Analysis of Submissions: Code of Practice - Processing of Poultry Chapter 9: Secondary Processing

Code of Practice - Processing of Poultry Chapter 9: Secondary Processing

No.

Clause

Submission comment¹

NZFSA Response

1

Purpose and scope

The second paragraph of this section states “...and finishes at the point of further processing (e.g. heat treatment)”. Industry notes that further processing may include treatments other than heat treatment. As such, Industry suggests that the sentence is reworded to “This chapter on secondary processing covers processing after dressing and primary chilling, or from the receipt of product from a primary processor, and finishes at the point of further processing (as defined in section 1.3 of this document)”.

Agreed, document amended accordingly.

Definitions

1, 2

Further processing

Is currently defined as “any heat treatments (such as flash frying/parfrying, curing, smoking and cooking, etc.) and includes any associated forming, crumbing, coating and comminution after the heat treatment. As it currently stands, this definition would capture many of the further processing steps which are associated with but occur prior to heat treatment. Industry does not believe that this is the intent of the definition and suggests that the definition is clarified as follows: Further processing in relation to this COP means any heat treatments (such as flash frying/parfrying, curing, smoking and cooking, etc.) and includes any associated forming crumbing and coating. Comminution which occurs after heat treatment is also included in the definition of further processing.

Rewording the definition as suggested would not adequately address this issue. This chapter currently addresses crumbing, coating and comminution that occurs before heat treatment. Any crumbing, coating or comminution that occurs after heat treatment and is applied to cooked product will be covered in the Further Processing chapter if it is considered necessary.

The current wording will be amended slightly to remove reference to forming as industry have indicted that forming does not occur after heat treatment.

1

Rework (noun)

Is currently defined as “product that has been through some or all of the process and is reintroduction at an earlier stage in the process”. Industry suggests that this should read “product that has been through some or all of the process and is reintroduced at an earlier stage in the process”.

Agreed, document amended accordingly.

3

Sanitise

Means the application of an appropriate processing aid, approved maintenance compound or physical agent to minimise microbial contamination to an acceptable level. Comment: in a case if the initial contamination at a high level

If the qualifier “to an acceptable level” is added, it then raises the question of what this level may be. The NZFSA does not believe this is necessary at this time. We also would not want to imply that verification testing to confirm that an acceptable level has been achieved is expected.

1, 2

Use by Date

Industry notes that a definition has been included for Use by Date. Industry suggests that if this is to be included, then a definition for the more commonly used Best Before Date should also be included in the list of definitions. Industry suggests that both definitions should be referenced to the Food Standards Code.

This definition and its use of the term in the COP has been deleted. As identified by industry the labelling requirements in the Food Standards Code do not apply to ingredients used in manufacturing. The definition for “Best Before Date” has not been included as the term has not been used in the document. The use of a “Best Before Date” usually relates to issues around quality rather than food safety and so have not been addressed within the COP.

Procedures for Compliance

1

3.1.3 Temperature Control During Processing

Industry notes that the second sentence of this section starts “If the core temperature ...”. Industry notes that “core temperature” is not referred to in the remainder of the document and queries whether “core” should be removed from this sentence.

Agreed, document amended accordingly.

1

3.4 Boning and Size Reduction

The first sentence in the first box of this section states “As a minimum, checks on blades, knives and needles should occur at the end of each production day to ensure no breaks, chips or missing items”. Industry suggests that this sentence should be made mandatory. The rest of the text in the box should remain as guidance material.

Agreed, document amended accordingly.

1, 2

3.4 Boning and Size Reduction

The first sentence in the second box of this section suggests that it is possible to eliminate bone from boneless products. Unfortunately this is not practical in a commercial environment. We therefore suggest that the first sentence is reworded as follows: “Checks for bone in boneless product should be conducted at a frequency sufficient to accurately monitor their occurrence, and appropriate action taken in the event that levels found exceed the defined process capability”.

Agreed, document amended accordingly.

1, 2

3.4.2 Mechanically Separated Meat (MSM)

Industry believes that it is unnecessary for the NZFSA to apply microbiological criteria to this product and therefore does not support the inclusion of the microbiological criteria in Chapter 9: Secondary Processing.

Industry is opposed to the inclusion of the proposed standard for a number of reasons.

NZFSA will not apply the microbiological criteria until further evidence is available to support this requirement. We are in the process of identifying those poultry products that may pose a higher risk for campylobacter, and at this stage MSM has been identified as a possible product. NZFSA is therefore considering collecting evidence as part of the Campylobacter Strategy. Once this information has been collected the NZFSA will work with industry to determine whether a microbiological criteria should be included in the chapter and if so the criteria that should be applied. The presence of Staphylococcus aureus may also be investigated.

