Health Protection Service - Lab Report Example

? Environmental Studies Lab Report Table of Contents I. Introduction 3 II. Results 5 III. Action to be Taken 7 IV. Recommendations 8 References 9 I. Introduction There are significant risks from eating food that is ready to eat, and these risks ought to be more widely known, by the general consuming public in totality, as well as by individual persons who are consumers of these kinds of food. The literature tells us that this ready to eat food is characterized by its prior preparation and packaging, no longer needing cooking or reheating prior to their consumption, and there lies part of its problem because of the potential for contamination of the food by food handlers during their preparation. Among the foods that have been prepared to become ready to eat include meats, sushi, cheese, cereals, salads and other produce, dry goods including candies and biscuits, and meals that are ready to eat. On the other hand, salads and sandwiches are common ready to eat food that, due to their capacity for contamination, have been associated with strict guidelines for their preparation. Those guidelines conform to regulations that have been put in place in places like New York, and cover such things as changing/replacing gloves, prohibitions against the use of bare hands during the preparation process, and the kinds of food that are considered for inclusion in government codes of sanitation relating to the preparation of such ready to eat fare. It is worth noting that government codes have prescriptions for the degree to which food are to be heated in order to be considered safe for consumption. Since ready to eat food is generally not heated to meet those minimum temperature of reheating standards, they are subject to more rigorous regulations in terms of handling to prevent ready to eat food being contaminated with pathogens that can cause illness on wide scale. Food handling in preparation and in transport are by far the biggest sources of contamination when it comes to ready to eat food (Colorado Farm to Market, 2013; NY State Department of Health, 2005; Schaub, 2010; UK Government, 2008). Enterobacteriaceae are a group of pathogens that are used as indicators for when food has not been cooked adequately, or else when food has been subject to contamination after the food had been processed. E.coli, on the other hand, is a pathogen that when present indicates poor hygiene, lack of sanitation, and heat that has not been adequate to kill off the bacteria during the processing of food. Other pathogens include coagulase-positive staphylococci, c. perfingens, b. cereus, v. parahaemolyticus, campylobacter spp, salmonella spp, and L. monocytogenes (NSW Food Authority, 2009; ACT Health, 2002). These same pathogens seem to cross geographic boundaries, and share in common many of the pathogens that are found in ready to eat fare in other nations, such as Hong Kong, where ready to eat food is screened for a similar set of pathogens, including b. cereus, c. perfingens, campylobacter spp, e. coli, v. cholera, salmonella, and L. monocytogenes (Centre for Food Safety, 2007). The Canadian authorities include shigella, v. cholerae, y. enterocolitica, c. parvum, giardia lamblia, hepatitis, and scombroid poisoning to the list of pathogens above, with the most common symptoms and effects of contamination and infection in people being vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, wound infection, and gas gangrene (Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, n.d.). In the US, meanwhile, there is an intense focus on salmonella, e coli and listeria monocytogenes as the pathogens that most commonly infect ready to eat food, including produce. The lines of defense arrayed against such pathogens in food include thermally killing the pathogens, making use of the so-called bacteriophage treatment, and the use of so-called antimicrobial GRAS agents (Food Safety Research Information Office, 2010). It is worth noting that in some of the bacteriological guidelines that were considered for this paper, emphasis is given on rating the quality of the food as being good, acceptable, unsatisfactory, and potentially harmful/hazardous depending on the level of bacteriological contamination of the ready to eat foods in question. For ratings up to unsatisfactory, there are no concerns relating to food safety, meaning that they are safe to eat, but the presence of bacteria is beyond expected values, and such is an indication of poor handling during preparation. On the other hand, where the quality rating is potentially harmful, pathogen levels are such that they can pose harm to the consumers of the ready to eat foods in question (NSW Food Authority, 2009). II. Results The guidelines provide specific values for microbiological quality measured in cfu/g or as otherwise indicated for four pathogens, namely aerobic colony in general, coliforms, salmonella, and listeria. This is to be used as the basis for considering whether the detected levels of pathogens in food in the experiment meet or exceed the standards, in other words whether the ready to eat food examined pass or fail the standards set in the guidelines (Fitzgerald & Gomez Escalada, 2013). The food that was sampled was a sandwich from Charlottes at Merrion Center. In terms of general appearance it looked ordinary in all respects, same as the other sandwiches that they routinely serve, and that consumers eat. From the outside it does not seem like there is anything wrong with the