Food Control 14 (2003) 391–398

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont

Review of the microbiological standards for foods

Sally K. Hasell a, Mark A. Salter b,*

a
New Zealand Milk, P.O. Box 417, Wellington, New Zealand
b
Food Standards Australia New Zealand, P.O. Box 7186, Canberra MC, ACT 2610, Australia

Abstract
A significant component of the review of the Australian Food Standards Code and the development of joint food standards with
New Zealand was the review of microbiological criteria. The outcome of the review was the retention of a number of standards
where qualitative risk assessments supported their continuation. Other standards were withdrawn because they could not be justified
as supporting a public health objective, being more relevant to quality and spoilage issues. However some new standards were
adopted and an additional category of microbiological guidelines was developed to assist with the identification of food not being
produced in a satisfactory manner. Work from the review is still ongoing including more quantitative risk assessments being un-
dertaken, such as for Listeria monocytogenes.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Microbiological standards; Microbiological guidelines; Food standards

1. Introduction
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ,
formerly ANZFA) reviewed the microbiological stan-
dards contained in the Australian Food Standards Code
(AFSC) and the New Zealand Food Regulations 1984
(NZFR) to determine whether the existing criteria con-
tributed to the food safety and consumer health objec-
tives of the review (not quality and spoilage issues) and
whether additional criteria were required to meet these
objectives.
With the introduction in Australia and New Zealand
of hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP)
based food safety programs, consideration was given
before the review commenced to whether microbiologi-
cal standards were required at all as the emphasis has
begun to shift from end product compliance testing to
process control and verification. However, at the time of
the review there was no general agreement either be-
tween Australia and New Zealand or between the vari-
ous regulators as to the nature or relevance of such
requirements. Consequently the review was undertaken
using a relatively traditional and conservative approach,
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-6271-2228; fax: +61-2-6271-
2278.
E-mail address: mark.salter@foodstandards.gov.au (M.A. Salter).
0956-7135/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0956-7135(03)00039-2
although this was not seen as justification for the in-
troduction of extensive criteria. In addition, the need for
criteria on which to base the evaluation of imported and
other foods, for which the production conditions and
controls were not known, supported retention of at least
a minimal range of standards.
The Codex processes provided the underlying prin-
ciples for the standard setting process. Codex (1997)
considers microbiological standards, which are manda-
tory, as one class of microbiological criteria. The other
classes, which are not mandatory, such as guidelines are
therefore advisory and commonly relate to Codes of
Practice or HACCP plan verification. Codex (1997)
defines the mandatory criteria as being contained in a
standard or technical regulation, containing limits for
pathogens (or rarely indicators if pathogen testing is not
possible) and as being derived from end product speci-
fications extensively applied to the food. Sampling plans
for criteria should take into account the work of the
International Commission for Microbiological Specifi-
cations for Food (ICMSF, 1986, 1997), which has de-
veloped sampling plans to underpin the application and
interpretation of criteria. These plans and the associated
probability of detecting contamination through micro-
biological testing highlighted the insensitivity of testing
at the levels commonly employed. Many samples must
be tested to give even a moderate level of assurance. This
means that reliance on end product testing alone as a
392 S.K. Hasell, M.A. Salter / Food Control 14 (2003) 391–398
measure of safe food without good control of processes
and hazards, may, and in the past often has, led to a
false sense of security.
So while today HACCP and food safety programs
are now preferred to testing and/or prescriptive process
requirements as the basis for managing hazards in the
food supply, there still needs to be mechanisms for
measuring the success of the new strategies for risk
management. Terms such as ‘‘food safety objectives’’
and ‘‘adequate or appropriate level of protection’’ are
the new approach to microbiological criteria. However
