh Produce Association, developed by the United Fresh Food Safety & Technology Council. The original version, published in 2013, was developed under the direction of David Gombas, Ph.D., then-Senior Vice President Food Safety and Technology, who served as Executive Editor. The update was conducted under the direction of Jennifer McEntire, Ph.D., Vice President Food Safety and Technology. United Fresh would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions to the update: workgroup chair Melissa Ortner, contributors Dinesh Babu, Anika Bansal, Tony Banegas, Lisa Fuentes, John Gurrisi, Margaret Hardin, Elis Owens, Jeanne Raede, Kim Snyder, Angela Valadez, and Richard Walsh. In addition, we would like to thank the following external reviewers Michelle Danyluk, Trevor Suslow, and Peter Taormina. IMPORTANT NOTICE This guidance represents the peer-reviewed views of United Fresh Produce Association Food Safety & Technology Council as of the date of publication. Scientific and technical knowledge regarding equipment, facilities, and practices, as well as the state of knowledge regarding the likelihood that certain commodities, agricultural practices, or regions will contribute to the prevalence, virulence, and behavior of the pathogen itself, will almost certainly continue to change over time. Readers are cautioned that this guidance does not purport to provide fail-safe solutions for all issues arising in Listeria monitoring and control in the fresh processing and handling environment. Adherence to any particular practice described in this guidance does not guarantee that the practice will always be effective, even if followed closely. Readers using this guidance must evaluate their own products and operations individually. CONTACT For questions about this publication, please contact Dr. Jennifer McEntire, Vice President of Food Safety and Technology, United Fresh Produce Association, at (202) 303-3400. © 2018 United Fresh Produce Association. All rights reserved. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................. 2 AT A GLANCE – DO’S AND DON’TS OF LISTERIA CONTROL ................ 4 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 5 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 6 About Listeria and listeriosis ..................................................................................................................... 6 Sources in the supply chain....................................................................................................................... 7 Listeriosis illnesses linked to fresh produce .............................................................................................. 7 REGULATORY RESPONSES TO LISTERIA ............................................. 7 On produce ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Swabathons in produce handling facilities ............................................................................................... 8 FDA Listeria risk assessment ..................................................................................................................... 9 FDA Draft Guidance: Control of L. monocytogenes In RTE Foods ............................................................ 9 FDA Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables ................. 10 FDA Reportable Food Registry ................................................................................................................ 11 Health Canada Listeria guidance ............................................................................................................. 11 LISTERIA CONTROL MEASURES RELEVANT TO FRESH PRODUCE . 12 Killing Listeria .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Controlling growth of Listeria ................................................................................................................. 13 USEFULNESS OF TESTING PRODUCE ................................................. 14 MINIMIZING CONTAMINATION IN THE FIELD ....................................... 15 UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITY IN THE FACILITY ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................. 16 DESIGNING HAZARDS OUT OF THE FACILITY ..................................... 17 Incoming ingredients/supplier approval programs ................................................................................ 17 Outside the facility .................................................................................................................................. 17 Facility and equipment design ................................................................................................................ 18 Separation of raw and finished/processed product ............................................................................... 19 Equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 20 Drains and Floors .................................................................................................................................... 21 Airflow ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 Product and traffic flow .......................................................................................................................... 23 2 Footbaths and vehicle traffic control ...................................................................................................... 24 Water ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Cleaning and sanitation programs .......................................................................................................... 25 Establishing a ‘Clean Break’ .................................................................................................................... 27 Heat sanitation of equipment ................................................................................................................. 