Review

Sanitary design of

ready-to-eat meat

and poultry

processing

equipment and

facilities

Skip SewardAmerican Meat Institute, USA

Sanitary design principles for equipment and facilitiesshould enable greater control over the risk of contaminationof ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry products duringprocessing, and construction of new facilities and renova-tion of existing facilities, respectively. Optimizing the de-sign and performance criteria for facilities and equipment,as well as establishing industry-wide guidelines (i.e., designprinciples), will benefit the entire industry by improvingproductivity of manufacturers (i.e., one design vs. multiple)and reducing contamination and subsequent product recalls.

Based on the recommendation of the American MeatInstitute (AMI) 2001 Listeria Task Force, an agreementby the AMI Board of Directors that food safety is nota competitive issue, and the need to reduce the incidenceof Listeria monocytogenes in RTE meat and poultry prod-ucts, sanitary design task forces were chartered to developsanitary design principles for RTE processing equipmentand facilities used for food storage and production. TheAMI Equipment Design Task Force (EDTF) and AMIFacility Design Task Force (FDTF) were charged with de-veloping standard equipment sanitary design criteria thatmeet the expectations of the meat and poultry industriesfor sanitary design, and to develop facility sanitary designcriteria to be used by those involved in redesigning (re-modeling, renovation) of existing facilities or in the con-struction of new facilities.

The AMI EDTF, comprising experts from Kraft, Hor-mel, Tyson, Sara Lee, Cargill, Bar-S Foods, HatfieldQuality Meats and AMI, reviewed and assessed existingcertification systems and design specifications and stan-dards. The AMI EDTF met with meat and poultry pro-cessors, the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS, theagency that has responsibility for a non-regulatory, volun-tary, government review process for equipment), and theequipment review staff of the National Sanitation Foun-dation (NSF) to obtain background information and inputon sanitary design principles. Additionally, the AMIEDTF met with RTE processing equipment manufac-turers to ensure their input was considered in the AMIEDTF deliberations. It was discovered through the AMIEDTF deliberations that none of the existing standardsfor equipment covered all of the design criteria importantto the customers, or end-users of the RTE processing

AMI celebrates its 100th birthday

The American Meat Institute (AMI) represents the interestsof packers and processors of beef, pork, lamb, veal and tur-key products and their suppliers throughout North America.AMI was founded in Chicago, Illinois in 1906 just after thepassage of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, one of the firstU.S. laws to set federal food processing standards. Together,AMI’s members produce 95% of the beef, pork, lamb, andveal products and 70% of the turkey products in the UnitedStates. AMI provides legislative, regulatory, public relations,technical, scientific, and educational services to the meat andpoultry packing and processing industry. AMI is governedby elected leaders and staffed by 32 professionals. AMI elec-ted leaders include five officers plus the President and CEO,as well as a 70-person Board of Directors and a 25-personExecutive Committee. Representatives on both these bodiesinclude leaders in both the supplier and packer/processorsegments of the industry. AMI has also created operatinggroups, called policy committees and advisory committees,within its membership to allow member companies torecommend AMI policies in their primary areas of interest.Policy committees focus on broad functional and operationalareas and develop policy recommendations for specificissues within these areas. Advisory committees provide spe-cialized advice to policy committees.

0924-2244/$ - see front matter � 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2006.10.008

Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) S108eS111

equipment. This was especially relevant as the criteria re-lated to sanitary design and the reduction of risks associ-ated with microbial contamination.

The AMI EDTF determined that it was not their objec-tives to write standards. The AMI EDTF considered certifi-cation in its broadest terms and concluded that the 3A dairy,NSF and European Hygienic Engineering and DesignGroup (EHEDG) criteria, which do not specifically addressthe meat industry, were not by themselves sufficiently com-prehensive to serve as the sole basis for certification. AMSlacked sufficient expertise and resources to conductadequate certification; and the time delays for existing cer-tification schemes were hurdles to their acceptance and use.The AMI EDTF recognized that these existing certificationschemes were useful in supplying guidance for sanitary de-sign; however, to deliver RTE processing equipment thatreduced risk would require new sanitary design principlesthat related to practical application of comprehensiveknowledge gained through years of in-plant experiencewith such equipment.