these concepts are still being developed within the Codex
framework and so cannot yet be substituted for, or used
to set standards. Standards are also the only mechanism
at present for evaluating the microbiological status of
some food being traded internationally, and for this
purpose there may always be a necessity for microbio-
logical standards.
2. Criteria in existence at the commencement of the review
In Australia, the AFSC has been used in the past as
an avenue to introduce mandatory microbiological
standards when specific food safety events have oc-
curred. These standards define sampling requirements,
test methods and interpretation of the test results in
terms of compliance with the standard. These details are
contained within the relevant commodity standards.
Test methods are the Australian Standard Methods
for Food Microbiology (AS1766, now AS/NZS1766)
(Standards Australia, 1995a) and Water Microbiology
(AS4276, now AS/NZS4276) (Standards Australia,
1995b). The standards are based on ICMSF principles in
that they include sampling plans, identify the criteria for
acceptance or rejection of a lot and define the preferred
methods of analysis. Altogether 26 foods have manda-
tory criteria and the number of microorganisms or type
of microorganism for which there are limits for any
particular food varies from one to four (Table 1).
Many of the criteria are for hygiene and spoilage
bacteria. For example for dairy products (pasteurised
milk, cream, cultured milk products, yoghurt and ultra-
high temperature treated milk and cream) there are
limits only for hygiene and spoilage organisms, includ-
ing coliforms, standard plate count and yeasts and
moulds. Only for cheeses and dried milks are pathogen
levels defined.
By contrast the NZFR contain fewer standards and
all but one of the foods for which there are mandatory
criteria are dairy products (Table 1). Information re-
garding the tests, sampling, methods and interpretation
is of variable scientific standard and in some cases does
not meet modern requirements for the expression of
criteria, as the standards are not expressed in ICMSF
format. Except in the case of cheese, the criteria are for
indicator and spoilage bacteria or some other hygiene
measure and not for pathogens.
The mandatory criteria in the NZFR have not been
reviewed for some time. However while there are few
standards in the NZFR, the New Zealand Ministry of
Health has for some years had a very comprehensive set
of ‘‘microbiological reference criteria’’ that covers vir-
tually all foods and includes limits for an extensive range
of pathogens and indicators. The purpose of these cri-
teria is to identify food that is ‘‘unsound’’ or produced
by unsatisfactory practices. The criteria are expressed in
the ICMSF format and thus include sampling plans.
Specific methods to be used are not defined but the
preferred methods are those described in the Compen-
dium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination
of Foods, APHA.
These reference criteria resemble but do not fit pre-
cisely within the Codex definition of advisory guidelines.
They have some attributes that are more commonly a
component of standards in that they usually include
pathogens as well as hygiene and indicator bacteria and
have been developed from a regulatory rather than an
industry perspective.
Both Australia and New Zealand have additional
advisory documents, which assist enforcement agencies
to manage the risk from Listeria contamination of food.
Food imported into New Zealand and for which
there is no domestic production, such as some types of
seafood, coconut and spices may be required to meet
additional microbiological standards.
3. The review process
The review of microbiological criteria was under-
taken in two stages. The first was to gain agreement as
to the review process and the principles that would drive
the process. The second was the risk assessments and the
setting of standards based on the outcomes of these
assessments in terms of risk management options.
3.1. Policy principles
A proposal outlining the strategy that could be
adopted in the review was developed in conjunction with
an expert group and presented to stakeholders (industry,
consumers and enforcement agencies) to gauge their
support for the proposed approach (ANZFA, 1999).
The policy document set out the principles on which the
review were based, which were specifically the Section 10
objectives of the Australia New Zealand Food Author-
ity Act 1991 (ANZFA Act), as well as the Council of
Australian Governments (COAG) principles and
guidelines, and World Trade Organization (WTO) ob-
ligations. The major principle guiding the review was
that standards must be derived from a risk assessment
 S.K. Hasell, M.A. Salter / Food Control 14 (2003) 391–398 393

