The food safety is the main concern of the politicians and inhabitants in whole Europe. According the currently valid legislation the food should be save. The food should be safe from all aspects: chemical, microbiological, physical and radiological. Physical hazard/foreign body in food is perceived by public as something to be very simply solved by food business operators. However, foreign body is the biggest single source of customer complaints received by food business operators, retailers and enforcement authorities. In even the best-managed processes, the accidental presence of unwanted items could occasionally occur. Foreign body in food is believed to be a matter of concern to all food business operators. However, the level of inclusion of physical hazards by Czech food business operators in the hazard analysis is still low. Consumers experience with foreign bodies in food or even health problems caused by foreign bodies is continuing high level. Consumer complaints regarding foreign bodies reported from food products should be an important question for the food industry that should implement corrective actions to prevent such unwanted events.
People expect, that food they eat is hygienically and health safe. Mass consumption of food is the cause of a high risk to human health, but only in the case of harmful food. Protection of human, animal and plant health is one of the main economic priorities of each country. The political objective of the European Union is therefore to ensure that European Union citizens have access to safe and nutritious foods, so it must meet strict safety standards. In ensuring food safety, it is necessary to consider all aspects of the food production chain, because each subject can have a potential impact on food safety (
The aim of this study is to present results of a survey on the experience of the food business operators in the Czech Republic and consumers with the physical hazards/foreign bodies in food. According currently valid legislation namely
According the
In the report prepared by Food and veterinary office is stated: “Better HACCP implementation/Final overview report the state of implementation of HACCP in the EU and areas for improvement “(
This cross-sectional study tried to evaluate situation in the Czech Republic (CZ), three years later after publication of above-mentioned EU publication. Since then EU created on webpages platform for HACCP implementation wit aim to help small and medium size FBOs, however, no significant progress in CZ was not noted by our study. Quarter of the FBOs did not consider physical hazards/foreign bodies as a problem. To verify existence of this problem we carried out study among CZ population on their experience with foreign bodies in food and 67.91% of them had in past five year at least one experience with foreign bodies and four of them had health problem caused by foreign body in food. The results showed, that there is still gap in the hazard analysis carried out by the food business operators concerning physical hazards/foreign bodies and consumers still experience foreign bodies in food.
Hypothesis 1: We assume, that all CZ food business operators included in their hazard analysis risks associated with foreign bodies/physical hazards. During development their permanent procedure or procedures based on the HACCP principles .
Hypothesis 2: We assume, that all CZ food business operators correctly implemented during establishment of their permanent procedure or procedures based on the HACCP principles all steps as described in
Hypothesis 3: We assume, that the average CZ citizen has no experience with foreign bodies in food.
The cross-sectional study aimed at the experience of the food business operators (FBO) and consumers with foreign bodies/ physical hazards in food. The questionnaire for producers focused on hazard analysis done by FBOs and establishment of critical control points (CCPs) and critical limits (CL). The questionnaire was distributed by e-mail, or by post to 100 FBOs within whole CZ. The FBO were randomly selected from list of food producers registered in trade register. The second part of study was questionnaire for consumers. We distributed 200 questionnaires to randomly selected visitors of food festival, which took place in Moravia-Silesian region. Questionnaire focused on their experience with foreign bodies in food and adverse health effect of consumption of such food.
Chi-squar test was used to determine whether there is a significant difference between the the observed frequencies in two or more categories between men and women experience with foreign bodies. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05. Statistical processing was performed using Stata v. 13 (StataCorp).
The questionnaire to FBOs returned fully filled in 54%. Out of 54 questionnaires only 40 FBOs (75%) evaluated in their hazard analysis foreign bodies/ physical risks. Out of these FBOs, that included in their hazard analysis also physical hazards, assessed the most frequently these materials of foreign bodies: glass 31x (77%), hair, nails 28x (70%), metal, plastic, small bugs 22x (55%), stones and personal belongings 16x (40%). See also Table
Number of FBOs in relation to material assessed in hazard analysis.
