NE SARE PILOT PROJECT SUMMARY FOR 2008

Findings

1. Of the 21 original participants in the 2007 pilot project, 17 farmstead cheesemakers remained committed to inclusion in the pilot group.  One new cheesemaker joined the group.  In 2008, the participants had to pay for the testing themselves.  Four of the original participants decided not to continue in 2008 because the cost of testing did not justify the value of the project to them.  However, they thought that the project was valuable to them in 2007 when the cost was covered by SARE.   Two of these remaining 17 cheesemakers were not able to operate sampling/testing programs in 2008, citing personal reasons, but remain committed to the project.   Two new farmstead cheesemakers joined the group in 2008. 
2. In 2008, 17 farmstead cheesemakers continued to monitor their risk reduction programs with periodic sampling and testing of milk, cheese and the environment but only 11 of them stayed with the program for their entire time of cheese production, which ranged from six to twelve months depending on ruminant species and management style, e.g. seasonal or year-round.
3. It is yet to be determined why these six cheesemakers could not continue their sampling/testing for the entire production period. It may be because of any of the following reasons: economic constraints, time constraints, adequate regulation in their own states, confidence in quality and risk reduction because of improvements made in 2007, etc..
4. To maintain buyer belief in and assurance of the quality of farm made cheeses, cheese-makers need to do more than current regulations require. 
5. While the federal/state systems in place for testing milk for total bacteria counts are adequate for assuring food safety, sampling that differentiates total bacteria counts into groups of bacteria for closer evaluation enables cheese-makers to be proactive in finding and fixing problems before they occur.  For example differentiating the sample to determine presence of  Staphylococcus aureus, as is done in the EU, and bacteria in the Coliform group alerts the cheese-maker to identify the sources of potential pathogens and take actions to prevent an accumulation that will eventually raise the total bacteria count above the regulated limit.
6. The environmental testing aspect of the pilot was very effective.  These points of contamination are not currently regulated.  For example producers were able to identify and take actions to eliminate potential pathogens in drains, floors, storage areas and added ingredients.
7. All the cheese-makers in the pilot program saw the benefits of self-directed actions to identify potential points of contamination in their operations (milk, environment, cheese) and the ability to verify the presence/or not of contaminants through periodic testing.  Many mentioned the value of consistent testing and the timely reporting of results as a means to improve their sanitary and hygienic practices, particularly in the production of milk and in the daily operations of the creamery where cheese is made, aged, packaged, and stored before delivery.
8. The primary barrier for the cheese-maker to doing testing was “finding the time.”  Improvements to cheese quality (flavor, texture, etc.) and increases in the number of successful batches were related more to assistance and education of the cheese-maker in the technical aspects of making and aging cheeses rather than from information gained from testing.
9. Current regulations that provide for cheese testing are not necessarily directed towards testing cheeses with the highest risk to public health.  Testing by the cheese-maker was effective in preventing an unsafe product from reaching the market.
10. A risk reduction program should be an integrated partnership of state regulators combined with self-regulation by the cheese-maker, which should be required to obtain a license to process milk. 

Recommendations
A program that integrates state regulation and self-monitoring to reduce the risk of a farm made cheese reaching the market would include the following:
1.   Milk testing:  Twice monthly sampling and testing of milk used for cheese production.  At minimum, one sample should be differentiated; at best, both samples would be differentiated to include testing of Staphyloccus aureus and Coliform bacteria.  As is now the typical practice, one sample would be collected by the state for testing at the state lab.  This would be followed in two weeks by another collected by the cheese-maker, which would be tested at an independent, certified lab such as the Agi-Mark Central Lab in West Springfield, MA.   The cost to producer @ $25/ sample for shipping and testing.  Technical assistance to identify and solve any potential problem provided though VIAC, VCC or private consultants.  The records of the two milk tests should be viewed by the state inspector and the producer on a monthly basis.

2. Environmental testing:  A plan for environmental testing of the creamery should be developed by state regulators with the assistance of the producer.  Once every two months the producer collects samples from at least four potential points of contamination for testing at the state lab.  One additional sample of cheese brine should be tested.  State inspector to work with producer to identify where to sample, how to sample, and what to test for.  Sampling of sites in the cheesemaking and brining areas should be done when in production; sites in the aging rooms and packaging area should be sampled all year round.  Technical assistance to identify and solve any potential problem provided though VIAC, VCC or private consultants.

3. Cheese testing:  Monthly sampling of highest risk cheeses by the state.  Inspectors will work with producers to identify the highest risk raw milk cheeses from a food safety perspective, e.g. high moisture, surface-ripened, low acid at time of consumption.  To ensure that pasteurization is effective, in addition to reviewing posted pasteurization charts, inspectors will sample pasteurized cheeses aged less than 60 days to ensure that the risk of post pasteurization contamination is low.  This amounts to at least two samples of cheese each month.  Technical assistance to identify and solve any potential problem provided though VIAC, VCC or private consultants.

4. These criteria will be included in cheese-maker licensing standards.

5. State inspectors need education and technical support to be able to work with producers to develop environmental sampling plans and to identify cheeses that pose a high risk to public health.  Producers need education and technical support to develop HACCP-style monitoring plans, training in how to take and package samples, and interpretation of results to solve problems to avoid risks to public health. 

back to top