Risk comparison of ten limit levels of Bacillus cereus in powdered infant formula
Author:
Affiliation:

(1.Yangtze Delta Region Institute of Tsinghua University, Zhejiang, Zhejiang Jiaxing 314006, China;2.China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment, Beijing 100022, China;3.Hubei Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Hubei Wuhan 430079, China)

Clc Number:

Fund Project:

  • Article
  • |
  • Figures
  • |
  • Metrics
  • |
  • Reference
  • |
  • Related
  • |
  • Cited by
  • |
  • Materials
  • |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    Objective To compare the risk of Bacillus cereus contamination in powdered infant formula (PIF) in China under ten different limit levels. Methods The quantitative retail stage monitoring data of Bacillus cereus in PIF in China was used. Based on the microbial risk exposure assessment model of Bacillus cereus in PIF, and the criteria set by Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the other 8 limit levels were assumed. The risk of Bacillus cereus contamination in PIF in China was calculated under the ten limit levels. Results The risks were different under ten limit levels of Bacillus cereus in PIF when the period from preparation to feeding lasts for 2,3 and 4 hours. If the limits adopted in Australia and New Zealand [n=5, c=0, m=100 CFU/g] was applied to China, the total risk was 0 under 2 and 3 hours. Under 4 hours, compare with the other nine limit levels,the standard had the lowest residual risk, which was reduced by more than 36%, and the failure rate was 11.28% (1 128/10 000). Based on the sacrifice of 11.28% of the market milk powder, the risk was better controlled. Conclusion This study screened the limit levels that might be applied to the management of Bacillus cereus in PIF in China through the comparison of risks.

    Reference
    Related
    Cited by
Get Citation

ZHU Yin, SONG Xiaoyu, CAI Qiang, LI Jun, WANG Yeru. Risk comparison of ten limit levels of Bacillus cereus in powdered infant formula[J].中国食品卫生杂志,2018,30(6):635-638.

Copy
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:
  • PDF:
  • HTML:
  • Cited by:
History
  • Received:October 19,2018
  • Revised:
  • Adopted:
  • Online: January 23,2019
  • Published: