Poultry Plants: Reducing Salmonella And Campylobacter Consumer Risk

The draft compliance guideline’s sections on microbiological testing will be briefly discussed in this post, and issues with Salmonella and Campylobacter will be highlighted.

Chicken and Pathogens

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), non-typhoidal Salmonella is responsible for roughly 1.2 million foodborne infections in the United States each year, and acute Salmonellosis is thought to be responsible for 450 fatalities. The typical symptoms of a Salmonella infection include nausea, vomiting, fever, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps. The majority of the Salmonella bacterium is found in animals. Many animals’ digestive tracts, including chickens, may naturally have salmonella. It frequently resides in their typical flora. Salmonella is a bacteria that can be found in feces, thus chickens can get it from the ground or possibly contaminated feed.

Several poultry factories keep barns covered so no wild birds come into touch with the hens to limit the likelihood that the animals would contract Salmonella from the environment. Yet, there is a possibility that bacteria from the intestines could contaminate the finished product during slaughter and processing. Around two million people are affected by Campylobacter each year in the United States, making it one of the most prevalent causes of diarrheal sickness. During two to five days of exposure, campylobacteriosis, an infectious condition brought on by this bacteria, manifests as fever, cramps, diarrhea, and stomach pain. The ideal growth range for Campylobacter jejuni is between 37 to 42 °C, or almost the same as a bird’s body temperature. This delicate bacteria may be carried by birds without making them sick, but raw or undercooked fowl can spread the infection. 

Proposed Compliance Guideline for FSIS

The draught advice document, now in its fourth revision, aims to help poultry facilities manage Salmonella and Campylobacter. When developing food safety systems, FSIS says that it’s crucial to take both pathogens into account for removal. The draft guideline specifically advises that food laboratories use the results of microbiological testing to track how well their Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) system is working. The proposed guideline’s main goal is to make poultry facilities’ management procedures better. For instance, federally inspected facilities are required to execute a hazard analysis that keeps an eye out for potential threats to food safety before, during, and after entrance. To eliminate or lessen these risks, a HACCP strategy is implemented. Protocols including environmental monitoring, water testing, and verification may be used in addition to using the results of microbiological tests.

Poultry facilities may carry out microbiological testing themselves or have a third-party laboratory do so for a variety of reasons, such as:

  • Assisting with judgements including a hazard analysis
  • Assessing the success of a sanitation program
  • Meeting customer standards
  • Adhering to legal requirements. 
  • Supporting the ongoing verification of a HACCP plan. 

The FSIS claims that it is “very simple to identify the segment of the process where control has been lost” by doing microbiological studies at various points within a process. The draught guideline strongly advises employing statistical process control to monitor and evaluate the data gathered from continuous HACCP verification (SPC). Lower statistical control limits may misrepresent the existence of process control problems, and higher limits may fail to detect potential process flaws, according to the draught guideline. The draught guideline strongly advises employing statistical process control to monitor and evaluate the data gathered from continuous HACCP verification (SPC). Lower statistical control limits may misrepresent the existence of process control problems, and higher limits may fail to detect potential process flaws, according to the draught guideline.

FSIS advises establishments to refer to the Establishment Guidelines for the Selection of a Commercial or Private Microbiological Testing Laboratory to learn more about the relevant testing requirements when choosing a microbiological testing laboratory. The components of a well-designed microbiological sampling program, according to FSIS, include:

  • intended use of testing programs
  • organisms that will be tested
  • products that will be tested
  • sample collection methods and locations
  • checks to ensure sample integrity
  • methods for analyzing samples
  • laboratories performing the analyses
  • techniques for evaluating test results
  • actions taken in response to test results.

Only pathogen testing, according to FSIS, can reliably confirm that infections are managed to safe levels in finished goods. Indicator organisms can show that a situation has been under control, and routine pathogen testing can confirm that the establishment is bringing pathogen levels down to acceptable levels, the agency adds.

Establishments should direct testing laboratories to any relevant testing methodologies, including those outlined in this compliance guidance, according to FSIS advice. Establishments that “…choose a laboratory that does not utilize acceptable testing methodologies of effective Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) practices may not acquire dependable or meaningful testing findings,” according to the government, risk not receiving accurate or useful test results. Despite the fact that this version of the compliance guideline is marked as a draught, FSIS suggests that its suggestions may be applied to the agency’s current decision-making procedures.