Table 1
Microbiological tests for foods in the Australian Food Standards Code and New Zealand Food Regulations 1984
Australian Food Standards Code New Zealand Food Regulations 1984
Food Test Food Test
Cooked cured/salted meat Coagulase-positive staphylococci
Frozen frogsÕ legs Salmonella
Meat paste and p^ ate Listeria monocytogenes
Salmonella
Standard plate count
Uncooked fermented meat products Coagulase-positive staphylococci
Salmonella
Uncooked fermented comminuted meat products Escherichia coli
Bivalve molluscs, other than scallops Escherichia coli
Standard plate count
Cooked crustacean flesh, other than pre-cooked frozen flesh Coagulase-positive staphylococci
Escherichia coli
Salmonella
Standard plate count
Marinated smoked mussels Listeria monocytogenes
Smoked fish products Listeria monocytogenes
Cheddar cheese and gouda cheese Escherichia coli
Coagulase-positive staphylococci
Coliforms
Cheese and cheese products with >40% moisture and pH P 5:0 Listeria monocytogenes Cheese produced Coagulase-posi-
from thermised tive staphylococci
milk
Cheese produced from thermised milk Escherichia coli
Salmonella
Cream (not pasteurised) Coliforms Raw cream Standard plate
count
Standard plate count
Dried milk, dried skim milk and skim milk powder Coagulase-positive staphylococci
Coliforms
Salmonella
Standard plate count
Farm butter Total plate count
Ice cream, ice confection, dairy ice mix Coliforms Ice cream and Coliforms
frozen confections
Standard plate count Standard plate
count
Milk and goats milk (unpasteurised) Coliforms Raw milk Standard plate
count
Standard plate count
Pasteurised cream and cream products Coliforms Pasteurised cream Coliforms
and cream prod-
ucts
Standard plate count Standard plate
count
Pasteurised milk and pasteurised milk products, pasteurised Coliforms Pasteurised milk Coliforms
goat milk and milk products
Standard plate count Standard plate
count
Ultra heat treated cream and cream products Absence of growth Ultra heat treated Sterility test
milk products
Ultra heat treated milk and goat milk Absence of growth
Yoghurts and cultured milk products Coliforms Yoghurt Lactic acid bacte-
ria
Yeasts and moulds
Liquid egg, liquid yolk, liquid white, egg white mix and Salmonella Pulped egg Resazurin test
mixtures thereof
Standard plate count
Desiccated coconut Salmonella
Uncooked wet and uncooked dried pasta Coagulase-positive staphylococci
Mineral water Coliforms
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
(continued on next page)
394 S.K. Hasell, M.A. Salter / Food Control 14 (2003) 391–398

Table 1 (continued)
Australian Food Standards Code New Zealand Food Regulations 1984
Food Test Food Test
Packaged water and packaged ice Coliforms
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Standard plate count
Frozen pre-cooked food Coagulase-positive staphylococci
Escherichia coli
Salmonella
Standard plate count
Frozen pre-cooked prawns Coagulase-positive staphylococci
Infant formula powder Bacillus cereus
Coagulase-positive staphylococci
Salmonella
Maximum limits for each test are not included in the table.

that leads to the risk management decision that a stan-
dard will contribute to a public health and safety out-
come. Other principles and concepts seen as being basic
to the review were that the setting of a standard does not
have an effective outcome if it is not enforceable and is
not based on good science.
Stakeholders were asked to consider whether the
outcome of the review should result in setting of man-
datory standards only or whether additional advisory
guidelines would be of value in establishing consistency
and reducing uncertainty where standards were discon-
tinued. It was also asked whether methods of analysis
should be specified in standards, or whether laboratories
should be free to choose methods of their choice.
The preferred option was for there to be a mixture of
mandatory standards and advisory guidelines as risk
management options arising from the risk assessments.
It was proposed that guidelines be developed as adjuncts
to standards to provide assistance to agencies imple-
menting and enforcing the revised standards. The
guidelines aimed to provide a benchmark against which
unacceptable microbial contamination of food can be
identified. This would not imply that levels above these
guideline levels would result in an adverse health effect,
but it does indicate that human exposure to the guide-
line level may be occurring at undesirable and prevent-
able levels.
In general, most stakeholders were in agreement with
the proposed approach, although some queried the need
for any criteria, given the move towards HACCP based
food safety. However, this approach was not seen as
appropriate, given that food safety plans are not man-
datory for the food industry, either domestic or for
imported foods.
Stakeholders agreed that analysts should be free to
use methods of their choice for routine microbiological
testing, but that these methods must be equivalent in
performance to benchmark standard methods.
3.2. Risk assessment
The broad principles of the review agreed, the process
began with the selection of foods thought to require
consideration in risk assessments (Table 2). The foods
selected were those with existing microbiological stan-
dards in the AFSC or NZFR, or others for which public
health significance was thought to be emerging or ig-
nored by current standards. Risk assessments were based
on scientific evidence available to FSANZ at the time of
the review. For each food or food product, the microbial

