Or. Admin. Code § 603-029-2505 - Control of Listeria Monocytogenes in Post-Lethality Exposed Ready-To-Eat Products
(1)
Listeria monocytogenes can contaminate RTE products that are
exposed to the environment after they have undergone a lethality treatment.
L. monocytogenes is a hazard that a state-inspected
establishment producing post-lethality exposed RTE products must control
through its HACCP plan or prevent in the processing environment through a
Sanitation SOP or other prerequisite program. RTE product is adulterated if it
contains L. monocytogenes, or if it comes into direct contact
with a food contact surface that is contaminated with L.
monocytogenes. Establishments must not release into commerce product
that contains L. monocytogenes or that has been in contact
with a food contact surface contaminated with L. monocytogenes
without first reworking the product using a process that is destructive of
L. monocytogenes.
(2) In order to maintain the sanitary
conditions necessary to meet this requirement, a state-inspected establishment
producing post-lethality exposed RTE product must comply with the requirements
included in one of the three following alternatives:
(a) Alternative 1. Use of a post-lethality
treatment (which may be an antimicrobial agent) that reduces or eliminates
microorganisms on the product and an antimicrobial agent or process that
suppresses or limits the growth of L. monocytogenes. If a
state-inspected establishment chooses this alternative:
(A) The post-lethality treatment must be
included in the state-inspected establishment's HACCP plan. The antimicrobial
agent or process used to suppress or limit the growth of the pathogen must be
included in either the state-inspected establishment's HACCP plan or its
Sanitation SOP or other prerequisite program.
(B) The state-inspected establishment must
validate the effectiveness of the post-lethality treatment incorporated in its
HACCP plan in accordance with OAR 603-029-2215. The state-inspected
establishment must document, either in its HACCP plan or in its Sanitation SOP
or other prerequisite program, that the antimicrobial agent or process, as
used, is effective in suppressing or limiting growth of L.
monocytogenes.
(b) Alternative 2. Use of either a
post-lethality treatment (which may be an antimicrobial agent) that reduces or
eliminates microorganisms on the product or an antimicrobial agent or process
that suppresses or limits growth of L. monocytogenes. If a
state-inspected establishment chooses this alternative:
(A) The post-lethality treatment must be
included in the state-inspected establishment's HACCP plan. The antimicrobial
agent or process used to suppress or limit growth of the pathogen must be
included in either the state-inspected establishment's HACCP plan or its
Sanitation SOP or other prerequisite program.
(B) The state-inspected establishment must
validate the effectiveness of a post-lethality treatment incorporated in its
HACCP plan in accordance with OAR 603-029-2215. The state-inspected
establishment must document in its HACCP plan or in its Sanitation SOP or other
prerequisite program that the antimicrobial agent or process, as used, is
effective in suppressing or limiting growth of L.
monocytogenes.
(C) If a
state-inspected establishment chooses this alternative and chooses to use only
an antimicrobial agent or process that suppresses or limits the growth of
L. monocytogenes, its sanitation program must:
(i) Provide for testing of food contact
surfaces in the post-lethality processing environment to ensure that the
surfaces are sanitary and free of L. monocytogenes or of an
indicator organism;
(ii) Identify
the conditions under which the establishment will implement hold-and-test
procedures following a positive test of a food-contact surface for an indicator
organism;
(iii) State the frequency
with which testing will be done;
(iv) Identify the size and location of the
sites that will be sampled; and
(v)
Include an explanation of why the testing frequency is sufficient to ensure
that effective control of L. monocytogenes or of indicator
organisms is maintained.
(D) A state-inspected establishment that
chooses this alternative and uses a post-lethality treatment of product will
likely be subject to more frequent verification testing by the Department than
if it had chosen Alternative 1. A state-inspected establishment that chooses
this alternative and uses an antimicrobial agent or process that suppresses or
limits the growth of L. monocytogenes will likely be subject
to more frequent Department verification testing than if it uses a
post-lethality treatment.
(c) Alternative 3. Use of sanitation measures
only.