AMI EDTF discussions considered the potential eco-nomic impact of improved sanitary design. Improvementsin design were projected to reduce long term costs basedon reductions in maintenance costs, sanitation costs (la-bor and supplies), down time, start-up delays, microbio-logical troubleshooting, manufacturing costs (one vs.multiple models), and recalls. Greater productivity be-cause of reduced down time also were projected to im-prove the benefit: cost ratio. It was determined thatequipment suppliers could help themselves by invitingcustomers to be part of their design teams, improve feed-back from their sales force to their engineers, institutea cleaning and sanitation check at the point ofmanufacturing, and participate in cleaning and sanitationprograms at customer operations.

After nearly one year of deliberations, the AMI EDTF es-tablished 10 sanitary design principles for RTE processingequipment. These principles are supported by criteria thatdetail more specific recommendations to deliver the over-arching principle.

Following the success of the AMI EDTF, there was a de-termination that sanitary design of facilities also was a keyelement to the prevention of microbial hazards from enter-ing food processing establishments. The AMI FDTF beganits deliberations in 2003 with the mission to establishsanitary design principles for the design, construction,

AMI EDTF sanitary design principles for RTEprocessing equipment

1. Cleanable to a microbiological level2. Accessible for inspection, maintenance and cleaning/

sanitation3. Made of compatible materials4. No liquid collection5. Hollow areas hermetically-sealed6. Sanitary operational performance7. Validated cleaning and sanitizing protocols8. No niches9. Hygienic compatibility with other systems

10. Hygienic design of maintenance enclosures

Active Controls

Magnetic Lock

Access Control Card Reader

Cleanroom

Entrance

S109S. Seward / Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) S107eS111

and renovation of food processing facilities to reduce foodsafety hazards. The task force comprised experts in foodsafety, food processing, architecture, construction and de-sign, and sanitation, including representatives from Mid-dough Consulting, The Stellar Group, Hixson, Hendonand Redmond, Haskell, McClier, Carter-Burgess, SaraLee, Tyson, Land O’ Frost, John Morrell and AMI.

The AMI FDTF established 11 sanitary design principlesfor the design, construction, and renovation of food processingfacilities to reduce food safety hazards. As was the case for thesanitary design principles for RTE processing equipment, theseprinciples were supported by criteria that detail more specificrecommendations to deliver the overarching principles.

The AMI EDTF and AMI FDTF conducted severalpublic training workshops in 2003 and 2004 to communi-cate the sanitary design principles and their underlyingcriteria. These workshops were successful in reachinga broad audience of equipment suppliers and processors,architectural and design engineers, auditors and regulatoryauthorities, and set the stage for further communicationbetween equipment manufacturers and facility design en-gineers, and their customers on the expectations surround-ing the development and purchase of RTE processingequipment and the design, construction and renovation offood processing facilities.

Both the AMI EDTF and AMI FDTF prepared checklisttools that define specific criteria associated with each of thesanitary design principles. These checklist tools facilitate in-ternal and external evaluation of equipment design, facilitydesign, and ultimately, the finished products (i.e., equipmentor renovated or new facility) against the sanitary design prin-ciples. The use of the checklist tools provides relative numer-ical scores that allow comparative analysis of designs,opportunities for improvement and means to communicateto management about the value of sanitary design. The under-standing that few designs will achieve a perfect score sets thestage for open and productive dialogue between suppliers andcustomers. Equipment suppliers and customers are using the

checklist tools to assess sanitary design, as well as in market-ing materials describing equipment for sale. The strength ofthe sanitary design principles is that they provide a frame ofreference for dialogue between suppliers and customers to de-fine and recognize the strengths and vulnerabilities of equip-ment and facility designs. The mutual understanding of thelimitations of the designs, for economic or other reasons, al-low for customers and suppliers to develop the appropriatemitigation strategies to reduce the identified vulnerabilities.