Table 2
Food commodities risk assessed in the review of microbiological standards
Butter Milk/cream
Cooked, unmanufactured meat Packaged ice
Cooked, unmanufactured poultry Packaged water
Crustacea Pasta
Dried foods (plant origin) RTE foods
Dried milk RTE vegetables
Finfish Shellfish
Fruit juice Soya bean products
Heat treated, manufactured meat Uncooked, manufactured meat
Ice cream Uncooked, unmanufactured meat
Infant cereals Uncooked, unmanufactured poultry
Infant formula Yoghurt
 S.K. Hasell, M.A. Salter / Food Control 14 (2003) 391–398 395

Table 3
Limits for microbiological hazards from the new joint code
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6
Food Microorganism n c m M
Butter made from unpasteurised milk and unpas- Campylobacter/25 g 5 0 0
teurised milk products Coagulase-positive staphylococci/g 5 1 10 102
Coliforms/g 5 1 10 102
Escherichia coli/g 5 1 3 9
Listeria monocytogenes/25 g 5 0 0
Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
SPC/g 5 0 5  105
All cheese Escherichia coli/g 5 1 10 102
Soft and semi-soft cheese (moisture content > 39%) Listeria monocytogenes/25 g 5 0 0
with pH > 5:0 Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
All raw milk cheese (cheese made from milk not Listeria monocytogenes/25 g 5 0 0
pasteurised or thermised) Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
Raw milk unripened cheeses (moisture Campylobacter/25 g 5 0 0
content > 50%) with pH > 5:0
Dried milk Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
Unpasteurised milk Campylobacter/25 ml 5 0 0
Coliforms/ml 5 1 102 103
Escherichia coli/ml 5 1 3 9
Listeria monocytogenes/25 ml 5 0 0
Salmonella/25 ml 5 0 0
SPC/ml 5 1 2.5  104 2.5  105
Packaged cooked cured/salted meat Coagulase-positive staphylococci/g 5 1 102 103
Listeria monocytogenes/25 g 5 0 0
Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
Packaged heat treated meat paste and packaged heat Listeria monocytogenes/25 g 5 0 0
treated p^
ate Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
Fermented, comminuted meat which has not been Coagulase-positive staphylococci/g 5 1 103 104
cooked Escherichia coli/g 5 1 0
Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
Cooked crustacea Coagulase-positive staphylococci/g 5 2 102 103
Listeria monocytogenes/25 g 5 0 0
Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
SPC/g 5 2 105 106
Raw crustacea Coagulase-positive staphylococci/g 5 2 102 103
Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
SPC/g 5 2 5  105 5  106
Ready-to-eat finfish, other than fully retorted finfish Listeria monocytogenes/g 5 1 0 102
Bivalve molluscs, other than scallops Escherichia coli/g 5 1 2.3 7
Bivalve molluscs that have undergone processing Listeria monocytogenes/25 g 5 0 0
other than depuration
Cereal based foods for infants Coliforms/g 5 2 <3 20
Salmonella/25 g 10 0 0
Powdered infant formula Bacillus cereus/g 5 1 10 102
Coagulase-positive staphylococci/g 5 1 0 10
Coliforms/g 5 2 <3 10
Salmonella/25 g 10 0 0
SPC/g 5 2 103 104
Powdered infant formula with added lactic acid Bacillus cereus/g 5 1 0 10
producing cultures Coagulase-positive staphylococci/g 5 1 10 102
Coliforms/g 5 0 0
Salmonella/25 g 10 2 <3 10
SPC/g 5 2 103 104
Pepper, paprika and cinnamon Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
Dried, chipped, desiccated coconut Salmonella/25 g 10 0 0
Cocoa powder Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
Cultured seeds and grains (bean sprouts, alfalfa, etc) Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
Pasteurised egg products Salmonella/25 g 5 0 0
Mineral water Escherichia coli/100 ml 5 0 0
(continued on next page)
396 S.K. Hasell, M.A. Salter / Food Control 14 (2003) 391–398

