1 / 14

EFSA, Parma, May 29 to June 1, 2012 Prepared by Japan and Finland

Physical WG on the REVISION OF THE PRINCIPLES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND APPLICATION OF MICROBIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR FOODS. EFSA, Parma, May 29 to June 1, 2012 Prepared by Japan and Finland. History of the revision of MC. 41 st CCFH (2009) : Agreed thr project document of the New Work

ita
Download Presentation

EFSA, Parma, May 29 to June 1, 2012 Prepared by Japan and Finland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Physical WG on the REVISION OF THE PRINCIPLES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT ANDAPPLICATION OF MICROBIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR FOODS EFSA, Parma, May 29 to June 1, 2012 Prepared by Japan and Finland

  2. History of the revision of MC • 41st CCFH (2009) : Agreed thr project document of the New Work • 1stpWG in Tokyo (2010) • 33rd CAC (2010), Agreed the new work • 42nd CCFH (Uganda) • 2ndpWG in Grange (2011) • 43rd CCFH in session WG and the plenary • to restructure the main document, as proposed by Australia with modifications; • to retain the three categories of microbiological criteria, as the concepts could be useful; and • to focus on food safety criteria and process hygiene criteria and not to address food processing environment criteria at this time. • 3rdpWG in Parma (EFSA) in 2012

  3. MAIN ASPECTS TO BE COVERED • Guidance will be introduced in the document to reflect current best practice regarding the utility of microbiological criteria in the context of specific applications. The following aspects are required attention:

  4. MAIN ASPECTS TO BE COVERED • the principles of establishing microbiological criteria for within-lot evaluation of food product acceptability, • the principles for establishing microbiological criteria for between-lot evaluation of food product • acceptability in relation to verification of process control, effectiveness of HACCP programs, and other trend analysis application, • the appropriate roles of microbiological testing for verification of process control within the context of HACCP and validation of control measures, • the establishment and interpretation of microbiological criteria related to hygiene indicator microorganisms, • the principles and practices for relating the stringency of a microbiological criterion to required or recommended risk management outcomes; i.e., means for relating the performance of sampling plans for both within-lot and between-lot applications to food safety risk management metrics (e.g., FSO, PO, PC), • Actions to be taken in case of non-compliance to microbiological criteria and other risk management metrics ( e.g., PO, PC), • the role of microbiological testing to monitor environments in which foods are exposed and the establishment of performance criteria by competent authorities and industry to indicate an acceptable level of control.

  5. The scope of the work in the project document • bringing the establishment and application of microbiological criteria for foods by governments andindustry in line with the latest knowledge and practices. • introducing the new risk management metrics (Food Safety Objective (FSO), Performance Objective(PO), and Performance Criterion (PC)) developed in the framework of microbiological risk managementand other quantitative microbiological limits (e.g., process control based criteria, testing for HACCPverification) not currently dealt with in the general guidance document. • providing guidance on the relationship between microbiological criteria, risk management metrics andother quantitative microbiological limits according to the latest knowledge and practice, including theapplication of microbiological criteria in the context of risk metrics and other quantitativemicrobiological limits

  6. Terms of References of the pWG (para 56 of the 43rd CCFH report ) • elaborate an Annex with practical examples on the establishment and application of microbiologicalcriteria for different purposes through electronic means by teams of two or more countries; • finalize these practical examples; and • review and complete the main document based on the examples and the comments received before and during the current session

  7. Elaboration of practical examples • To elaborate practical examples, through electronic means by teams of two or more countries (lead country and two or more collaborating countries). • Support from the Codex Trust Fund • facilitate the active participation of developing • January to April 2012

  8. Example Drafting teams Example 1: A GHP-based approach. • Drafting team: European Union (lead), Benin, Cameroon, Ghana and Panama. Example 2: Microbiological Criterion is established for food to assess the acceptability of a food lot. • Drafting team: United States of America (lead), Argentina, Thailand and Uruguay. Example 3a: Microbiological Criterion is established for the food to verify the performance of a HACCP System • Drafting team: IDF (lead), Bolivia, Gambia, and Nigeria. Example 3b: Microbiological Criterion is established for the food to verify the performance of a Food Safety Control System. • Drafting team: New Zealand (lead), Costa Rica, Kenya, Kiribati and Samoa. Example 4: Microbiological Criterion is established for a high prevalence foodborne pathogen for a risk based approach. • Drafting team: Denmark (lead), Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Senegal and ALA. Example 5a: Operationalising a Performance Objective with a Microbiological Criterion for a risk-based approach. • Drafting team: Canada (lead), Brazil, France and India. Example 5b: Operationalising a Performance Objective with a Microbiological Criterion for a risk-based approach. Drafting team: United States of America (lead) and Brazil.

  9. the circulation on 27th April 2012 The purposes of this circulation are: 1.   To request comments on the document Proposed Draft Revision of Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods”  based on the review of the examples. Please identify missing / inappropriate parts, or area which needs to be modified  in the document, in light of the 7 examples. 2.   To request comments on the examples. Specifically, we would like to pose the following questions: Q1: Are these examples useful in order to understand different types of microbiological criteria and their application?  Q2:  Should we keep the examples as an Annex to the MC document? Q3: if the answer to the Q2 is “Yes”, then please answer what the examples Annex should look like? Please address issues such as: the levels of detail, length, etc.

  10. Comments received • ARGENTINA, EU, FRANCE, NEW ZEALAND, PERU, US, Switzerland and Belgium

  11. Presentations of examples • To understand the backgrounds and contents of examples • To identify lessons learned through the drafting exercise • To identify the missing text in the main document to reflect the examples • identify some key points from your examples that might be useful for inclusion or consideration in the main document,

  12. Main document • Discussed at the Grange pWG • Fix 1-4 • Focus on Sec. 5 (5.1 to 5.6)

  13. Future of the examples Option 1: Attached to the maindocument Option 2: extract math parts, and send FAO/WHO to integrate

  14. Time Table

More Related