Sanitation is playing a bigger role in food processing than ever before. Whether it is used to minimize spoilage to extend shelf life or to maximize food safety, an effective sanitation program is key to controlling food safety issues such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella, and maintaining product shelf life. The decision on how a food plant will go about updating its facility, equipment and/or processes to maximize sanitation depends on several factors, such as the following:
• The challenges the company currently faces, including the complexity of the process, equipment design and types of soils involved;
• Whether there have been microbial issues that are triggering the need for a renovation such as a major spoilage incident, recall or outbreak of foodborne illness associated with the company’s product or a like product or process;
• The results of any root-cause analysis performed;
• The current condition, from a sanitation and sanitary design perspective, of the Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), facility and equipment;
• How much of the process or facility requires updating; and
• How much money the company has to spend on retrofitting or updating its GMPs, facilities and/or equipment.
Whether the retrofit is major or minor, there are multiple best practices and hurdles that can be applied to maximize sanitation in a food processing facility that address GMPs, sanitary design of equipment and facilities, and effective cleaning and sanitation. The success of any sanitation program, whether you are just starting or retrofitting an existing program, begins and ends with the food safety culture of the company and of the plant. As the late, great Don Graham used to say, the proper mindset is key to achieving food safety.
GMPs
One of the first items to be addressed is the flow of the process and complete separation of raw and ready-to-eat (RTE)/finished product areas. Too many food production facilities either were not initially designed to flow from incoming receiving of raw materials straight through to shipping or have been retrofitted to accommodate increased production needs. The result is often an RTE production room or area surrounded by raw areas, or traffic (including employees) and supplies having to travel through an RTE or finished product area to go to and from locker rooms, break rooms and so on. Consider for your facility and processes where the line of separation between the areas for raw and finished product is in your facility and where your product goes from being a raw agricultural commodity to a finished product that will be consumed by the end-user without a microbial control/reduction or kill step.
Some simple changes may have a major impact on food safety, such as a complete separation of raw and RTE/finished product areas including, when possible, separate break/locker rooms for employees; separate maintenance shops, tools and carts; captive footwear; chemical food dips/baths or floor foamers, especially in high-traffic areas, at entrances to RTE and at exits from raw areas; elimination of floor mats as they are not easily or effectively cleaned; and replacement of leather/canvas/nylon tool bags and belts as they are not cleanable.
Review written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and observe the implementation of SOPs on the floor: Are you doing what you say you are doing? Are the SOPs and GMPs effective in achieving the desired result, such as controlling traffic or minimizing cross-contamination during product handling? When reviewing employee SOPs/GMPs, consider the following: handwashing, sanitizing and glove use, and whether employees are performing multiple tasks. While multitasking may seem efficient from a production standpoint, it can be very risky if food handlers (supervisors and leads) are also handling nonproduct contact surfaces and items such as pallets, pallet jacks, trash, boxes, etc. and returning to handling product contact areas without sanitizing or changing gloves. Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE; gloves, sleeves, aprons, etc.), handwashing facilities and sanitizer should be accessible and readily available, not located in a corner of the room or across the plant where they are not likely to be used. Look for opportunities to separate and designate employees through color-coding by task and risk. Differently colored hairnets, bump caps, gloves, frocks, aprons, etc. can be used to distinguish employees who handle direct product and product contact surfaces from employees who handle boxes, pallet jacks, trash, etc.
Review and verify your food safety education and training program for all employees, including permanent, part-time and seasonal employees, management, supervisors and maintenance. Review and observe any off-site training for temporary employees. If you do not have an education and training program, develop one. There are also some third-party education and communication services that can be tailored to meet your needs; however, as with any program, it is up to the facility to follow up and verify that the training is effective when implemented on-line, that it achieves the desired results and that there is refresher training and training for new employees.
Hygienic Design of Equipment and Facilities Equipment Hygienic design, when applied from the very first steps of the design process, is very good for both engineering and food safety. Hygienic features, such as the removal of cracks and crevices to eliminate microbiological contamination, can also reduce engineering problems, such as stress and crevice corrosion. The North American Meat Institute previously published 10 Principles of Sanitary Equipment Design (Table 1[1]) and 11 Principles for Sanitary Facility Design (Table 2[2]) that are available online along with online checklists. These principles have also been adapted for use in low-moisture facilities and for produce.
When evaluating equipment from a sanitary-design perspective, consider that higher-risk food contact surfaces must be nonreactive, noncorrosive, noncontaminating and cleanable. There should not be any hidden areas within the equipment that will accumulate product or soil and allow microorganisms to grow. Cleanability is particularly important for older equipment and for equipment for which a newer, more hygienic design is not available. The equipment must be able to be taken apart, cleaned/scrubbed (including parts), sanitized and reassembled without the need for special tools, equipment or skills. The ease of disassembly of equipment for sanitation purposes as well as ease of disassembly for maintenance personnel facilitates access and reduces downtime.
Just about any design can be retrofitted to eliminate hygienic hazards; however, this often involves time and money, and the final cost of retrofitting is generally significantly higher than the purchase of new, hygienically designed equipment. While there is no downside to having more hygienically designed equipment, the cost (capital investment) is often a deal breaker for many processors, especially for a smaller operation. Although hygienically designed equipment may be pricier due to the cost of materials such as stainless steel and the design, the long-term benefits more than pay for the initial capital investment through reduced maintenance costs, often longer life of the equipment and lower costs associated with cleaning, including labor (both sanitation and maintenance), water and chemical usage, and food safety. When a facility is considering retrofitting, redesigning or replacing existing equipment, consider addressing your highest-risk pieces of equipment first. That includes equipment and materials that are used in direct contact or close contact with finished product, including fillers, blenders, mixers, baggers, peelers, slicers/dicers/portioners, enrobers, conveyors and conveyance equipment such as augers, scales, cappers, packaging equipment, etc.