Food Protection Trends - December 2008 - (Page 921)

TABLE 2. Food safety technologies used by meat and poultry processors, by HACCP size (percentage of plants) Technology Metal detection equipment Conveyor belts made of materials to prevent bacterial growth Bioluminescent testing system for preoperative sanitation checks Decontamination interventions Application of antimicrobial chemicals High-pressure processing Infrared technology Irradiation equipment Other types of pasteurization 25.3 2.1 0.5 0.8 7.5 42.2+++ 7.2+++ 4.2+++ 0.3 14.6+++ 63.1 10.7 9.6 1.2 20.2 32.5 4.2 2.1 0.6 10.4 Very Small 7.6 13.8 6.9 Small 60.5+++ 40.6+++ 29.9+++ Large 92.9 39.3 64.4 All Plants 29.3 24.3 16.8 +++ = Difference between small and very small plants is statistically significant at 0.01 level. ++ = Difference between small and very small plants is statistically significant at 0.05 level. + = Difference between small and very small plants is statistically significant at 0.10 level. = Difference between large and very small plants is statistically significant at 0.01 level. ** = Difference between large and very small plants is statistically significant at 0.05 level. * = Difference between large and very small plants is statistically significant at 0.10 level. and other pathogens during processing operations to meet current and proposed performance standards. These technologies might include conveyor belts made of materials designed to prevent bacterial growth, or decontamination interventions such as the use of antimicrobial chemicals, pasteurization, or high-pressure processing. Table 2 presents the percentage of plants that use various food safety technologies, by HACCP size. Less than one-third of all plants use each of the technologies asked about in the survey, although small and large plants report significantly higher usage of these technologies than very small plants (P < 0.01). Large plants can justify the investment in new technologies because of economies of scale and the possibility of a large loss of market share in the event of a food safety incident (12). Table 3 shows the percentage of plants that use various food safety technologies, by the type of product produced. Generally, plants that produce RTE product or produce inputs used in further processing are more likely to use these technologies than plants that produce NRTE product (note that some plants produce multiple product types). This is not surprising, given that NRTE products will later go through lethality treatments and that plants producing inputs to further processing often must meet buyers’ purchase specifications for food safety. For example, plants producing RTE product are more likely to use other types of pasteurization or antimicrobial chemicals than plants that produce NRTE product (P < 0.01). Irradiation is used infrequently but most often used by plants that produce raw, not ground, primal cuts of beef, pork, or chicken. High-pressure processing and infrared technology are also used infrequently but are most often used by plants that produce fully cooked, not-shelf-stable beef, pork, chicken, or turkey products. Current PR:HACCP regulations require that plants have a sanitation plan, follow the plan, and keep records of sanitation practices; however, plants have some flexibility in choosing what practices to follow. Sanitation is particularly important for establishments producing RTE products because of the high risk of foodborne illness due to postlethality contamination prior to packaging. More than two-thirds of all plants used each of the sanitation practices that we asked about in the survey, as shown in Table 4. Use of sanitation practices and other food safety practices were similar across plant size. Smaller plants are more likely to use sanitation practices rather than technologies to achieve food safety, presumably because of the higher cost of installing and maintaining food safety technologies. Other practices that processors might employ to assist in achieving food safety include conducting audits of their operations, protecting against bioterrorism, and controlling hazardous chemicals (see Tables 4 and 5). Many of these practices are similar to those in the best practices guidelines developed by the Beef Industry Food Safety Council (BIFSCO). For producers of raw ground product, BIFSCO recommends selecting raw material suppliers based on their controls for food safety and foreign material contamination and their product testing (1). Furthermore, based on Scanga et al. (14), one of the most DECEMBER 2008 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 921

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - December 2008

Food Protection Trends - December 2008 Contents Sustaining Members Perspectives from Your President Commentary from the Executive Director Observed Hand Washing Behaviors of Young Adults during Food Preparation Adoption of Interventions to Improve Food Safety at Meat and Poultry Processing Plants in the United States Call for Awards – IAFP 2009 Affiliate Officers IAFP Committee, PDG, Task Force and Affiliate Council Mission Statements New Members What’s Happening in Food Safety Industry Products Coming Events Index to Volume 28 Advertising Index IAFP Financial Report Journal of Food Protection Table of Contents Audiovisual Library Order Form Booklet Order Form Membership Application

Food Protection Trends - December 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.