> 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?
I would like to say that we do use qualified microbiologists both
inside and outside our organization, more so than most seafood
companies in North America. But, I know of no laboratory, private or
public that does not use laboratory technicians rather than
"accredited microbiologists" to clean test tubes, autoclave new and
used media and do all or at least most of the more mundane jobs in
the lab. In reality, the lab techs have more contact with pathogens
than the microbiologists. I would be surprised if such labs in the
UK and Europe don't use laboratory and food technicians too!
I offer that it's not sensible or economically justifiable for every
food producer to us a microbiologist on every shift to take swabs. I
would be similar to requiring a Class A Mechanic to drive a taxi or a
Certified Account to carry the cheques into the bank. Using a
qualified food technician or technologist to take environmental swabs
allows a company to use the expertise of their trained microbiologist
more effectively. And that benefits everyone!
> 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.
>
I would offer that HACCP programs fall apart if they are too
dependent on microbiologists! The HACCP programs are most effective
if they are centered around the people that actually do the work! As
in most companies I sure, our food microbiologist does not pack one
gram of seafood and cannot be out on the line as often as the QC
inspectors. (Although we do have one QC inspector who is a registered
lab microbiologist.)
I suggest that the role of the microbiologist is to add his or
her expertise to the people that do the real work producing products
and the moment to moment decision making. He or she is effective if
they can help the food handlers, food technicians and management with
their understanding and skills related to microbiological issues. A
food microbiologist should be the resource person, not the principle
player. If the HACCP program is designed to be dependent on the
microbiologist at all times, surely it is doomed to fail!
Long accredited methods have their place. We use them. But they tend
to be slow at returning results. For example, the accredited method
of taking swabs for faecal coliforms involves first incubating in
one medium for 24 hours then transfering and incubating for another
24 hours. A lot of product can be packed in the additional 24 hours,
particularly in a seasonal fishery. The results are not be as
meaningful to the people on the line the older they are. In addition
twice as many can be done with the same amount of effort. We've done
some internal studies and found no differences in the laboratory
results one method to another. But using a fast method has resulted
in better feedback and faster corrections than the longer method.
The method is not used to certify product or anything of that nature.
Just to provide rapid feedback. So which one benefits the consumer?
The producer? And actual product testing takes longer still!
The faster accredited ATP based swabs are nice. But if you try it in
a real seafood plant the ATP from the muscle will only confuse the
ATP measurements from bacteria. And management, swamped with numbers
does not need 50 swabs each with different readings. At one time,
before becoming more experienced, I thought that was the way to go.
But any manager's eye's in any company, will just glaze over if they
can see a trend in a sheet of numbers in a few minutes, or if they
can't simply compare today's results to yesterday's. The meaning of
the results gets lost in the complexity.
In short a good food microbiologist in a food plant should be working
to make him or herself dispensable not indispensable. The goal will
probably never be reached, thank heavens. But, by seeking the goal
the microbiologist involves others in the pursuit to improve food
quality and safety of the products you produce and that your
consumers appreciate. Quality and safety goes up and that's what
counts!
Steve Saunders
------------------------------------------------------
Steve Saunders, Quality Assurance and Technical Training
National Sea Products Ltd., Lunenburg, Nova Scotia
saundrs@natsea.ca, ssaunder@fox.nstn.ca
Home tel. 902-624-9361
Work tel. 902-634-8811 ext 3427 Work fax. 902-634-4785
Personal web page: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~chess/Profile.html
--------------------------------------------------------