Total | % |
|
---|---|---|
|
||
Metal | 22 | 55.0 |
Glass | 31 | 77.5 |
Plastic | 22 | 55.0 |
Organical parts | 9 | 22.5 |
Small bugs | 22 | 55.0 |
Stones | 16 | 40.0 |
Wood | 7 | 17.5 |
Textil | 5 | 12.5 |
Hair,nails | 28 | 70.0 |
Paper,carboard | 12 | 30.0 |
Rubber | 3 | 7.5 |
Inner undesirable parts | 10 | 25.0 |
Personal belongings | 16 | 40.0 |
Other | 7 | 17.5 |
Note: *out of FBOs that assessed physical hazards (N = 40).
The identified CPSs were preparation 10x, reception of raw material nine times, expedition/delivery eight times, storage six times, personal hygiene twice, and cleaning one times. Some FBOs identified as critical more production steps. 14 (35%) FBOs identified CPSs in connection with physical hazards.
Out of them 10 (46%) only identified CPS, two (9%) established in these steps CCP but without CL. The last two (9%) established CPS with CCP and CL. Four (18%) FBO established CCP without CPS and CL, two (9%) defined CCPS with CL but without CPS. The same number of FBOs (2, 9%) established CL without CPS and CCP. See Table
Validation of CL.
Number of FBOs defining CPS, CCP or CL.
Established | Number | % |
---|---|---|
|
||
CPS | 10 | 46 |
CPS.CCP | 2 | 9 |
CPS. CCP. CL | 2 | 9 |
CCP | 4 | 18 |
CCP.CL | 2 | 9 |
CL | 2 | 9 |
Materials for which FBO did not carried out hazard analysis however, CCP was established.
Material | Number of FBO | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
Metal | 2 | |||
Glass | 1 | |||
Plastic | 1 | |||
Organic parts | 2 | |||
Small bugs | 1 | |||
Stones | 1 | |||
Wood | 1 | |||
Textil | 1 | |||
Hair, nails | 1 | |||
Paper, carboard | 0 | |||
Rubber | 0 | |||
Inner undesirable parts | 4 | |||
Personal belongings | 1 | |||
Other | 1 |
In total 12 FBOs established CCP to manage/control physical hazards in their production, 10 of them carried out hazard analysis, two did not carried out hazard analysis for physical hazards at all. In one such case the CCP was established based on internal procedure and in the other case the CCP was established by supplier of the HACCP plan. The most frequently were CCPs established for hair, nails (12x), and glass (10x) metal (eight times). The only material for which any FBO decided to establish CCP was rubber. To prevent or eliminate a hazard or to reduce it to acceptable levels, the FBOs decided for stones (44%) hair, nails (43%) and inner undesirable parts 40% establish the CCP. For other materials it was lower percentage. See Table
Frequency of foreign bodies founded in food.
Material of foreign body and % of FBOs managing this hazards by CCP.
Material of foreign body | Assesed | CCP established | % of hazard managed by CCP |
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
Metal | 22 | 8 | 36.36 |
Glass | 31 | 10 | 32.25 |
Plastic | 22 | 6 | 27.27 |
Organic parts | 9 | 3 | 33.33 |
Small bugs | 22 | 7 | 31.81 |
Stones | 16 | 7 | 43.75 |
Wood | 7 | 1 | 14.28 |
Textil | 5 | 2 | 40 |
Hair, nails | 28 | 12 | 42.85 |
Paper, carboard | 12 | 3 | 25 |
Rubber | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Inner undesirable parts | 10 | 4 | 40 |
Personal belongings | 16 | 3 | 18.75 |
Other | 7 | 1 | 14.28 |
Only six FBO replied, that they do have established critical limits for CCPs in connection with physical hazards. In all cases they choose limit not present. Two of them established critical limit without establishing CPS, and two without defining CPS or CCP. The next question verified how the critical limit was validated and in total 25 FBOs replied, that they had their CL validated. 19 of them did not answered previous question “what is your critical limit“. Out of them 20 had CL established by supplier of the HACCP plan, three times it was done by FBO based on previous experience, in one case limit was based on internal procedure, ones it was chosen based on external cooperation.