28 Prevention and removal of biofilms ....................................................................................................... 28 Employee training and practices............................................................................................................. 29 DESIGNING AN ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN ...................... 30 What to test for: Listeria spp. vs. L. monocytogenes .............................................................................. 31 When to speciate, when not to speciate ................................................................................................ 32 Identifying testing zones ......................................................................................................................... 32 Where to sample ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Where not to sample .............................................................................................................................. 38 Environmental Swabbing Plan ................................................................................................................ 40 How to collect samples: sampling/transport methodologies ................................................................. 42 Selection of a laboratory and test method ............................................................................................. 43 RESPONSE TO LISTERIA DETECTION .................................................. 44 Transient vs. Resident Listeria ................................................................................................................ 44 First detection vs. second detection ....................................................................................................... 44 Typical reactions to a positive result ...................................................................................................... 45 Whole Genome Sequencing and other subtyping options ..................................................................... 48 WHEN TO STOP PRODUCTION AND RECALL PRODUCT .................... 49 Defining how much to recall ................................................................................................................... 50 WHAT TO DO IF LISTERIA IS NEVER DETECTED ................................ 50 SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 51 REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 52 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 57 CASE STUDIES ......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Characterization and Antimicrobial Resistance of Listeria Monocytogenes Isolated from Food-Related Environments
    PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE Dongryeoul Bae,1 Ronald D. Smiley,2 3 1* Food Protection Trends, Vol 36, No. 5, p.357–361 Ezat H. Mezal and Ashraf A. Khan Copyright© 2016, International Association for Food Protection 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W, Des Moines, IA 50322-2864 1*Division of Microbiology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA 2Arkansas Regional Laboratory, Office of Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA 3Dept. of Biology, University of Thi-Qar, Thi-Qar, Iraq Food Products and Processing Facilities Linked to Recent Outbreaks of Listeriosis in the US Frozen Vegetables (2016, WA) Cheeses (2013, WI) Raw Milk Caramel Apples Soy Products (2016, PA) (2014 – 2015, CA) (2014, IL) Packaged Salads Dairy Products (2016, OH) (2014, DE) Caramel Apples (2014 – 2015, MO) Soft Cheese Ice Cream (2015, CA) (2015, OK) Ice Cream (2015, AL) Ice Cream Product (2015, TX) Soft Cheese (2014, FL) Data source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/index,html Characterization and Antimicrobial Resistance of Listeria monocytogenes Isolated from Food-related Environments ABSTRACT streptomycin and tetracycline. No strain was resist- The purpose of this study was to determine the ant to 3 or more antimicrobial classes. All tetracy- diversity and antimicrobial resistance of Listeria cline-resistant strains were serotype 1/2a, and only monocytogenes strains isolated from food-related tetM was amplified from the chromosomal DNA. This environments in the United States. Nineteen unre- study, which reports the genetic diversity and anti- lated strains of L.
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Listeria Monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods: Guidance for Industry Draft Guidance
    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods: Guidance for Industry Draft Guidance This guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only. Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that FDA considers your comment on this draft guidance before we begin work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance within 180 days of publication in the Federal Register of the notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number FDA–2007–D–0494 listed in the notice of availability that publishes in the Federal Register. For questions regarding this draft document contact the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) at 240-402-1700. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition January 2017 Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Background A. Regulatory Framework B. Characteristics of L. monocytogenes C. L. monocytogenes in the Food Processing Environment III. How to Apply This Guidance to Your Operations Based on the Regulatory Framework That Applies to Your Food Establishment IV. Controls on Personnel A. Hands, Gloves and Footwear B. Foamers, Footbaths, and Dry Powdered Sanitizers C. Clothing D. Controls on Personnel Associated with Specific Areas in the Plant E.