sandwich, that it is contaminated in any way and unfit to eat. On the contrary it looked delicious and good enough to eat (Fitzgerald & Gomez Escalada, 2013). The following are the measured values for Total Viable Count- Blood Agar Base in step 3 of the guidelines (Fitzgerald & Gomez Escalada, 2013): DILN Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Number orgs per g of food 10 -1 178 260 10 -2 233 280 10 -3 288 300 294 294 x 10 3 2.94 x 10 5 10 -4 0 0 10 -5 15 2 Looking at the data, the total number for aerobic colony count is less than 10 6, well below the levels that are deemed satisfactory. For this we use the values for category 5, where the values for satisfactory are those that are below 105. The sandwich passes the test for total aerobic colony count (Health Protection Agency, 2009, p. 27). The following table is for Coliform VRBA, in step 4 (Fitzgerald & Gomez Escalada, 2013): DILN Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Num orgs per g of food 10 -1 33 8 20.5 x 10 2.05 x 10 2 10 -2 31 61 46 x 10 4.6 x 10 2 Looking at the values for coliform above, they are within the satisfactory to acceptable levels as stipulated in the guidelines. The sandwich passes the coliform test (Fitzgerald & Gomez Escalada, 2013). The following table finally is for listeria MMA in step 5 (Fitzgerald & Gomez Escalada, 2013): DILN Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Num orgs per g of food 10 -1 No listeria No listeria Not applicable Given the absence of listeria, the sandwich passes the listeria test (Fitzgerald & Gomez Escalada, 2013). Also, looking at the class results, for all the sandwiches the values for total aerobic colony count and for coliform count are acceptable, and they pass those tests. There is also no listeria or salmonella in the class results table (Fitzgerald & Gomez Escalada, 2013). III. Action to be Taken At Charlottes, while the levels of aerobic colony count and coliform are within the safe range, they can be further reduced, and this can be done with an eye towards better taking care of handling and preparing the ingredients of the sandwich. Better refrigeration and processing of the ingredients prior to their use can help here. The same is prescribed for Subway, given that it has the highest level of TVC. Tiffin is to be singled out too for having the largest detected level of coliforms among the establishments, and among the highest count of TVC. While still at safe levels, Tiffins threads acceptable to unsatisfactory as per the guideline levels for coliforms. Its high level of TVC likewise is a cause for concern. Better care must be placed on handling the ingredients and preparing the food for Tiffins and for Subway, to lower the detected pathogen counts (Fitzgerald & Gomez Escalada, 2013).. IV. Recommendations The literature notes that there are several interventions that can reduce pathogen count in prepared food. These are making food preparers wear gloves; changing the gloves periodically; cleaning the utensils and sterilizing them whenever a food order is processed; properly heating the food; and using sterilizing equipment for the food containers prior to placing the food in the containers. All these have the potential of drastically reducing the pathogen counts for TVC and coliform for all establishments (Fitzgerald & Gomez Escalada, 2013; Food Safety Research Information Office, 2010; NSW Food Authority, 2009; Colorado Farm to Market, 2013; NY State Department of Health, 2005; Schaub, 2010; UK Government, 2008). References ACT Health (2002). Health Protection Service- Microbiological quality of ready to eat foods. ACT Government Health. Retrieved from http://health.act.gov.au/health-services/population-health/health-protection-service/food-survey-reports/food-survey-reports-2001-02/quality-of-ready-to-eat-foods Centre for Food Safety (2007). Microbiological Guidelines for Ready-to-Eat Food. HK Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. Retrieved from http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/whatsnew/whatsnew_act/files/MBGL_RTE%20food_e.pdf Colorado Farm to Market (2013). Ready-to-Eat. Colorado Farm to Market. Retrieved from http://cofarmtomarket.com/prepared-foods/ready-to-eat/ Food Safety Research Information Service (2010). Presence and Control of Food Borne Pathogens in Ready-to-Eat Foods. USDA National Agriculture Library. Retrieved from http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/nal_web/fsrio/printresults.php?ID=5672 Health Protection Agency (2009). Health Protection Agency Central Office Guidelines Booklet. Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives (n.d.). Facts on Foodborne Pathogens. Government of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/foodsafety/processor/pdf/cfs02s125a.pdf NSW Food Authority (2009). Microbiological Quality Guide for Ready-to-Eat Foods. NSW Food Authority. Retrieved from http://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/_Documents/science/microbiological_quality_guide_for_RTE_food.pdf NY State Department of Health (2005). Use of Hands in Preparation of Ready-to-Eat Foods. New York State Department of Health. Retrieved from http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/food_safety/hands.htm Schaub, K. (2010). What is Ready-to-Eat Food? Livestrong.com. Retrieved from http://www.livestrong.com/article/100736-readytoeat/ UK Government (2008). Safe method: ready-to-eat foods. Food.gov.uk. Retrieved from http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/sfbbreadytoeat1009.pdf Read More