In total 60 complaints concerning foreign bodies in food were received by FBOs during 2016. The highest number of complaints received by one producer was 20 and the lowest was one. The out of 54 participants on the study only 10 FBOs received consumers’ complaint. Three of them had not included physical hazards in their hazard analysis. The FBO, that received highest number of complaints (20), did not evaluate physical hazard during hazard analysis and as corrective action this FBO choose the training of the staff. The most frequently compliant was due the presence hair or nails in food (nine times) or bugs (three times). Corrective action implemented all FBOs after compliant. In majority it included stricter control by supervisor during production (13x) or on reception of raw materials (seven times), providing personal with protective cloths (seven times), change of equipment (four times), stricter sanitation (four times) or installation of the x- ray (one times) into the production line. Three FBOs decide to provide staff with further training. The only one produces carried out reassessment of CCP established in the HACCP plan.
The fully filled in questionnaire returned 134 persons, out of them 85 females (63, 43%) and 49 men (36, 56%). The age of participants was mainly between 15 – 65 years – 123 participants, the rest were older people. The majority were with university degree 48% and high school 37%, the rest of participants had lower level of education, and the only person had no education. Out of 134 participants 91 (67, 91%) had experience with foreign body in food during the last five years. The females met foreign body in 58 cases, men in 33. Females met foreign body statistically more frequently than men (tested by ch2 test on the level of 5%,
Concerning material, the most frequently were notified stones 38x (28.3%), inner undesirable parts 37x (27%) organic parts 36x (26.8%), pests, hair and nails, each by 35 (26.11%) participants. The results show Figure
Foreign bodies discovered in food by material in %.
The questionnaire included also questions on the solution of the discovery of the foreign body in food. Only nine persons solved the problem making complaint, out of them eight made complaint to food business operator and the only person to competent authority controlling food safety.
In the next step the comparison was made between experiences of consumers with foreign bodies founded in food with FBOs assessment done within their hazard analysis. The most frequently assessed material was glass- 31 FBOs and 10 (32%) decided to establish CCP to manage this hazard. The glass was notified only by 4 persons. For plastic 22 FBOs carried out hazard analysis and 6 (27.2%) of them established for this hazard CCP. This material was notified by 23 consumers. Small bugs were assessed by 22 FBOs, 7 (31.8%) managed that hazard by establishment of CCP. Small bugs were notified by 35 persons.
Out of 134 participants four (2, 9%) had adverse health Out of 134 participants four (2, 9%) had adverse health effect after consumption food with foreign body in it. One person had even two cases of health problem. Four times it was broken tooth and in one case it was wooden chip stacked in throat. All cases of health problem needed health care treatment.
For organic parts of food and inner undesirable parts of food only 9, respectively 10 FBOs carried out hazard analysis and 3 (33.3%) respectively 4 (40%) of them established CCP to manage this hazard. These two types of foreign bodies were frequently notified by consumers 36x, 37x. The most frequently notified foreign bodies were stones, while only 7 FBOs decided to manage this hazard by establishment of CCP, while 16 carried out hazard analysis. The hair and nail were assessed by 28 FBOs, 12 managed that hazard by CCP (42.85%).
Hair or nail were notified by 35 persons. The results did not show the statistical difference between FBO and consumers concerning the frequency of foreign body material assessment in hazard analysis and discovery in food (tested by ch2 test on the level of 5%,
Comparison assessment carried out by FBOs, CCP establishment and consumers experience (total number).
A foreign body may be defined as something that the consumer perceives as being alien to the food. The perception of the consumer is important, since not all foreign bodies are in fact alien to the food, though all have the potential to give rise to a consumer complaint. Hence foreign bodies can range from items that are demonstrably alien to the food, such as pieces of glass, metal or plastic through items that are related to the food, such as fragments of bone in meat products to part of the food itself, such as crystals of sugar or salt that are mistaken for glass.