    [Show full text]
  • Foodcore Salmonella, Shiga Toxin-Producing E. Coli, and Listeria
    FoodCORE Norovirus, Other, and Unknown (NOU) Metrics Rationale and Intent The FoodCORE performance metrics are a list of measurable activities covering diverse aspects of outbreak response. These activities span from outbreak surveillance and detection through investigation, response, control, and prevention measures. Using the metrics*, each center provides data about the burden, timeliness, and completeness of foodborne disease activities related to the key areas of activity. The rationale and intent of these metrics are for investigation activities for norovirus, other enteric disease pathogens, such as Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, or Giardia, and outbreaks of unknown etiology. Collectively, these are referred to as the NOU metrics, for norovirus, other etiologies, and unknown etiologies. Other etiologies are enteric illnesses with determined etiology that are not Salmonella, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, Listeria, or norovirus. Unknown etiologies are enteric illness with no determined/identified etiology from case, product, or environmental testing to indicate the etiologic agent. This can be because no specimen or sample yielded an isolate or other positive result, and would also include investigations where no specimens or samples were collected. Sections Total NOU Investigations ................................2 Laboratory-based Metrics ...............................2 Investigation-based Metrics .............................4 Outbreak-based Metrics .................................6 Norovirus Campylobacter Unknown
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery of <I>Salmonella, Listeria Monocytogenes,</I> and <I>Mycobacterium Bovis</I> from Cheese Enteri
    47 Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 70, No. 1, 2007, Pages 47–52 Copyright ᮊ, International Association for Food Protection Recovery of Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and Mycobacterium bovis from Cheese Entering the United States through a Noncommercial Land Port of Entry HAILU KINDE,1* ANDREA MIKOLON,2 ALFONSO RODRIGUEZ-LAINZ,3 CATHY ADAMS,4 RICHARD L. WALKER,5 SHANNON CERNEK-HOSKINS,3 SCARLETT TREVISO,2 MICHELE GINSBERG,6 ROBERT RAST,7 BETH HARRIS,8 JANET B. PAYEUR,8 STEVE WATERMAN,9 AND ALEX ARDANS5 1California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System (CAHFS), San Bernardino Branch, 105 West Central Avenue, San Bernardino, California 92408, and School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California 95616; 2Animal Health & Food Safety Services Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/70/1/47/1680020/0362-028x-70_1_47.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 Division, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1220 North Street, Sacramento, California 95814; 3California Office of Binational Border Health, California Department of Health Services, 3851 Rosecrans Street, San Diego, California 92138; 4San Diego County Public Health Laboratory, 3851 Rosecrans Street, San Diego, California 92110; 5CAHFS-Davis, Health Sciences Drive, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California 95616; 6Community Epidemiology Division, County of San Diego Health and Human Services, 1700 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California 92186; 7U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2320 Paseo De
    [Show full text]
  • Listeria Monocytogenes Meningitis Complicating Rotavirus Gastroenteritis in an Immunocompetent Child
    CASE REPORT Listeria monocytogenes Meningitis Complicating Rotavirus Gastroenteritis in an Immunocompetent Child Takuma Ohnishi,1,2 Akiko Kawano,2 Mayumi Araki,2 Yuko Hamahata,2 Machiko Usui,2 Motoko Shimoyamada,2 Takuya Tamame, 2 Masayuki Akashi2 and Seiji Sato2 1 Department of Pediatrics, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan 2 Department of Pediatrics, Saitama City Hospital, Saitama, Japan (Received for publication on July 2, 2016) (Revised for publication on October 9, 2016) (Accepted for publication on November 28, 2016) (Published online on April 7, 2017) Listeria monocytogenes only occasionally causes bacterial meningitis in immunocompetent children. We report a case of L. monocytogenes meningitis associated with rotavirus gastroenteritis. The patient was a previously healthy 20-month-old girl who was admitted because of sustained fever and lethargy after suffering from gastroenteritis for 6 days. The patient’s