Consider These 3 Things When Choosing A Pathogenic-Testing Method
By Laurel Maloy, contributing writer, Food Online
Ideal testing solutions will depend upon a facility’s specific requirements and can significantly impact its brand as well as its bottom line
The guilty verdict in one of the largest foodborne illness related cases in American history has underlined both the government’s commitment to food safety and the public’s outrage. The voice of the jury, the defendants’ peers, speak volumes for the future of food safety and corporate responsibility.
Pathogenic testing is essential. In the case mentioned above, Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) had actually performed the tests. However, in an effort to keep up with customer demands and protect its bottom line, the facility shipped the product prior to obtaining the test results. After the product was shipped and test results confirmed its adulteration, PCA execs covered up and lied about the test results, rather than issuing a recall. Even if PCA had done the right thing and issued the recall, the subsequent investigation would have revealed it’s wrong-doing. PCA would have been held accountable, though it may not have ended up in criminal court and the resultant penalty would not have been as high.
Is your company prepared for a recall? Here are 7 steps to help you get through the process
Testing for pathogens takes time, while waiting for the results is even more time consuming. Finding the most-reliable and effective screening methods to coordinate with a plant’s production requirements can be challenging. Technology is advancing in order to provide faster and more-accurate results. But, until newer testing and verification techniques are available, there are some dynamics to consider, regardless if the testing is done in-house or by a third party:
Accuracy
Utilizing automated sample analysis, rather than manual processes, will minimize the prospects for testing errors. A facility’s first priority should be to find a testing method that improves overall accuracy. Production schedules can be adjusted in the name of food safety. Do not hesitate to communicate a renewed commitment to food safety to your consumers. A one-day delay in shipping will be forgiven in lieu of a potentially deadly and costly outcome. Thoroughly analyzing the available options and choosing the best to fit your facility’s production processes will ultimately protect your brand and ensure product integrity.
Protect Your Brand: Ensuring Food Safety With A Quality Management System
Turn-Around Time
This is probably the largest point of contention for food processors. It’s a necessary evil, one that doesn’t sit well with most. Able to have a significant impact on production schedules, and therefore a facility’s bottom line, nail-biting while awaiting test results is no one’s idea of fun. There are four things that influence turn-around times:
- Sample collection time
- Time needed to run the test accurately
- Time to ship to an outside laboratory
- Individual laboratory workflow
Reducing any time in any of these four variables can decrease the time it takes to get an unadulterated, safe product to the end consumer. The answer may be to switch laboratories or to invest in an on-site lab. Compare the turn-around cost to that of gaining a quicker response. FSMA’s lab-accreditation requirements may negatively impact turn-around times for a period of time. Exploring testing methodologies, such as automated sample collection versus manual, can result in substantial time savings, sometimes saving as much as 24 hours.
Certification & Validation
Each type of food presents its own set of challenges for accurate pathogenic testing. The testing method must be approved for a facility’s specific product(s). The Association of Analytical Communities (AOAC) sets the global standards for testing methodology for specific food types. Though not a regulated requirement, utilizing pathogenic testing recognized by the AOAC will offer a level of protection another methodology may not. In the absence of AOAC validation, the laboratory you use must be able to provide appropriate verification that its methods and testing conditions have been certified.
Food Safety Initiatives are Pushing Hard for Food Testing Lab Accreditation. The FDA has not yet fully weighed in on this topic, though it is addressed in FSMA, Sec. 202, for imports. It is expected that in our ever-expanding, global, food-supply chain, the same accreditation will be required across the board. This may be one more consideration to include in your search for the most cost-effective and efficient way to ensure the safety of your product(s).