Three companies were recognized in 2004 with AMI Sup-plier of the Year Awards for their application of the AMIEDTF principles to significantly improve the sanitary designof RTE processing equipment. Convenience Food Systems(CFS) redesigned their slicers to provide improved cleanabil-ity without additional cost. Planet Products Corporation suc-cessfully redesigned their link loaders to be readilyaccessible for improved cleaning while increasing capacityand throughput at reduced cost. Alkar-RapidPak designeda new packaging machine from the ground up incorporatingthe sanitary design principles. Other companies includingMepaco (conveyors, blenders), Ashworth (conveyors), Mul-tivac (packaging systems) and Wolf-Tec (injection systems)also have delivered new equipment that address the sanitarydesign principles for food handling and processing equip-ment. On the facility side, the AMI FDTF received the2006 Honor Roll award by the Associations Advance Amer-ica Committee for its significant benefit to American society.Several new construction projects, including a new

AMI FDTF sanitary design principles for the design, con-struction, and renovation of food processing facilities

1. Distinct hygienic zones established in the facility.2. Personnel and material flows controlled to reduce

hazards.3. Water accumulation controlled inside facility.4. Room temperature and humidity controlled.5. Room air flow and room air quality controlled.6. Site elements facilitate sanitary conditions.7. Building envelope facilitates sanitary conditions.8. Interior spatial design promotes sanitation.9. Building components and construction facilitate sani-

tary conditions.10. Utility systems designed to prevent contamination.11. Sanitation integrated into facility design.

Criteria supporting the AMI EDTF principle #1

Cleanable to a microbiological level

Criterion #1.1 e Equipment is designed to be constructedand maintained in a cleanable condition to prevent the in-gress, survival and multiplication of microorganisms(measured post-installation).

Criterion #1.2 e All surfaces are cleanable as measuredby <1 CFU per 25 cm2, <1 CFU per 10 ml when theitem is rinsed, acceptable RLU (device specific) whenmeasured by residual ATP, and/or negative for residualprotein or carbohydrate when using swabs to detect resid-ual protein or carbohydrate (measured post-installation).

Criterion #1.3 e All surfaces are accessible for mechan-ical cleaning and treatment to prevent biofilms formation(measured post-installation).

Criterion #1.4 e When requested, data are available todemonstrate that soiled equipment is cleanable (as de-fined above) by an individual using the cleaning protocolprovided by the equipment supplier (measured post-in-stallation).

Criterion #1.5 e Surfaces are clean visually and to thetouch, and pass pre-op inspections using sight, touchand smell (measured post-installation).

S110 S. Seward / Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) S107eS111

production facility for Land O’ Frost, have applied the AMIFDTF principles to improve sanitary design.

AMI and its members have concluded that sanitary designand operation of equipment and facilities are critical elementsto the control of L. monocytogenes and other microbial con-tamination. The AMI sanitary design principles are improvingdesign and operation of equipment and facilities that are usedfor production of meat and poultry products.

Editor’s note: EHEDG and AMI are consistent in theirprinciples. EHEDG guideline documents that apply to themeat industry include design of equipment for open process-ing (Doc 13), materials of construction (Doc 32), facility de-sign (Doc 26), packing (Doc 11) and integration of hygienicand aseptic systems (Doc 34).

Criteria supporting the AMI FDTF principle #4

Room temperature and humidity controlled

Criterion #4.1 e Room temperature meets process re-quirements.

Criterion #4.2 e Dew point is controlled to prevent con-densation.

Criterion #4.3 e Room air-handling system has a cleanupmode with sufficient air changes to remove fog and to dryout the room after sanitation.

Criterion #4.4 e Refrigeration system has the capacity tomeet process requirements.

S111S. Seward / Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) S107eS111