peripheral white blood cell count was 18,600/µL and the C-reactive protein level was 2.44 mg/dL. A stool sample tested positive for rotavirus antigen. A cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) sample showed pleocytosis. Cultures of the CSF and stool samples revealed the presence of L. monocytogenes. The patient was successfully treated with ampicillin and gentamicin. We speculate that translocation of enteric flora across the intestinal epithelium that had been dam- aged by rotavirus gastroenteritis might have caused bacteremia that disseminated into the CSF. Both listeriosis and secondary systemic infection after rotavirus gastroenteritis are rare but not unknown. Initiation of appropriate treatment as soon as possible is important for all types of bacterial meningitis. This rare but serious complication should be taken into consideration even if the patient does not have any medical history of immune-related problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Listeria Monocytogenes: Attributes and Prevention of Transmission by Food
    Volume 10 No 1 March 1989 Publlstl ed as a service to mic robiology by Oxold Limited Oxold IS a registered trade mark. Listeria monocytogenes: attributes and prevention of transmission by food EH Kampelmacher, DVM PhD, Professor-Emeritus, Food Microbiology and Hygiene, Agricultural University, Wageningen and OM Mossel, 8M, MA, PhD, Chair of Medical Food Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of the Science of Food of Animal Origin, Neth. Gov!. University, Utrecht, The Netherl ands. Pathogenic properties, clinical attributes of L, monocytogenes' always rely on the strictly quantitative prevalence and ecology Table 1: Lag times (days} of Listeria monocytogenes in comparison (i) the aUeged elevated heat resis· approach known as Holistic Risk 4oAI Listeria monocytogenes was discover­ to other psychrotrophic pathogens and spoilage agents, at tance,37 a point which we will Analysis. The essentials of the ed as a pathogen of animals and man temperatures ranging from 0 - 10 °C. discuss later: procedure will be summarlsed In the in the 1930'5,1 .2 As far as humans (Ii) the ability for relatively rapid next section. The result s allow an are concerned the organism was Temperature, °C growth at refrigeration tempera­ unbiased approach to the often initially Identified as a cause of tures, as Illustrated by the data in emotive subject of food·borne abortion In early pregnancy, stillbirth listeriOSIS, Orgamsms 0-1 2-3 5 7-8 9-10 Tables 1 and 2; Of a sepbCaeml(l (granulomatOSIS ~IO a marked tolerance of reduced Infanbsepuca) aher an unevenrful pH-values;38 Food transmitted listeriosis: blnh J ~ A hydrophila >22 6 -10 3-4 2 <I (iv) growth In the presence of over risk assessment Later, meningitis and flncephalitis In L.
    [Show full text]
  • VINELAND's FOOD SAFETY NEWSLETTER February 2015
    VINELAND’S FOOD SAFETY NEWSLETTER February 2015 Produced by the Vineland Health Department- May be copied! Vacuum packing- what you need to know before you start! Vacuum packaging of foods will extend the shelf life of potentially hazardous foods. However, there are some significant risks associated with this practice that must be controlled or you could kill or paralyze your customers. By removing the oxygen from the package, you leave the food much more likely to grow clostridium botulinum bacteria (cause of botulism) and Listeria monocytogenes. Botulism can cause paralysis to death. Listeria can cause miscarriages and death. Not a good idea! In order to safely vacuum package potentially hazardous foods, you must have a food safety expert create a special plan for you on how you will control these hazards. It is called a HACCP plan. This plan must be submitted to the Health Department for approval prior to starting the process. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to call us! Did you know…? Alternating sanitizers (such as quaternary Cut leafy greens are capable of growing ammonia and bleach- never together) may disease causing bacteria. The FDA help prevent Listeria from developing recommends that these food items be kept resistance to sanitizers and building under temperature controls. While not a NJ biofilms. law yet, it is a good practice to start now. Increasing sanitizer strength above the If your business wishes to or already recommended levels will not increase the donates food to an organization that amount of bacteria and viruses destroyed, redistributes to people in need, you need to but may result in harmful levels of let us know.
