When looking for Pathogens - Think Twice!

I have been on an Environmental Monitoring (EM) journey for the past 10 years and continue to be surprised by some of the assumptions around pathogen monitoring in our global food community.

So, let’s try to bust some myths, or at least start a discussion on four topics, close to my heart.

Myth 1: I have an EM program, so I do not have to test the final product.

Why do we test!?

Testing a food factory environment and our final product is to verify that our food safety controls are working.

I believe we cannot rely on EM alone, and testing the final product is an important additional verification step (what if one of the ingredients is contaminated for example?).

So, a strong verification program requires us to do both: environment and final product testing (and of course, include ingredient and in-process testing whilst we are at it).

Myth 2: If no pathogens are detected in the EM program, the program is flawed.

I have come across technicians swabbing the carpark of the factory; yes, the outside carpark! Turns out, an auditor raised a non-conformance because the factory failed to detect any pathogens in their EM program. The auditor position was: if you do not find any pathogens in your factory environment – your EM program is no good.

To me, we cannot judge an EM program based on the results. I have seen some very good EM programs that do not find pathogens. Could it be that the food safety controls in a food factory are very good, and pathogens just do not get a chance!?

If we do not find pathogens in our factory, we should review our plan and maybe look harder, but trying to get a positive result at all cost by swabbing the carpark is a waste of resources in my book.

Myth 3: Our final product results are clear, so the product is safe.

This one always makes me nervous. There are too many examples where products, that tested negative, still made people sick. When a factory routinely detects pathogens in the environment and accepts this situation, because the final product results are negative; it’s a ticking timebomb.

If we have pathogens in our factory, we need to act; because our food safety controls are not strong enough and we need to review our zoning controls, our hygienic design, our cleaning & sanitation and more. We may also want to increase our final product testing, just to be safe.

Remember when it comes to verification testing:

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence!

Myth 4: Faster is better.

This one will displease some of my followers!

In an age where “time is money” and diagnostics technology is giving us real-time, quick options; it pays to step back and take a break sometimes.

For a food business, pathogen testing is dangerous! It’s like going on a bear hunt and caution should be our top priority.

If we use more than one method for pathogens, and the test results do not align, we are in danger of the “method” debate, where the discussion quickly turns from: “We have found a pathogen!” to “which method/result is right?”.

I recommend using only one, very good, validated test method for all routine pathogen tests (EM and final product). Whilst quick pathogen tests may help us in tracebacks, I would not use them for a routine EM program or worse: line clearance.

When going on a bear hunt, it’s care over speed.

But that’s just me!

Jack

Disclaimer: this article is my personal opinion and does not reflect the position or policies of my employer(s).