Table 3 (continued)
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6
Food Microorganism n c m M
Packaged water Escherichia coli/100 ml 5 0 0
Packaged ice Escherichia coli/100 ml 5 0 0
The table is only a schedule of microbiological limits and is not the microbiological standard in its entirety. Abbreviations: n means the mini-
mum number of analytical units which must be examined from a lot of food as specified in Column 3. c means the maximum allowable number of
defective sample units as specified in Column 4 of the Schedule. m means the acceptable microbiological level in a sample unit as specified in
Column 5 of the Schedule. M means the level specified in Column 6 of the Schedule, when exceeded in one or more samples would cause the lot to be
rejected.

hazards associated with the food were identified, in
particular those that had caused outbreaks of illness
worldwide. Information on microbiological surveys of
foods and outbreaks was sought. The characteristics of
these hazards were then documented in relation to how
they would become associated with the specific food. To
allow some assessment of the risk that each food/hazard
poses to consumers, exposure evaluation was evaluated
by looking at consumption data for Australia. The data-
base has since been expanded to include New Zealand,
however it is unlikely that this would have made any
significant difference to the assessments. Risk charac-
terisation followed and assigned a relative level of risk to
each food based on the information collected in the
preceding sections of the risk assessment. The process
was completed with the risk management decision, which
specified whether a standard was required and the nature
of the standard. The relative scarcity of data pertaining
to the levels of pathogens in foods during and after
processing meant that the risk assessments were essen-
tially qualitative only. There was also limited data re-
lated specifically to food and links with foodborne illness
in New Zealand and Australia. This meant that the as-
sessments used information available internationally.
In undertaking the review of the microbiological
standards, FSANZ had to take into account a number
of factors that complicate the decision making process,
such as the diverse control systems that are applied in
the food industry, both between different industry sec-
tors and within the same sector, the variability between
foods in the amount of processing before consumption,
the ever present wild card of the impact of food handling
practices once the food leaves the controlled environ-
ment of the wholesaler or retailer and the unknown
history of much food in trade.
4. Review outcome
The outcome of the review was the setting of micro-
biological limits for 26 foods in the new Australia New
Zealand Food Standards Code (joint Code) (Table 3).
These are contained in a single Standard (1.6.1) rather
than being attached to a commodity standard as they
were previously in both the AFSC and the NZFR. The
limits set were arrived at from consideration of existing
criteria found in Australia, New Zealand and Codex
documents.
The analytical methods defined in the standard are
those in AS/NZS1766 and AS/NZS17664276 as in the
AFSC but there is now allowance for methods that can
be shown to be equivalent, using the standard for de-
termining equivalence, AS/NZS4659. This is important
for industry who may prefer to use alternatives to the
traditional analytical methods. Sampling plans and
compliance criteria adopt ICMSF principles.
The total number of foods for which there are stan-
dards is similar to that in the AFSC, but standards have
been removed for some foods and new foods have been
added. This reflects the changing nature of the food
supply, the resolution of historical food safety issues and
the emergence of new food/hazard combinations. In
particular standards for hygiene indicators and spoilage
organisms for pasteurised dairy products and packaged
water have been removed but in some cases these have
been retained as guidelines.
As expected, given the risk based approach for the
standard setting process, the most extensive standards
apply to foods with limited hazard controls such as raw
milk and raw milk products and foods consumed by
vulnerable consumer groups, in particular infants (in-
fant formula). Other foods for which standards were
retained or standards recommended were those reliant
on several hurdles for safety, such as cheeses and
fermented meat, minimally processed foods linked to
foodborne disease outbreaks such as bean sprouts and
foods traded extensively such as cooked crustacea, spi-
