Both have their place, and it would be silly to only allow/require one or
the other.
Dennis Thomas
Sealord Group, NZ
----------
From: Donald Gibson
To: seafood@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Sanitation testing
Date: Thursday, 12 November 1998 07:00pm
Last week, Steve Saunders described a microbiological sanitation test and
added..
The test is not sophisticated and technically incubation in Laural
Sulphate Broth first followed by a transfer should be done. But at
the risk of a few false positives, we can use a method that doesn't
require a microbiologist. Anyone with a little technical expertise
can do it. Perhaps more importantly, the micro - information turn
around time is fast, easy to understand and simple to track over
the long term.
My concern is the phrase - does not require a microbiologist.
Why not use a proper microbiologist? Is this common practice in North
America?
In the UK and Europe, laboratories use accredited methods, facilities and
trained qualified staff and
the laboratory results are credible. The AOAC International is promoting
similar systems. Apart
from the health and safety aspects of culturing potential pathogens in a
factory environment with
unqualified staff, thus compromising the safety of the products, are
unqualified personnel used in
other operations, such as finance (an unqualified accountant),
transportation (unlicensed drivers)
etc., or is it only for microbiology?
At the Washington HACCP conference in 1996, a representative from Saunders'
company gave
one of the best papers. If the practice of avoiding the use of
microbiologists is common in the
company, then their whole HACCP falls apart. There are proper and
accredited methods for
microbiological testing which give rapid results but only when used properly
by a qualified person.
Donald Gibson
Biodon International