(A) If a state-inspected establishment
chooses this alternative, its sanitation program must:
(i) Provide for testing of food contact
surfaces in the post-lethality processing environment to ensure that the
surfaces are sanitary and free of L. monocytogenes or of an
indicator organism;
(ii) Identify
the conditions under which the establishment will implement hold-and-test
procedures following a positive test of a food-contact surface for an indicator
organism;
(iii) State the frequency
with which testing will be done;
(iv) Identify the size and location of the
sites that will be sampled; and
(v)
Include an explanation of why the testing frequency is sufficient to ensure
that effective control of L. monocytogenes or of indicator
organisms is maintained.
(B) A state-inspected establishment producing
a deli product or a hotdog product, in addition to meeting the requirements of
paragraph (2)(c)(A) of this rule, must meet the following requirements:
(i) The state-inspected establishment must
verify that the corrective actions that it takes with respect to sanitation
after an initial positive test for L. monocytogenes or an
indicator organism on a food contact surface in the post-lethality processing
environment are effective by conducting follow-up testing that includes a
targeted test of the specific site on the food contact surface area that is the
most likely source of contamination by the organism and such additional tests
in the surrounding food contact surface area as are necessary to ensure the
effectiveness of the corrective actions.
(ii) During this follow-up testing, if the
state-inspected establishment obtains a second positive test for an indicator
organism, the establishment must hold lots of product that may have become
contaminated by contact with the food contact surface until the state-inspected
establishment corrects the problem indicated by the test result.
(iii) In order to release into commerce
product held under this section, the state-inspected establishment must sample
and test the lots for L. monocytogenes or an indicator
organism using a sampling method and frequency that will provide a level of
statistical confidence that ensures that each lot is not adulterated with
L. monocytogenes. The state-inspected establishment must
document the results of this testing. Alternatively, the state-inspected
establishment may rework the held product using a process that is destructive
of L. monocytogenes or the indicator organism.
(C) A state-inspected
establishment that chooses Alternative 3 is likely to be subject to more
frequent verification testing by the Department than a state-inspected
establishment that has chosen Alternative 1 or 2. A state-inspected
establishment that chooses Alternative 3 and that produces deli meat or hotdog
products is likely to be subject to more frequent verification testing than one
that does not produce such products.
(3) For all three alternatives in section
(2):
(a) State-inspected establishments may
use verification testing that includes tests for L.
monocytogenes or an indicator organism, such as Listeria species, to
verify the effectiveness of their sanitation procedures in the post-lethality
processing environment.
(b)
Sanitation measures for controlling L. monocytogenes and
procedures for antimicrobial agents or processes that suppress or limit the
growth of the pathogen may be incorporated either in the state-inspected
establishment's HACCP plan or in its Sanitation SOP or other prerequisite
program. When these control procedures are incorporated into the Sanitation SOP
or prerequisite program, and not as a CCP in the HACCP plan, the
state-inspected establishment must have documentation that supports the
decision in its hazard analysis that L. monocytogenes is not a
hazard that is reasonably likely to occur.
(c) The state-inspected establishment must
maintain sanitation in the post-lethality processing environment in accordance
with OAR 603-029-2100 to 603-029-2160.
(d) If L. monocytogenes
control measures are included in the HACCP plan, the state-inspected
establishment must validate and verify the effectiveness of measures for
controlling L. monocytogenes included in its HACCP plan in accordance with OAR
603-029-2215.
(e) If L.
monocytogenes control measures are included in the Sanitation SOP, the
effectiveness of the measures must be evaluated in accordance with OAR
603-029-2145.
(f) If the measures
for addressing L. monocytogenes are addressed in a
prerequisite program other than the Sanitation SOP, the state-inspected
establishment must include the program and the results produced by the program
in the documentation that the state-inspected establishment is required to
maintain under OAR 603-029-2220.
(g) The state-inspected establishment must
make the verification results that demonstrate the effectiveness of the
measures it employs, whether under its HACCP plan or its Sanitation SOP or
other prerequisite program, available upon request to Department inspection
personnel.
(4) A
state-inspected establishment that controls L. monocytogenes
by using a post-lethality treatment or an antimicrobial agent or process that
eliminates or reduces or suppresses or limits the growth of the organism may
declare this fact on the product label provided that the state-inspected
establishment has validated the claim.
Notes
Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 603.085, ORS 619.042 & ORS 619.046
Statutes/Other Implemented: ORS 619.042, ORS 619.046, ORS 619.026 & ORS 619.036
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.