Source: Rita Jane Gabbett, MEATINGPLACE, 9/8/16

Meat industry experts warned participants at the North American Meat Institute’s Pathogen Control and Regulatory Compliance in Beef Processing conference here not to take their lead from other companies, including industry leaders, when it comes to putting together a pathogen reduction intervention plan for their plant.

Mohammad Koohmaraie, CEO, Meat Division, IEH Laboratories and Consulting Services told the group that when one industry leader stopped using a hot water/steam intervention in some plants, he got a lot of calls from other processors asking if they should also stop using that intervention. The simple answer is no. Every pathogen control system in every plant is different and must be predicated on the specific conditions of the plant, of the animals coming in the door, and of the complex configuration of interventions already in place.

For example, Koohmaraie said the intervention protocols in a plant processing clean cattle that adjusts chain speeds and uses hide-on interventions would not be the same as those at a plant taking in dirtier cattle at a set chain speed.  Interventions must be chosen to match the needs of the specific processes performed at the plant and the microbial load just prior to intervention.
Speaking later in the program, Chad Martin, vice president fresh meats and food safety and quality assurance for Tyson Foods, echoed Koohmaraie’s sentiment, warning against taking Tyson’s decision to stop using a hot water/steam intervention in some situations in certain beef plants out of the context of that plant’s entire intervention program.  

“We got calls,” he said, but noted, “We had a lot of other parts of the system…you can’t look at that action in isolation.”

For more stories, go to www.meatingplace.com.