    [Show full text]
  • APPLICATION of QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS METHODS to IMPROVING MICROBIAL FOOD SAFETY in the U.S. and KENYA a Dissertation Presen
    APPLICATION OF QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS METHODS TO IMPROVING MICROBIAL FOOD SAFETY IN THE U.S. AND KENYA A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Matthew Stasiewicz May 2015 © 2015 Matthew Stasiewicz APPLICATION OF QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS METHODS TO IMPROVING MICROBIAL FOOD SAFETY IN THE U.S. AND KENYA Matthew Stasiewicz, Ph. D. Cornell University 2015 Risk analysis is an approach that guides efforts to reduce foodborne disease risk through the distinct activities of risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. In three projects, I improve two categories of risk analysis tools for two distinct food safety risks in two distinct geographic regions: risk assessment of the bacterial pathogen Listeria monocytogenes in the United States and risk management of the mycotoxins aflatoxin and fumonisin in Kenya. First, I use quantitative microbial risk assessment to show increasing high temperature, short time (HTST) pasteurization temperatures to respond to a bioterror threat would increase the risk of listeriosis from consuming pasteurized fluid milk. I incorporate experimental findings that increased HTST pasteurization temperatures (from 72°C to 82°C) increase outgrowth of L. monocytogenes following post-pasteurization contamination of fluid milk. Conservative estimates show annual listeriosis deaths would increase from 18 to 670, a 38-fold increase, if all U.S. fluid milk were pasteurized at the higher temperature. Second, I apply whole genome sequence technology to identify which repeatedly observed strains of L. monocytogenes are more likely persistent within individual delicatessens or are repeatedly reintroduced from outside sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Burden of Foodborne Diseases in the Netherlands
    Country experience Burden of Foodborne Diseases in the Netherlands Lapo Mughini-Gras, DVM PhD [email protected] Background ● Highly industrialized, densely populated country with high food safety standards ● FBDs still have substantial public health and economic impact ● Empirical approach (to generate evidence) for informing policy ● Performed by the RIVM yearly since 2008 under mandate of MoH ● Standard panel of 14 enteric pathogens 2 Burden of foodborne diseases in the Netherlands | 29-06-01 Metrics and health effects Pathogen D* GE GBS ReA IBD IBS HUS ESRD Hep Men ND AL CR CNS HC IC Campylobacter spp. X X X X X X STEC O157 X X X X Salmonella spp. X X X X X Infectious gastroenteritis Norovirus X X Rotavirus X X Cryptosporidium X X spp. Giardia lamblia X X B. cereus toxin X BoD measured Toxin C. perfringens toxin X X producers S. aureus toxin X X in DALYs L. monocytogenes - perinatal X X X - acquired X X X X Systemic Hepatitis-A virus X X infections Hepatitis-E virus X X Toxoplasma gondii - perinatal X X X X X - acquired X CoI (€) includes healthcare costs, costs for the patient and caregivers (e.g. travel, external care), productivity losses 3 Burden of foodborne diseases in the Netherlands | 29-06-01 Data sources • N: Incident cases Surveillance / studies • t: Duration of disease Scientific literature / own data • w: disability weight Scientific literature / GBD • D: mortatlity Statistics Netherlands • e: life expectancy at the age of death Statistics Netherlands = × × = × � � 4 Burden of foodborne diseases in the Netherlands | 29-06-01 5 Burden of foodborne diseases in the Netherlands | 29-06-01 Campylobacter spp.
    [Show full text]
  • Destruction of Escherichia Coli O157:H7, Salmonella, Listeria Monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus Aureus Achieved During Manufactu
    2034 Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 73, No. 11, 2010, Pages 2034–2042 Copyright G, International Association for Food Protection Destruction of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus Achieved during Manufacture of Whole-Muscle Beef Jerkyin Home-Style Dehydrators SARAH DIERSCHKE, STEVEN C. INGHAM, AND BARBARA H. INGHAM* Department of Food Science, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1605 Linden Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA MS 10-085: Received 27 February 2010/Accepted 9 July 2010 ABSTRACT Adequate lethality in jerky manufacture destroys appropriate levels of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus. Our goal was to evaluate the lethality of four home-style dehydrator processes against these pathogens. Whole-muscle beef strips were inoculated with L. monocytogenes (five strains), S. aureus (five