Foreign bodies may get into food at any stage from initial harvesting to final processing or even preparation and consumption by the consumer. Food processing should include procedures to remove foreign bodies incorporated during harvesting of the crop, but it can also give rise to foreign bodies itself, any foreign bodies can be traced back to pieces of food processing machinery (
In the HACCP Annex, Hazard Analysis and the decision tree for determining CCPs focuses too much on microbiological hazards, while chemical and physical hazards are given less importance. This reflects the historic focus of HACCP when the initial guidelines were being developed, but chemical and physical hazards need to be addressed to cover issues such as, for example, the effective management of allergens with respect to food safety. In revising the GPFH text and the HACCP Annex, consideration should be given to how to incorporate additional guidance on chemical and physical hazards (
Foreign matter is the biggest single source of customer complaints received by many food manufacturers, retailers and enforcement authorities. In even the best-managed processes, the accidental inclusion of unwanted items may sometimes occur. Foreign matter in foods is therefore quite rightly a matter of concern to all food manufacturers and retailers. Consumer complaints regarding foreign material reported from food products will continue to be a significant issue for the food industry. However, careful study of data from a wide range of foreign matter investigations demonstrates that in many cases the occurrence of foreign matter is far from random (
Contrary to microbial and chemical hazards, physical contaminants are the most obvious evidence of contamination of product. Regarding types of foreign bodies notified the top three material were pest (54.6%), glass (17.4%) and metal (11.5%) (
The foreign bodies statistically were found more by women than men. This is due women are the main chefs at Czech homes. The results of study shoved, that the most frequently met foreign bodies by consumers were stones followed by organic foreign bodies (both inner and outer), followed by hair and small bugs. The difference could be caused by type of foreign bodies, when hair or inner organic parts are not seen by consumers as a problem. Therefore, these materials are not notified by them. The problems with foreign body in food were reported to FBOs only in minority of cases, even in the case of health problem caused by foreign body complaints was not made. This could be caused by no adverse health effect and by consumer’s historical experience with their complaint’s solution.
Food factory operatives are a major source of foreign bodies, from stray hairs not contained by hairnets or beard snoods to studs or sleepers from earrings. Personnel are a major potential source of foreign bodies in food premises of all kinds (
Although, the FBOs provided staff by training as corrective measure in case of non-compliance, the training did not sufficiently prevent occurrence of hail or nail in food. Staff training should go together with thorough control by hierarchy directly on production site.
A good quality management system is vital to the effective prevention and control of foreign bogies in food manufacture. A structured preventive approach is likely to be the most reliable basis for such a system. The traditional approach of sole reliance on finished product analysis and factory inspection is nowadays unlikely to give acceptable assurance and consumer confidence that the process is under control on continuous basis. Hazard analysis is the approach which all companies, whatever their size, should use to identify the points in their manufacturing operations which critically affect product safety. Foreign body hazard analysis of a food product process starts with the identification of the sequential stages in the process from raw materials and packaging materials through to the dispatch, distribution and end use of the food product (
The investigation of a foreign body incident involves a number of clear stages. The first essential step is to determine all the known facts in the case. It is important that precise details of the circumstances under which the foreign body was discovered are recorded. In particular, it is essential to know whether the foreign body was found when the pack was opened, during food preparation or whilst eating the product, and whether or not the foreign body could have been heated during preparation or mixed with other food products (
While the available technology may not eliminate all foreign bodies from food, the correct application of technology will assist in removing many of them (
Our study has proven that there is still space for improvement from side of the FBOs; some of them do not implement all possible preventive measures in their establishments. There was one FBO did not including in hazard analysis physical hazards, although received 20 consumers complaints. It seems, that preventive measures applied by FBOs are not effective enough and do not prevent occurrence of some foreign bodies such as plastic, small bugs, stones, hair and nail. Organic parts and inner undesirable parts of food are not in focus of FBOs, while they are founded frequently by consumers.
Flour beetles are among the most common pest insects found in stored grain and milled products. Beetles have defensive glands which secret quinones such as 2-methyl-p- benzoquinone, 2-ethyl-p-benzoquionone, hydroquinone commonly referred to as benzoquinones. Benzoquinones have a carcinogenic effect, they are inhibitors of growth of various microorganisms, and they produce a self-defense mechanism in threat situations and affect population aggregation (
1,309 complaints reported from 2000 to September 2002, 331 were related to foreign materials (25%), about 6% of those cases resulted in injury. The most common materials were identified as metal, glass and plastic (
All of our hypothesis were not proven to be truth. There is high number of FBOs not including physical hazards in hazard analysis or not following correctly all necessary steps in implementation of their procedures based on HACCP principles. As the result there is quite high number of consumers experiencing foreign bodies in food. The problem is also the quality of guidelines for hazard analysis, that do not include physical hazards and especially small FBOs do not have all necessary knowledge to carry out thorough hazard analysis. There should be more focus on physical hazards from competent authorities and producers associations to develop guides to cover physical hazards in a future.