Cronobacter Support
03-02-2009, 09:36 AM
Follow-up formulae are manufactured using processes that are almost identical to those used for other infant formulas as well as any other type of powdered dairy products for consumers > 36 months of age, such as dairy-based beverages, fortified milk powders, and products used in medical nutrition.
The most significant differences between PIF and FUF lie in the fact that FUF may contain a wider variety of dry-mix ingredients and may be manufactured under different hygiene requirements in accordance with the legislation of the local jurisdiction. The wider variety of dry-mix ingredients is a consequence of the need for a more diversified diet for children aged 6 to 35 months, particularly for young children (> 12 months). As these ingredients are often manufactured using completely different food processing technologies and, as a consequence, different hygiene control measures, their microbiological quality may not necessarily meet the most stringent requirements typically applied to infant formulae. The stringency of the hygiene control measures required for a particular processing line will depend on the microbiological criteria for the range of products manufactured on that line. In the case of a dedicated line, the hygiene control measures will directly relate to the product being manufactured. However, in the case of shared lines, the products with the most stringent microbiological criteria will determine the overall hygiene control measures required as well as the verification procedures for processing environment and the processing lines. The meeting therefore concluded that while PIF and FUF may be manufactured using nearly identical processes, other aspects of manufacturing, namely the dry-mix ingredients used and the stringency of hygiene control measures can vary considerably. These aspects need to be taken into consideration when comparing the products and the extent to which microbiological criteria are needed.
Data on the prevalence of E. sakazakii (Cronobacter spp.) in products categorized as FUF for infants between 6 and 11 months are scarce. The absence of such data is most likely due to the fact that there is no mandated requirement for testing FUF for E. sakazakii (Cronobacter spp.). Reports from two recent surveys on E. sakazakii (Cronobacter spp.) indicate only one positive sample in over 100 products tested. For FUF manufactured on shared lines with PIF it is likely that the incidence of E. sakazakii (Cronobacter spp.) contamination is the same in both products; however, for FUF manufactured on dedicated lines (where the hygiene requirements may be less stringent) the prevalence is probably higher. The relative reduction in risk associated with the implementation of a sampling plan for FUF will be expected to be the same as for PIF with the same level of contamination.
Based on the available data the meeting concluded that FUF is commonly consumed by infants less than 6 months of age in both developing and developed countries, despite existing regulations and recommendations on the label. Data from developed countries also showed that a substantial percentage of caregivers to infants do not use basic hygiene and the recommended procedures within their country for safely preparing and feeding infant formula. It is likely that infant caregivers in developing countries, where hygiene and cooling require greater effort, do not have safer practices than those in developed countries. This suggests that a substantial proportion of caregivers to infants worldwide fail to follow all of the preparation and feeding practices recommended to reduce the risks of microbiological hazards associated with a non sterile product. Educational, socioeconomic and hygiene factors may be important to analyse/explain why caregivers fail to follow the recommended practices.
Posted from fao.org
The most significant differences between PIF and FUF lie in the fact that FUF may contain a wider variety of dry-mix ingredients and may be manufactured under different hygiene requirements in accordance with the legislation of the local jurisdiction. The wider variety of dry-mix ingredients is a consequence of the need for a more diversified diet for children aged 6 to 35 months, particularly for young children (> 12 months). As these ingredients are often manufactured using completely different food processing technologies and, as a consequence, different hygiene control measures, their microbiological quality may not necessarily meet the most stringent requirements typically applied to infant formulae. The stringency of the hygiene control measures required for a particular processing line will depend on the microbiological criteria for the range of products manufactured on that line. In the case of a dedicated line, the hygiene control measures will directly relate to the product being manufactured. However, in the case of shared lines, the products with the most stringent microbiological criteria will determine the overall hygiene control measures required as well as the verification procedures for processing environment and the processing lines. The meeting therefore concluded that while PIF and FUF may be manufactured using nearly identical processes, other aspects of manufacturing, namely the dry-mix ingredients used and the stringency of hygiene control measures can vary considerably. These aspects need to be taken into consideration when comparing the products and the extent to which microbiological criteria are needed.
Data on the prevalence of E. sakazakii (Cronobacter spp.) in products categorized as FUF for infants between 6 and 11 months are scarce. The absence of such data is most likely due to the fact that there is no mandated requirement for testing FUF for E. sakazakii (Cronobacter spp.). Reports from two recent surveys on E. sakazakii (Cronobacter spp.) indicate only one positive sample in over 100 products tested. For FUF manufactured on shared lines with PIF it is likely that the incidence of E. sakazakii (Cronobacter spp.) contamination is the same in both products; however, for FUF manufactured on dedicated lines (where the hygiene requirements may be less stringent) the prevalence is probably higher. The relative reduction in risk associated with the implementation of a sampling plan for FUF will be expected to be the same as for PIF with the same level of contamination.
Based on the available data the meeting concluded that FUF is commonly consumed by infants less than 6 months of age in both developing and developed countries, despite existing regulations and recommendations on the label. Data from developed countries also showed that a substantial percentage of caregivers to infants do not use basic hygiene and the recommended procedures within their country for safely preparing and feeding infant formula. It is likely that infant caregivers in developing countries, where hygiene and cooling require greater effort, do not have safer practices than those in developed countries. This suggests that a substantial proportion of caregivers to infants worldwide fail to follow all of the preparation and feeding practices recommended to reduce the risks of microbiological hazards associated with a non sterile product. Educational, socioeconomic and hygiene factors may be important to analyse/explain why caregivers fail to follow the recommended practices.
Posted from fao.org