The performance of food safety management systems in poultry processing using a microbial assessment scheme and a diagnostic instrument

Introduction Salmonella spp. and in particular Campylobacter spp. were by far the most frequently reported causes of food borne zoonoses in humans in the European Union (EU) in 2006. Poultry meat has been implicated as one of the main sources of these human infections. Although the Belgian poultry sector invested several years in research, implemented severe European hygiene legislation (e.g. EU Regulation 853/2004) in their Food Safety Management System (FSMS) and are certified against different international acknowledged Quality Assurance (QA) standards (e.g. ISO22000, BRC), contamination with pathogens, such as Campylobacter, still occur. Methods Two recent developed tools, ‘Microbial Assessment Scheme’ (MAS) (Jacxsens et al., 2009) and ‘Food Safety Management System Diagnostic Instrument’ (FSMS-DI) (Luning et al., 2008; 2009) were applied to measure the microbiological performance of the current FSMS of two operators in the poultry supply chain with focus on chicken meat preparations, previously subjected to a nationwide Belgian Campylobacter survey (Habib et al., 2008; Sampers et al., 2008). By adoption of the MAS protocol, a more in-depth assessment of the actual microbial performance of the FSMS output of the two poultry meat preparation companies was acquired. MAS supports in deciding on where and how to take a sample, at what frequency, how to prepare a sample, how to conduct microbial analyses, how to interpret results and judge the outcome in perspective of the FSMS. Further a FSMS-DI was used in an in-depth interview with the QA person(s) of the respective companies to assess levels of core control and assurance activities as addressed in the FSMS and to judge the risk level of the context wherein the system has to operate. The FSMS-DI consists of a set of indicators and grids to analyze the current FSMS. Results Both companies had to deal with high-risk product and process characteristics, which put high demands on the level of design and actual operation of the crucial control and assurance in their FSMS. The MAS showed that one company had a well functioning FSMS, expressed in terms of low microbial numbers in the final products and small variations in microbial counts. For the other company, high microbial numbers were found in the poultry samples as well as environmental samples, which could be explained by inadequacies in operational performance of the core control activities. Campylobacter spp. can be spread out during processing due to lack of process control and effective GHP, resulting in high prevalence and high counts. Possible causes were faecal contamination, which might be due to malfunctioning or wrong tuned evisceration, cross contamination during processing, and inadequate personal hygiene. With the diagnostic instrument differences could be found on the level of CCP-control, verification and validation (assurance), and in context risk due to differences in process characteristics, organizational support and chain dependency. Conclusions The fact that no physical intervention processes or intervention methods can be (yet) applied in combination with the high initial counts at the incoming materials creates a conflicting situation for the companies. This insight could enhance the discussion with risk managers regarding the acceptance of no or limited interventions steps in production processes in the poultry chain. Moreover, a discussion about ‘can we accept this risk and rely on good cooking practices by consumers?’ could be initiated. Last but not least risk managers need to be aware that certified FSMS based on sound HACCP plans, GMP, PRP and legal requirements is, in the specific case of poultry meat production, not a guarantee for absence of pathogens and a good food safety output