- MSM is not sold at retail but is sold only to food manufacturers for incorporation into other further processed products. As such there is no issue with consumer ignorance or abuse of the product and consequently the product poses little, if any risk to the consumer.

- Industry acknowledges the concern for MSM from other red meats where consumers could receive meat that this not normally offered for human consumption. However, this not the case for poultry which is traditionally sold whole to the consumer who removes the muscle and commonly boils the carcass for use as a soup or stock base. This is not the case with larger animals without extensive processing.

This statement implies that all MSM is fully cooked by manufacturers prior to release to retail sale. It may be correct that pure MSM is not sold in retail form. However it is incorporated directly into products such as sausages and burgers which are sold raw in retail outlets and must be fully cooked by the consumer, and so could pose a risk to the consumer. As such this argument against the imposition of microbiological criteria is not entirely valid.

Industry therefore questions whether NZFSA intend to establish microbiological standards for MSM from other species and if so, in what time frame. If the NZFSA does not intend to establish microbiological criteria for MSM from other species, Industry seeks clarification from NZFSA on the justification for this action as Industry is not aware of any data relating to foodborne illness or unwholesome products in the market which are related to the use of poultry MSM. Should such data be available to the NZFSA, the Industry requests that NZFSA provide them with this information in order to justify the inclusion of these microbiological criteria?

Further consideration will be given to the setting of microbiological criteria in relation to red meat. It is difficult to link cases of food poisoning directly to specific product types however the NZFSA has identified poultry MSM as a possible high risk food that due to the manufacturing process and intended use warrants further investigation.

In addition, Industry believes that the standards which have been proposed for MSM will be difficult, if not impossible, to meet cost-effectively for both large and small processors. Industry notes that an agreement was reached with MAF RA, a number of years ago, in regards to a microbiological standard for MSM for frozen product for export. For those organisms covered in the draft COP, this is detailed in the table 1 below. Industry notes that the E. coli level proposed in the draft COP is 10 times less than that currently acceptable for export.

Although microbiological standards will not be included in the COP, it is recommended that operators continue to improve their processes with the aim of minimising the microbiological contamination in their products. This recommendation will be written into the COP.

Table 1: Microbiological limits agreed with MAF RA for frozen MSM for export

Micro-organism n c m M

APC¹ 5 3 5 x 10⁵ 5 x 10⁶

E. coli 5 3 500 5000

S. aureus 5 1 1 x 10³ 1 x 10⁴

¹ APC levels given here are for frozen product. Levels for fresh product are up to 1 log higher.

Industry reiterates it’s earlier position that the limits currently proposed in the draft COP would most likely be impossible to meet. As such industry questions whether NZFSA have any data to indicate whether or not the proposed standard is achievable?

In short, we do not believe that there is sufficient justification or science based evidence which would support the imposition of additional microbiological testing on the poultry industry; a sector of the meat industry which currently bears the highest compliance costs for microbiological testing of any meat industry sector. Industry notes that there is no defined benefit either in terms of food safety or wholesomeness and thus no conceivable justification for increasing compliance costs unnecessarily. Industry notes that any increases in compliance costs, subsequently impact on the cost of food paid by the consumer.

Industry therefore requests that the NZFSA removes the microbiological criteria from the draft chapter at this stage. Subsequently, Industry would be happy to work with the NZFSA to obtain suitable data which could be used to establish a microbiological standard and which could be included in Chapter 9 at a later stage.

1

3.4.2 Mechanically Separated Meat (MSM)

The first box in this section is confusing. Industry notes that any raw product may contain Campylobacter and occasionally Salmonella. Industry notes that suggesting corrective action is taken is pointless when

a) there is no requirement to test MSM for pathogens and

b) the raw material from which the MSM is derived may have a variable incidence of these micro-organisms.

Industry therefore suggests that this box is removed.

The wording referred to in the submission will be deleted.

1

Formulated products

Industry notes that this section does not appear to have been correctly numbered.

Subsequently, Industry suggests that sections currently numbered 3.5 and 3.6 should be 3.5.1 and 3.5.2.

The numbering of other sections in the draft may also change.

Agreed, document amended accordingly.

