Selection of Cases and Attributes Plans
While the overall philosophy of this book is to control microbial hazards through raw material selection, Good Hygienic Practices (GHP) and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP), and not to rely on microbiological testing, there are occasions when testing might be considered. If it is concluded that testing is appropriate, this chapter provides guidance on the choice of sampling plan and discusses their limitations. The recommended sampling plans are based on statistical considerations in Chapters 6 and 7, the severity of the hazard, and the potential for change in risk (decrease, no change, or increase) before a food is consumed. The International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) recommended 15 cases that reflect different levels of risk (ICMSF, 1974, 1986). The greater the risk, the higher the case number, the more stringent the sampling plan (see section 8.5 and Table 8-1).
KeywordsHemolytic Uremic Syndrome Sampling Plan Foodborne Disease Foodborne Illness Aerobic Plate Count
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- ACMSF (Advisory Committee on Microbiological Safety of Food, UK) (1995). Report on Foodborne Viral Infections. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
- Beuchat, L. R. (1996). Pathogenic microorganisms associated with fresh produce. J Food Prot 59, 204–216.Google Scholar
- ICMSF (International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods) (1974). Microorganisms in Foods 2. Sampling for Microbiological Analysis: Principles and Specific Applications. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
- ICMSF (International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods) (1986). Microorganisms in Foods 2. Sampling for Microbiological Analysis: Principles and Specific Applications, 2nd edn. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
- Silliker, J. H., Gabis, D. A. & May, A. (1979). ICMSF methods studies. XI. Collaborative/comparative studies on determination of coliforms using the Most Probable Number procedure. J Food Prot 42, 638–644.Google Scholar