The UK s experience developing Campylobacter controls

Transcription

1 The UK s experience developing Campylobacter controls Mary Howell Food Safety Consultant mary.v.howell@gmail.com Source attribution for Campylobacteriosis UK Campylobacter Risk Management Programme Voluntary Target What is research telling us about Campylobacter and chicken Levels of Campylobacter in the food chain What can be done to reduce levels Acting on Campylobacter Together 1

2 Recent trends - UK confirmed cases 80,000 70,000 Campylobacter 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Salmonella Attribution of Campylobacter infection by Multi-locus Sequence Typing (DNA method ) 100% 100% Clinical cases attributed per month Clinical cases attributed per month 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Pig Wbird Sheep Cattle Chicken Month Month 2

3 UK Food Standards agency Tackling Campylobacter in chicken as a priority Greatest risk from poultry 50-80% attributable to poultry FSA survey of chicken at retail 65-70% positive % positive 2014 UK data EU baseline survey % broiler batches positive 86% broiler carcasses positive Evidence for targeting food safety messages Person at least risk Lives in deprived area Lives in an urban area Dislikes eating chicken Female teenager Doesn t travel abroad Public water supply Person at greatest risk Lives in an affluent area Male child living in a rural area. Likes chicken Travels abroad Has a private water supply 3

4 Tackling Campylobacter: A whole food-chain approach Government working with Industry Identify and implement practical Best practice and interventions: -on-farm -processing -retail FSA advice to Consumers Raise awareness Change behaviours UK Food Standards Agency ( FSA) Campylobacter Risk management programme Government/ Industry Working Group partnership projects ( Joint Action Plan) FSA,Defra, BRC,BPC, Nation Farmers Union Targeted at different points across the food chain Measurement of success Voluntary target Output from a model of available scientific data 4

5 Measurement of success TARGET AIM Reduce the level of Campylobacter (cfu/g) on whole chickens at the end of the slaughter process WHY High counts seen to be the most risky Target UK carcass data from the EU baseline survey used as the baseline 27% samples 1000cfu/g or higher on neck and breast skin - EU average 21.6% How much could this be reduced and by when? 5

6 Model model in line with CODEX Developed from UK model (Hartnet 2001) Populated the model with the MOST appropriate scientific data or expert opinion for the UK Look at the effect of making changes based on evidence of efficacy Lack of data at the industrial scale with natural contamination Initial colonisation of birds in a house Overview of the Model Spread of Campylobacter through the house Where birds are colonised, a Campylobacter count on entry to slaughterhouse is assigned Where an un colonised bird becomes contaminated during slaughter, Campylobacter count is assigned Effect of slaughter processes on Campylobacter count. In sequence for process to evisceration, evisceration, inside/outside wash, chill. Count on a carcase after chilling in slaughterhouse 6

7 Science for a reduction coming from the production sector Critical review of on farm interventions Consistent application of available biosecurity measures for housed birds particularly at the entrance to the house 50 % reduction in risk of flock colonisation Model estimates a reduction in counts 1000cfu/g and above from 27% to 19% Action Red Tractor standards April 2011 Science for a reduction coming from the processing sector Application of best processing practice Interventions ( physical ) 7

8 Action to help apply best practice and develop interventions Slaughterhouse tool Web based tool for processors Self assessment of processing practices and available interventions linked to the scientific evidence Published research and ongoing research studies Research on cross contamination and interventions at factory scale put in place 3 + years Interventions FSA funded collaborative research into currently available interventions Steam or hot water washing Surface freezing Treatment of process water ( potable) Electrolysed water Chlorine Dioxide ozone- UV light 8

9 Expected effect Data suggests and expert opinion agreed a 50% reduction in counts from processing best practice and or other interventions could be achieved In addition to the reduction from improved biosecurity in 2013 model predicts a reduction in counts 1000cfu/g or higher from 27% to 10% by 2015 Target UK carcass data from the EU baseline survey used as the baseline 27% samples 1000cfu/g or higher on neck and breast skin - EU average 21.6% How much could this be reduced and by when? 19% 2013 biosecurity 10% 2015 biosecurity and processing improvement/interventions 9

10 Whole bird monitoring data FSA official monitoring Ongoing 500 carcass samples taken randomly over 12 months from top 85% of production Individual carcasses neck and breast skin Collect production and processing data for identification of risk factors Industry harmonised monitoring Large abattoirs : weekly /2 weekly monitoring Use the samples taken for salmonella 3 neck skins Retail survey pilot study - method development Main 12 month study 4000 samples IN PROGRESS : RESULTS WILL BE REPORTED BY RETAILER TO ALLOW RANKING/COMPARISON AFTER 6 MONTHS ( Nov 2014 ) 10

11 FSA survey at retail 4000 samples Feb 2014 Feb 2015 First quarter results ( 853 samples ) 59% positive 16% > 1000 cfu/g 4% packaging was positive with one sample > 1000cfu per pack Retail Survey CE comments Clear picture of contamination Measure the effect of interventions Effectiveness of leak proof packaging Compare levels in different retailers when FSA have enough data 11