ces and coconut and which have been found to be fre-
quently contaminated with pathogens.
Guidelines were recommended for an extensive range
of foods. These guidelines are comparable to the refer-
ence criteria adopted in New Zealand. They do not
comply in format with the Codex approach in that they
may include limits for pathogens, as well as hygiene and
spoilage organisms. Like the standards, they apply at
any stage up to and including the point of sale of the
food to the consumer. They are designed to assist with
the identification of food in the marketplace that has not
been manufactured according to good manufacturing
practice (GMP) or has been subjected to some form of
 S.K. Hasell, M.A. Salter / Food Control 14 (2003) 391–398
abuse. Unlike Codex advisory criteria, these guidelines
were not developed as performance indicators for in-
dustry or as GMP performance measures. They may not
fit this role, as the food processor may need to manu-
facture to stricter criteria to allow for growth in hazards
during the period that the food is in the market place,
before it is actually consumed.
5. Responding to issues raised by stakeholders
Stakeholder responses to the draft standards covered
a wide variety of concerns, including the types of foods
for which risk assessment had been done, the pathogens
that should be included and the need for specified test
methods. All comments were considered and a number
of suggested changes were incorporated into the final
version. Some issues for which there was insufficient
data available were put aside for future consideration.
While there has been acceptance of the outcome of
the review by most stakeholders and by the Health
MinistersÕ council (The Australia New Zealand Food
Standards Council) as part of the joint Code, some
stakeholders are still seeking to see the scope of the
standards extended. In terms of scope, the extremes of
the views are held from that of none being required, to
standards for all hazards in all foods.
The issue of the need and relevance of standards in a
HACCP environment was raised. This has been debated
by a number of illustrious microbiologists. For example,
Christian discussed this issue in an article entitled
‘‘Microbiological criteria and HACCP: In concert or in
conflict?’’ (Christian, 1996). The author sees criteria as
being of limited value with HACCP but sees their role
for regulatory purposes remaining. In particular the
author sees criteria remaining in place for food in trade
and also for testing food of unknown or doubtful origin,
especially in imported food programs. He sees criteria
and HACCP both being important and being discrete
activities but raises several areas of concern, such as: if
HACCP is applied generically it may not include ade-
quate hazard analysis of the specific production unit,
risk assessment procedures need to be developed further
(e.g. quantitative rather than qualitative) and risk as-
sessments to support criteria development are compli-
cated where the condition of the consumer plays a major
role, as with Listeria.
At the opposite end of the spectrum was the desire for
a ‘‘to be sure’’ requirement. This resulted in some
stakeholders wanting criteria to be more extensive than
proposed i.e. all foods and all pathogens. This approach
could be counter-productive if criteria are to support the
safe food concept. There is a need to focus on key
concerns, which is not addressed by adopting the
‘‘shopping list’’ approach (Struijk, 1996). In considering
the breadth of the standards it is important to keep in
397
mind that overarching the standards is the legal re-
quirement for food to be safe and fit for purpose. Mi-
crobiological standards are thus not the sole means of
evaluating the status of a food.
As well as these issues that are concerned with the
general principles of the standard setting process and
how narrow or broad they should be, there were other
concerns raised by stakeholders relevant to specific food/
hazard combinations. These issues will be responded to
and this process has already commenced. For example
the request for a standard for Asian style wet noodles, a
relatively new product on supermarket shelves in New
Zealand and Australia has resulted in a survey of the
microbiological status of these noodles. This survey will
provide the data needed to complete a risk assessment
on this food.
A number of standards were removed. Most of these
related to quality issues and it was therefore not ap-
propriate to retain them e.g. bacterial counts on milk;
while others were found no longer to be necessary be-
cause of changes in food processing practices. An ex-
ample of this is a standard for staphylococci in pasta