1

3.5 Inputs, HC Spec 15 and 16

The final sentence of this section states “Raw unprocessed vegetables must be prepared separately e.g. not in high care areas or areas where there is exposed product”. Industry acknowledges the potential for cross-contamination of vegetables which will not be cooked; however, Industry is unclear why this statement has been included here. Industry suggests that clarification is required as raw vegetables could form part of a product which may be cooked further and it is likely that it would be unnecessary to prepare these separately from any poultry products.

The intention here is to minimise cross contamination from vegetables that are received in an unwashed or unpeeled state to other products, rather than the contamination of vegetables from poultry. Raw vegetables can bring a range of contaminants such as dirt and micro-organisms into the processing areas. It is important that the preparation activities are conducted using good operating practices in manner that does not contaminate other inputs or products. This has been clarified in the COP.

1

3.6 Allergen management

Industry suggests that point h. of this section should not be numbered as such.

Industry notes that the final statement in the final box of this section states “Operators should have in place a recall procedure for instances where cross contamination occurs”. Industry suggests that this should be a mandatory requirement and not optional.

Numbering has been amended.

This statement will be removed. Actions to be taken in the event that non-complying product is produced are covered under section 3.16 Non-conforming product. This section better explains the various actions that should be taken depending on how the product has been affected. Recall would only be needed where contaminated product is no longer under the control of the operator.

3

h. iv

Production schedules must be managed to ensure that there is no cross contamination of allergens e.g. product that do not contain allergens are process first, followed by products with an increasing allergen status (for example soy, then soy& dairy, then soy, dairy and gluten.

Comment: The proposed statement is not practical for multiple production of low volume. Our company has a limitation when it comes to fixed production scheduling due to the system complexity, i.e. the production schedule is dictated by store demands. We have an alternative way of managing allergens, e.g. cleaning between allergens.

In the COP, these are examples of how the production schedule could be managed. Cleaning between products would be an acceptable method of managing cross contamination. It is recommended that wherever possible, scheduling be managed to reduce cross contamination as this provides an additional level of protection.

To improve clarity, the wording will be amended and some of the detail will be moved to a guidance box.

3

3rd guidance box

Cross contamination during storage and processing needs to be considered. Where possible inputs and products containing allergens should be stored separately (like with like).

Comment: (like with like) – is this necessary to be included in the sentence?

Agreed, document amended accordingly.

1, 2

3.7.1 Marinades or Brining Solutions

Industry notes the requirement in the first paragraph of this section for operators to validate any reuse or recycling of marinades or brines to demonstrate that the levels of E. coli in the marinade or brine during the entire batch operation is no higher than the incoming levels of E. coli on the poultry carcasses for that premises.

Industry does not support this requirement for the following reasons:

- This proposed requirement was never raised during extensive discussions between the NZFSA and Industry in the development of the Code. Industry is unaware of any data which would underpin this requirement and believes that in order for this standard to be imposed sufficient data and justification to support the imposition of this requirement should be provided or made available to the industry.

- NMD data suggests that the microbiological loading is extremely variable. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that birds from the same flock processed within minutes of each other (NMD data from 2001 - 2007) can be dramatically different. As such Industry notes that the calculation of mean and standard deviation for any particular batch and time may not meet the standard due to the inherent variability of the product. Industry suggests that if this were to be used, there would need to be a calculation based on the process capability, assuming a normal distribution. Then if the mean plus three standard deviations is used as the criteria then approximately 99.5% of all measurements should be within this parameter. Measurements exceeding this figurer indicate that this performance is significantly problematic to warrant an intervention.

The intention to include a requirement around the need to validate acceptable microbial levels in a recycled brine or marinade was discussed with industry on a number of occasions and requests from industry of how this best be addressed were made.

The intention of this requirement was that the microbiological loading of the marinade or brine should never exceed the microbiological loading of the incoming birds. Thus preventing the marinade or brine from increasing the loading present on the bird or introducing bacteria to the internal tissues.

It was not intended that this requirement be a day-to-day pass or fail for the marinade or brine and poultry but that the process should be validated on initial set up and if there is a significant change to the process.

This requirement will be removed from the COP until further evidence has been collected on which to base the criteria.

Although microbiological criteria will not be included in the COP, it is recommended that operators continue collect their own data and improve their processes with the aim of minimising the microbiological contamination in their products. This recommendation will be written into the COP.

1

3.7.1 Marinades or Brining Solutions

Industry notes that primary processors are currently the only participants in the NMD. However, this standard would require secondary processors who do not have a primary processing facility to determine compliance based on the NMD in which they do not participate. It would be impossible for secondary processors who are not primary processors to do this effectively unless they purchased product from a single supplier which would be impractical. Similarly, if they were to use the national NMD average as part of their calculation, they may be unable to meet the standard as some of the primary processors will inevitably (due to simple mathematics) have a higher mean count than the national average. To determine a suitable figure for secondary processors purchasing product from a range of sources would be virtually impossible.