12 12

13 What could be done based on evidence? Actions that could be taken that will have an effect on reducing Campylobacter numbers on chilled birds after slaughter and so help achieve the target It may not be possible /practical to undertake all the actions identified On Farm Biosecurity on Farm - Continuous application 13

14 On Farm Biosecurity on Farm - Continuous application Why? To prevent /delay colonisation birds that are not colonised or the level in the ceacea is lower than 10 6 / 10 7 cfu/g produce low or uncontaminated carcasses On average studies have seen a 4 log reduction ceacea to carcass e.g Data generation Promising interventions on farm have been trialled Fly screens, water treatment, biosecurity 14

15 On Farm Biosecurity on Farm - Continuous application How New Red Tractor standards Training Motivation incentives Behaviour change Make the job easy Don t share tools between houses LEARNING NEW BEHAVIOUR On Farm No Thinning or Biosecure thinning Why? Data from baseline study shows risk of colonisation is 8 x higher from the day of thin Slaughter at a younger age Why? Risk of colonisation increases with age Leave farm empty before restocking Why? May reduce environmental load Enables thorough cleaning and disinfection Location and design of poultry farm Why? Minimise environmental sources/pressure 15

16 On Farm Monitor to provide information Feasibility of a rapid on farm test Consultation with Industry Reliable and simple Lateral flow sensitivity issues PCR Lab Test Sample type/ preparation Boot swabs stable at ambient sent in post Available commercially Results on same day as samples are delivered by post sent to farmer by SMS 16

17 On farm Promising research in progress but not yet available may reduce the level in ceacea Vaccine development Bacteriophage Pre and Probiotics Feed composition Feed additives On Farm Managing colonised birds Produce even sized birds Why? Optimum processing - minimise feacal/gut leakage How? Sex birds Effective cull policy Nutrition / management 17

18 Control at harvesting Catching process Clean dry crates,modules, and other harvesting equipment including personnel Particularly important at first harvest to maintain uncolonised birds Restrict the time from first harvest to depopulation Why? Minimise colonisation / the level of contamination in the ceacea Look at the effect of lifting the feed / 4 hours darkness Is this a contributing factor at thinning? Control at harvesting Feed withdrawal aim for 8-10 hours Any less or more not ideal ( average bird ) Record and monitor Clean feathers and feet husbandry on farm and transport Accurate weight /size and the range of birds Enable accurate machine settings Minimises feacal leakage/gut contamination 18

19 Processing plant Start processing birds within the feed withdrawal time window Stunning method Live hang - minimise flapping air contamination Gas stunning observe faecal contamination feed withdrawal window Scald tank consider the temperature and counterflow minimise foaming/ remove foam WHY? Temperature of foam is lower than the water and Campy can survive Pluckers Pre /post pluck wash (warm water) Remove contamination /prevent contamination sticking Minimise air flow from this area to any other parts of the plant WHY? Very high levels of Campylobacter in the air when processing a positive batch Break of 10 minutes after contaminated birds if next batch is not contaminated WHY? Campylobacter numbers decrease rapidly from the air 19

20 Evisceration Accurate bird size /weight information and machine settings Even sized birds Standard for faecal /bile soiling Maintain thin layer of water to keep carcass wet and avoid contamination sticking Washing remove visible contamination Optimise for Campylobacter reduction Chilling measure the effect Use a physical process intervention Temperature changes Hot water 70 o C for 40 seconds 80 o C for 10 seconds Steam 5-10 seconds Sonosteam 2 seconds ultra sound Rapid surface chilling Freezing 20

21 Sonosteam Promising technology Ultra sound permits heat from steam to penetrate rapidly and kill Campylobacter Rapid surface chilling Promising processing development for control of Campylobacter FSA have worked with industry to assist in the development of the process 90% reduction in Campylobacter numbers 21

22 Use a chemical intervention Chemical Add to process water ( potable water) Electrolysed water Chlorine Dioxide Oxone Spray carcasses ( research ) Lactic Acid Peroxyacetetic Acid Expose carcasses UV light Treatments to remove surface contamination Art 3 of regulation EU 853/2004 Legal basis to approve substances to remove surface contamination Non currently approved for poultry FSA funded work Comparison of acidified sodium chlorite, chlorine dioxide, peroxyacetic acid and tri-sodium phosphate spray washes for decontamination of chicken carcasses Graham Purnell 1, Christian James 1, Stephen J. James 1, Mary Howell 2, and Janet E. L. Corry 3 22

23 Campylobacter significant reductions Water 0.4 log neck skin tri-sodium phosphate 2.4 log neck skin 1.4 breast skin acidified sodium chlorite 1.6 log neck skin 1.3 breast skin None of the others gave a reduction 23

24 Process for approval Submit a dossier of evidence following the EFSA guidance document Independent evaluation EFSA opinion Opinion on peroxyacetic acid issued March 2014 Risk management consideration by Member States Lactic acid has been approved for red meat Campylobacter Negative birds coming from the farm Will they be contaminated in the plant? Answer minimal cross contamination compared to positive birds and mainly in the first birds in the slaughter batch. 24

25 25

26 Truth 26