strains), or a mixed inoculum of E. coli O157:H7 (five strains) and Salmonella (eight strains). After allowing for attachment, strips were marinated in Colorado-, Original-, or Teriyaki-seasoned marinade for 22 to 24 h and dried in three home-style dehydrators (Garden Master, Excalibur, and Jerky Xpress) at 57.2 to 68.3uC. Samples were taken postmarination; after 4, 6, and 8 h of drying; and after drying, followed by heating for 10 min in a 135uC oven. Surviving inocula were enumerated. With a criterion of $5.0- log CFU/cm2 reduction as the standard for adequate process lethality, none of the samples achieved the target lethality for any pathogen after 4 h of drying, even though all samples appeared ‘‘done’’ (water activity of less than 0.85). A postdehydration oven-heating step increased the proportion of samples meeting the target lethality after 4 h of drying to 71.9, 88.9, 55.6, and 77.8% for L.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf/66/3/382/1674080/0362-028X-66 3 382.Pdf by Guest on 01 October 2021 MS02-200:Received 20June 2002/ Accepted 18October 2002
    382 Journalof Food Protection, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2003, Pages 382– 389 Viabilityof Clostridiumperfringens, Escherichia coli, and Listeria monocytogenes SurvivingMild Heat or AqueousOzone Treatment onBeef Followedby Heat, Alkali,or Salt Stress † JOHN S.NOVAK 1* AND JAMES T.C.YUAN 2 1U.S.Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, EasternRegional Research Center,Microbial Food Safety Research Unit,600 East MermaidLane, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania 19038; and 2AmericanAir Liquide, Chicago Research Center,5230 South East Avenue, Countryside,Illinois 60525, USA Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/66/3/382/1674080/0362-028x-66_3_382.pdf by guest on 01 October 2021 MS02-200:Received 20June 2002/ Accepted 18October 2002 ABSTRACT Thethreat of pathogen survival following ozone treatment of meatnecessitates careful evaluation of themicroorganisms survivingunder such circumstances. The objective of this study was to determine whether sublethal aqueous ozone treatment (3 ppm of O3 for5 min)of microorganisms on beef surfaces would result in increased or decreased sur vivalwith respect to subsequentheat, alkali, or NaCl stress. A mildheat treatment (55 8Cfor30 min) was used for comparison. Reductions in three-straincocktails of Clostridiumperfringens, Escherichia coli O157:H7,and Listeriamonocytogenes onbeef following theheat treatment were 0.14, 0.77, and 1.47 log 10 CFU/g,respectively, whereas reductions following ozone treatment were 1.28,0.85, and 1.09 log 10 CFU/g,respectively. C.perfringens cellsexhibited elevated heat resistance at 60 8C (D60 [time at 608Crequiredto reduce the viable cell population by 1 log 10 unitsor 90%] 5 17.76min) following heat treatment of beef (558Cfor30 min) but exhibited reduced viability at 60 8Cfollowingozone treatment ( D60 5 7.64min) compared with the viabilityof untreated control cells ( D60 5 13.84min).
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Listeria Monocytogenes
    CONTROL OF LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES GUIDANCE FOR THE U.S. DAIRY INDUSTRY Page 1 Issued: October 15, 2015 Revised: June 14, 2017 The information provided herein is for informational purposes only. The Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy (“the Innovation Center”) makes no representation or warranty with respect to the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or suitability of any information contained herein. We recommend that practitioners consult an attorney concerning the laws applicable to any particular situation as well as their own scientific experts to evaluate the applicability of any recommendation to their particular situation. By utilizing the materials contained herein, you agree to release the Innovation Center from any and all liability that may result from your use of the information provided. Acknowledgements Authors: Edith Wilkin (Leprino Foods), Richard Brouillette (Commercial Food Sanitation), Julie Carver (Sargento Foods, Inc.), Brian Cords (Foremost Farms USA), Amandeep Dhillon (Michigan Milk Producers Association), Scott Hall (Leprino Foods), Tom Hedge (Schreiber Foods), David Kedzierski (Agrimark), Lori Ledenbach (Kraft Heinz, Inc.), Vickie Lewandowski (Saputo Cheese), Mindy Smith (Schreiber Foods), Joe Stout (Commercial Food Sanitation), Tim Stubbs (Dairy Management Inc.) Reviewers: John Allan (IDFA), Judy Fraser-Heaps (Land O’Lakes), Kathy Glass (UW - Food Research Institute), Clay Hough (IDFA), Janet Raddatz (Sargento Foods Inc.), Ben Warren (Land O’Lakes) Special Thanks To: John Sheehan (Food and Drug Administration),
    [Show full text]