The threat of foreign-object contamination in meat and poultry is becoming more prominent.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is requesting comments on a guideline to assist meat and poultry industry operators in developing written programs for responding to consumer complaints about adulterated or misbranded products.
The guideline results from an increase in the number of recalls of meat and poultry products contaminated with foreign materials, the agency says.
“In many cases, the recalling establishments had received multiple customer complaints before these recalls, "the FSIS reports". While FSIS specifically developed this document to address foreign-material customer complaints, establishments can apply the information to other customer complaints of adulterated or misbranded products in commerce. FSIS encourages establishments that may receive customer complaints for adulterated or misbranded meat and poultry products to follow this guideline.”
The FSIS says that a product containing foreign materials is adulterated even when a physical food safety hazard is not present. The organization recommends that industry participants begin using the guideline and says that it could update the document in response to suggestions.
“The amount of time a product is spending in contact with machines leads to a higher likelihood of contamination by those machines,” he says. "Robust preventative maintenance programs and the use of metal detectors are essential to limiting this risk, but are not 100 percent effective.”Indeed, he says the “biggest issue” is contamination from the metal shavings, shards or pieces coming from such machinery as grinders, mixers, cutters, slicers and dicers.
A host of prospective hazards
Other potential contaminants include wood, nails and screws from pallets; knife blade pieces; plastics from machine parts, including plungers and guides; and pieces from rubber gloves, pens and markers falling from employee frock pockets, Fuller says.
Metal adulterants often result from machinery vibration, which can cause nuts and bolts to loosen over time, while plastic contaminants frequently develop from wear to conveyor belts and guards, says Betsy Kaesontae, manager of Managed Services North America at NSF International, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based food safety auditing firm and standards developer.“If not properly managed, equipment parts can fall in the production line and into the product itself,” she says.
Poultry incidents frequently occur during the slaughter process when rips in workers' gloves create debris, says Andrew Lorenz, president of We R Food Safety, a Menomonie, Wis.-based food safety-consulting firm.
He says poor machine maintenance is a common trigger for red meat contamination, noting, “modern equipment is complex, resulting in more wear points,” which leads to unsecured machine parts.
Unstable machinery, along with meat and poultry plant layouts that make products more vulnerable to contaminants, are key causes of incidents, says John Butts, adviser to the chief executive officer at Land O' Frost, a Lansing, Ill.-based lunchmeat supplier, and principal of St. John, Ind.-based consulting firm Food Safety By Design.
“Wear points on machinery that is not perfectly aligned can produce loose metal,” he says, as can the disassembly of complex equipment for cleaning and upgrades.
“As equipment and facilities age, the risk typically increases,” Butts says.
Faster run rates and larger batch sizes of products also can trigger incidents, Fuller says, adding that “as volume increases, the chances of contamination increase intrinsically when scaling any program or operation.”
When regulations are not enough
Incidents involving contamination of meat and poultry from foreign objects occur despite a host of federal guidelines intended to curb such issues.
The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) requirements, for instance, require operators to determine the food safety hazards that are reasonably likely to occur in the production process and identify the preventive measures they can apply to control the hazards.
The Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure (Sanitation SOP) regulatory measure obligates a plant to establish procedures that it will conduct daily, before and during operations that are sufficient to prevent direct contamination or adulteration of products.
In addition, the Sanitation Performance Standards (SPS) state products must be protected from adulteration during processing, handling, storage, loading and unloading at and during transportation from official establishments.
However, another specification, the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), is contributing to a rise in product recalls, says Betsy Kaesontae, manager of Managed Services North America at NSF International, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based food safety auditing firm and standards developer.
The FMSA provides the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the authority to issue a mandatory recall when a company fails to voluntarily recall unsafe food, she notes.
Give attention to incident prevention
Quality assurance personnel who primarily collect data also should undergo the necessary food safety training so they too can spot and move to eliminate possible sources of contamination, Kaesontae says.
“Using both in-person oversight through internal audits and inspections, as well as implementing proper technology, can help catch an issue once it's already arisen and before the product ships,” Fuller says. “But the best way to limit contamination is through proper and robust preventative maintenance of all equipment to ensure that all parts are properly aligned, lubricated and have smooth surfaces to avoid shavings or shards from flaking off machines and going into products.”
Keep tabs on the appropriate technology
Along with metal detectors, major tools for locating adulterants include X-ray devices, inline screens, sieves and magnets, Bucknavage says.
Because foreign objects often become smaller during processing, it is challenging to pinpoint all articles, Butts says.
Many processors, meanwhile, lack the manpower to visually inspect every item, Lorenz says, adding “there is a balance between keeping costs down, providing affordable products and dealing with the risks of a contamination event.”
Because animal inherent materials, such as bone or cartilage, can be especially difficult to spot, it is important for processors to keep a strong focus on their preventive programs and enhance their equipment and food safety processes as necessary, says Jorge Correa, vice president, market access and technical affairs, for the Ottawa-based Canadian Meat Council.
Nevertheless, he says, “Technology is becoming more sophisticated and able to detect extraneous materials more efficiently. Meat companies keep improving their food safety systems with technology advances and adding X-ray systems to go with the metal detectors that are already in place.”
Incorporating such equipment in processing plants, however, can be cumbersome.
Pre-operational technology inspections to identify such threats as loose screws and pieces of plastic and metal also are essential, she says.
Recognizing the threat of adulteration is the first step, and the key factor, in protecting meat and poultry, Butts says.
“Locating the potential risks, followed by the development of preventive practices, is critical,” he says, adding that processors also can reduce incidents by measuring and validating the effectiveness of their food safety protocols.
Lorenz says it is important for operators to monitor their acceptance quality limit (AQL), an inspection standard that pinpoints the worst tolerable quality level.
In addition, plants need to confirm their Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs) are working effectively, he says. The FSIS requires processors to have SSOPs, which are specific, written procedures for cleaning and sanitizing production facilities to prevent product adulteration.