Industry is unaware of any proposals to extend this requirement to other parts of the food industry (e.g. small good) where these technologies are used extensively. Industry believes that where standards are implemented they should be equitable and consistent across the different industry sectors. Industry does not believe this is the case in this instance and as such Industry does not support the imposition of this standard.

Industry therefore requests that this requirement be removed from the draft Chapter. Industry would be happy to work with the NZFSA in the future to establish suitable standards but does not believe that the standard can be applied in the absence of this information.

Secondary processors who do not have access to the NMD data and who do not want to use the national profile on the basis that it would be too restrictive would be expected to collect their own data of incoming microbiological levels on the raw materials until they have a good picture of their product and process.

1

3.7.1 Marinades or Brining Solutions

The final mandatory requirement of this section states “If product contains an additive which has a maximum permitted level (e.g. nitrite), the operator must validate the process to ensure that the product does not exceed those levels”. Industry notes that where additives are used according to the manufacturer’s instructions validation should not be required and suggests that this clarification is included in the document.

The requirement to validate that the nitrite level in a final product does not exceed the permissible levels will remain in the document as discussed and agreed with industry. The reasoning is that this will provide evidence that all the steps in the process from the calculations of ingoing levels in the supplier’s premix, to the calculations by the processor, to the addition and distribution throughout the product, and any losses during processing are as expected and meet the prescribed levels. It will be clarified however that if a company is producing a range of nitrite containing products they need not test every single product in the range. Representative or worst case samples only may be tested.

2

Coatings (Battering and Breading)

The first paragraph is a very sweeping statement, does the NZFSA have any evidence that growth of these organisms is happening and that it is enough to cause problems – the great majority of these products are in a freezer within a few minutes of production and all are fully cooked before consumption. Before imposing costly requirements such as chilled production rooms there should be some evidence that such action would have a positive outcome in terms of a reduction of a real risk.

The information in the box will be deleted. This is guidance material only.

1

3.11.1 Packaging Process

Industry notes that the numbering (i, j, k) on page 23 in this section appears to be incorrect.

Numbering problems have been noted and will be addressed prior to publication.

2

3.11.1 Packaging Process

Paragraph 3

“Poultry placed in packaging that has not been sealed must not be stacked on top of each other unless a method of preventing cross contamination is used (e.g. during retail tray packing). “

Requires amendment in our view, the contact with other product contact surfaces should not be an issue, contact with non-product contact surfaces must be avoided. All tray pack operations require stacking of product if one part of the production line stops temporarily e.g. for film changes. For leak proof over wrap packaging systems the whole tray is covered by the material to ensure an effective seal, therefore potentially contaminated surfaces are not handled until the pack is opened. The requirement would add complexity and cost to the operation with no effective outcome.

Wording has been amended to require operators to minimise cross contamination of the outer surfaces of retail packaging which is the desired outcome. The method by which this is achieved is up to the operator.

3

3.11.2 Packaging Materials

The packaging materials must be of sufficient strength and durability to protect the products from contamination.

Comment: Does this statement have to be specific on the type of the contamination? For example, the plastic film that we use to wrap our product can protect the product from chemical, microbial and some physical contamination. It would not protect the product from sharp objects or larger contaminants.

The packaging would only be expected to deal with those contaminants that would be encountered under normal circumstances. It is not intended to apply to unusual or unexpected events. The requirement here is more about ensuring that operators do not cut corners and use cheaper films that are not up to the task.

2

General

One more concern that we would have is the issue of enforcement. The processors with RMPs are well known to the NZFSA and are regularly audited by the Verification Agency. There are many companies purchasing chicken from the primary processors who are not subject to the same audit regime, how does the NZFSA propose to ensure that the same standards and interpretation of the Code are applied universally. There is a cost for compliance and we would seek a reassurance that those already known to the NZFSA would not be disadvantaged in comparison to secondary processors who may not have RMPs.

This COP will provide greater clarity to all poultry processors as to the expectations of the NZFSA with regard to poultry processing. In the past this information has not been as readily available. Expectations are that the COP will be used by FSP auditors, Environmental Health Officers, Health Protection Officers and Food Act officers under the Food Act, as well as recognised verifiers and evaluators under the APA. It is expected that compliance in all areas of the industry will improve over time.