GFSI と認証

Although commonly overlooked, microbiological method validation studies are the lynchpin of entire quality programs, and method validations done without rigor are crippling the industry’s ability to truly ensure the quality and safety of foods on a daily basis.

What is a microbiological method, and what exactly is a validation study? A microbiological method is any microbiology test or assay used in the food industry. It may be a test for indicator organisms such as Coliforms or yeast and mold, pathogens such as Salmonella or E. coli O157, or toxins secreted by microorganisms such as Staphylococcal enterotoxin. A validation study is a one-time study that food safety risk managers complete in order to assure themselves that a new method produces accurate results that will enable them to effectively measure and manage food safety risk. A validation study is conducted in the actual lab where testing will be performed, with current laboratory analysts, with the specific formulations of foods that are tested regularly.

Food industry regulators and certifying bodies expect food producers to use microbiological test methods that are proven fit for use on specific foods. If we are to draw inferences about the fitness of a new test method on specific foods, then we must study how that new test method compares to an accepted reference method, or “gold standard” method. Reference methods are those written in the Food and Drug Administration’s Bacteriological Analytical Manual, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Microbiological Laboratory Guidebook, or ISO methods. Regulators and experts agree that these methods represent the standard to which all other tests should measure up to. AOAC PTM and OMA certified methods are not considered reference methods and must be validated as fit for use on foods that are appreciably different from the matrices studied. Likewise, AOAC PTM and OMA certificates are not substitutes for internal validation studies in any given food plant.

There are several different validation study designs used to evaluate alternative, more rapid and cost-effective microbiological methods. Some common validation study designs are shown in Figure 1. Multiple alternative tests are available; however an internal validation study is needed regardless of the test kit manufacturer. Rarely does a validation study include a comparison to agar plates, which are required for almost every microbiological reference method. Material costs, labor costs, and emergency situations typically prohibit food labs from conducting a rigorous validation study that can speak to the performance of a new method in relation to the current gold standard.

It is in the best interest of food processors and the public’s health to conduct rigorous validation studies that give food safety risk managers good information to make correct risk management decisions. In theory, some percentage of unsolved epidemiological foodborne illness clusters must be due to incorrect risk management decisions that allowed contaminated products to reach the market. At the same time, some percentage of all food lot rejections and recalls must be made incorrectly. A portion of these events must be related to food matrix interference that yielded incorrect microbiological results and caused the wrong risk management decision. A rigorous microbiological method validation study that includes a comparison to agar reference methods can reduce the chance of making an incorrect risk management decision. Plants certified with a GFSI accredited quality scheme have already put in effort to ensure analytical equipment such as thermometers and scales are calibrated. Validating microbiological methods against a reference method is equally if not more important, as finished product microbiology results inform decisions made every day that affect your profits and losses, and those results are likely a primary metric you use to study the effectiveness of your prerequisite programs and preventative controls.

Consider a quality lab that is using an alternative microbiological method that has not been rigorously validated with the plant’s specific foods. Unknown to the lab, the test results every day are twice as variable as the reference agar method and are frequently inaccurate relative to the plant’s product specifications. A rigorous method validation would demonstrate that results on the current method vary widely, while the same samples are consistent with a reference method. This well-intentioned plant is unknowingly making incorrect risk management decisions not just multiple times per year, but multiple times per week, either accidentally releasing contaminated product, reworking product that is acceptable, or disposing of perfectly good product. For the millions of dollars the food producer invests in prerequisite programs, preventative controls, quality personnel, and testing, the plant is unable to optimize their food safety risk management simply due to an unknown and overlooked incompatibility of the microbiological method with the plant’s product.

The costs of rigorously validating a microbiological method on all food products outweigh the potential hidden costs that could result from method incompatibility. Test manufacturers, third party labs, consultants, food safety extensions, and industry groups regularly provide study design education and can help you learn more about how fit your current microbiological methods are for your foods.

Figure 1. Scientific Questions Inherent in Food Microbiology Method Validation Study Designs

Validation Study DesignInherent Scientific QuestionDoes Study Design Explain Performance of the New Test?
Test positive or spiked samples side by side on reference method and the new test Does the test perform comparably to the reference method on my food? Yes
Test positive or spiked samples on the new test Regardless of accuracy, can the test detect certain or specific bacteria in my food? No, but may be useful to understand workflow
Test any samples side by side on current AOAC certified method and new test How do the new test’s results compare to my current AOAC certified method on my food? No, but may be useful to understand workflow
Test any positive or negative samples on the new test Will the new test’s workflow improve my lab’s efficiency? No, but may be useful to understand workflow



  • World Food Safety Day
  • Where Science Meets Industry: Practical Outcomes of GFSI's Technical Working Group on Chemicals in Food Hygiene



  • 「すべての小規模企業がそれを実現できる」:パティスリー・バイヨンのグローバル・マーケット・アワードへの段階的な道 - 2019/06/25




  • 科学が産業と出会う場所:食品衛生における化学物質に関するGFSIワーキンググループの実践的成果 - 2019/06/18




  • コーデックスでのGFSIの声:GFSI-CCFICSパートナーシップへのインサイダーガイド - 2019/06/11

    先週、GFSIは コーデックス委員会と共同で最初のワールドフードセーフティデーを祝いました。2つの組織間のコラボレーションが拡大し続けているので、GFSIはコーデックス用語にかなり流暢になっています。その中で、特に頻出する1つの頭字語はCCFICS(食品輸入と輸出証明と検査に関するコーデックス委員会)です。

    先週、GFSIは コーデックス委員会と共同で最初のワールドフードセーフティデーを祝いました。2つの組織間のコラボレーションが拡大し続けているので、GFSIはコーデックス用語にかなり流暢になっています。その中で、特に頻出する1つの頭字語はCCFICS(食品輸入と輸出証明と検査に関するコーデックス委員会)です。