that was related in the past to artisanal processes used in
the production of some pasta in Europe. However this
reasoning is not viewed favourably by some stakehold-
ers who consider there to be a need to take an even more
precautionary approach than was used by FSANZ.
However it is important that the standards be viewed
within the overall context of food legislation that re-
quires food to be safe and fit for purpose. Microbio-
logical standards are only one tool for making such a
judgement and may, if applied indiscriminately, hinder
rather than assist making the appropriate safety judge-
ment.
6. Future developments and refinements
The risk assessments used in the development of the
standards were largely qualitative. Food/hazard combi-
nations that could be subjected to a more quantitative
approach will be identified and as the data becomes
available the risk assessments will be expanded to ac-
commodate this data. Ideally this data should be locally
derived.
For some food/hazard combinations standards were
considered but not proceeded with because of issues that
needed to be clarified before enforceable standards
could be introduced. For example, the need for simple
and specific tests for pathogenic strains of Vibrio
cholerae in seafood precluded inclusion of a standard, as
non-pathogenic strains of this pathogen may occur in
the absence of pathogenic strains, in local growing ar-
eas. A standard could be reconsidered when suitable
tests become available.
398 S.K. Hasell, M.A. Salter / Food Control 14 (2003) 391–398
Two areas identified as needing to be considered but
which could not be dealt with during the review due to
time and resource constraints are now being undertaken.
The first of these is a risk assessment and management
strategy for Listeria in all foods. This major project is
building on the purely qualitative assessments of indi-
vidual foods undertaken during the review. It will take
into account the recent extensive international work in
this area, will introduce risk modelling and will use lo-
cally derived quantitative data. The outcome will be a
comprehensive management strategy for the entire food
supply, ensuring that the strategy is comparable for all
foods.
A second area that will be worked on is to look at the
hazards associated with seafood in Australia and New
Zealand and to gain a local perspective of the issues and
the need for further standard developments. Hazard
concerns for seafood, more than perhaps for any other
food groups, are influenced by local conditions. As the
risk assessments undertaken during the review were
based on a mixture of international and local informa-
tion, there is a need to review the outcomes of the as-
sessment by focussing more closely on local concerns
about hazard occurrence and survival in the processing
environment.
7. Conclusions
The microbiological standards review resulted in the
specification of microbiological standards for 26 foods.
In most cases standards set levels for pathogens that
have public health significance. The list of foods is not
exhaustive, and only lists those for which scientific evi-
dence justifies their inclusion. The review also recom-
mended publishing a set of microbiological guideline
levels that aim to assist with the identification of situa-
tions where unacceptable microbial contamination oc-
curs. In testing foods for compliance with the standards,
analysts are free to use methods of their choice, but their
equivalence with Standards Australia/New Zealand
methods must be demonstrated using a standard meth-
od for determining equivalence.
References
ANZFA (1999). The regulation of microbial hazards in food––discussion
paper. Attachment to Review of Microbiological Standards Full
Assessment Report.
Christian, J. H. B. (1996). Microbiological criteria and HACCP: in
concert or in conflict? International Food Safety News, 4, 4–5.
Codex (1997). Principles for the establishment and application of
microbiological criteria for foods. Codex Alimentarius CAC/GL 21,
1997.
ICMSF (1986). Microorganisms in foods 2. Sampling for microbiolog-
ical analysis; principles and specific applications (2nd ed.). Univer-
sity of Toronto Press.
ICMSF (1997). Establishing microbiological safety criteria for foods in
international trade. World Health Statistics Quarterly, 50, 119–123.
Standards Australia (1995a). Food microbiology methods AS.
NZS1766.
Standards Australia (1995b). Water microbiology methods AS/
NZS4276.
Struijk, C. B. (1996). The Hamlet option in food microbiology: to
analyze or not to analyze food specimens as marketed once
HACCP implemented. Acta Alimentaria, 25, 57–72.