Benefits of Paper Placemat or Tray Cover Use in the Reduction of Bacterial Contamination in Selected Public Facilities: Executive Summary (Members Only)

/in

Executive Summary:

Benefits of Paper Placemat or Tray Cover Use in the Reduction of Bacterial Contamination in Selected Public Facilities

Conducted by the University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh
for the Foodservice & Packaging Institute, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
In 1979, a study documenting the sanitary benefits of paper placemats was conducted by the Food Protection Laboratory of the Syracuse Research Corporation. Results from this study demonstrated that placemats help in the reduction bacterial transfer from tabletops in restaurants. Similar results were found in a study conducted in 1997 by University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh’s Department of Biology and Microbiology.
The objective of the 2006 study, also conducted by the University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh was to expand upon the study conducted in 1997 to include new groups of facilities and products and a more detailed breakdown of the microorganisms present. In the restaurants and daycares the objective was to evaluate microbial loads on placemats versus uncovered tables. In long-term care facilities, lodging and hospitals tray covers were compared to uncovered trays. In all cases, the microorganisms examined were Bacillus, coliforms, Enterococcus, Micrococcus, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, among others.
METHODOLOGY
Sampling was conducted from mid-January to mid-May 2006, and the protocol was followed from Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products, 16th edition (1985). A total of twenty plates were used per facility, ten tabletop/tray surfaces and ten placemat/tray cover surfaces. If a location did not use placemats/tray covers just the tabletop/tray was sampled. Samples were usually collected mid-afternoon, following the lunch hour. The samples were collected by uncovering the Rodac® plate, inverting it, and stamping the agar on the sample surface. They were then transported to UW Oshkosh where they were incubated. Following the incubation period, plates were counted and identified by morphology.
RESULTS
A total of 50 facilities, in the five aforementioned groups, agreed to have their locations participate in this study. The daycare group did not have any placemat data due to the fact that none of the facilities contacted used placemats. Therefore, a total of 900 data points were collected.
Long-term care, restaurants, hospitals and lodging all showed a statistically significant difference between the samples that had placemats/tray covers when compared to samples that did not use this protective barrier.
While the daycare facilities had no statistics conducted due to the lack of placemats, these facilities had the highest levels over overall microbes and ten-times the amount of coliforms of the next highest facility group. Restaurants and lodging facilities were the next two groups with the highest levels of overall microbes and coliforms. The hospital and long-term care facilities demonstrated the least amount of overall microbes and coliforms.
While the placemats/tray covers were very successful as a barrier to overall bacterial contact, they were particularly effective as a barrier to coliforms. Additionally, there were much higher levels of Staphylococcus found in samples with no placemats/tray covers. Only one group (restaurants) showed any coliforms when the placemats were sampled.
DISCUSSION
This study shows similar results to the two previous studies mentioned in the Introduction. The placemats/tray covers provided an excellent barrier to the inadvertent contact with microorganisms at a number of facilities. Statistical analysis of the overall microbial means within each group showed a significant difference in all groups that had both covered and uncovered sites. Additionally, the daycare group did not use placemats, but likely could benefit from their use due to their relatively high level of microbes and coliforms. This overall lack of microbial contact would likely translate into a more sanitary environment, and consequently an environment that would be less likely to transmit disease causing microorganisms to unsuspecting users of these facilities. This principal is no more important than in a daycare where children lack the basic understanding of sanitation and personal hygiene.
Given the relatively low cost of these paper products they could be a value-added public health benefit to all these facilities. A cost-benefit analysis may be warranted to show operators of these facility types that the benefits of using placemats/tray covers far outweigh any additional costs to the facility. If more facilities used these barriers it would be an asset to environmental public health and may be able to prevent the spread of common illnesses.

Foodservice Packaging: Sanitation

/in

FPI Rigidity Tester Operating Procedure

/in

FPI Rigidity Tester

/in

FPI Rigidity Tester

In 2007, FPI announced that production and shipment had begun for the Institute’s modernized rigidity tester used by manufacturers for testing rigidity (resistance to bending and buckling) of single-use foodservice packaging products.
The 2007 model of the tester is an electrified, digitized, and ergonomically-enhanced version of the Institute’s original rigidity tester developed for industry use 20 years ago. It has been used by the industry to determine the rigidity of paper and plastic plates, platters, bowls and trays used in foodservice venues.
FPI’s Foodservice Packaging Standards Council spent nearly a year developing its requirements for a new rigidity tester, and then monitored ten months of beta testing of the new unit at Georgia-Pacific Corporation’s DIXIE laboratory facility in Lehigh Valley, Pa. In addition to the testing device, the Council oversaw development of a new Operating Procedure for the tester.
The new device is being manufactured by Peerless Machine & Tool Corporation of Marion, Ind. Manufacturers and laboratories seeking to purchase the 2007 model of the rigidity tester may contact FPI for information.
If your company already has the updated rigidity tester but has questions or problems with the calibration, please contact Peerless Machine & Tool Corporation directly at (765) 662-2586.

Foodservice Packaging and… Styrene

/in

Foodservice packaging is made from a wide variety of materials. These products go through rigorous testing to ensure that they meet stringent regulations, ensuring the safe delivery of foodservice items to consumers.

However, there has been some confusion over the safety of polystyrene with the inclusion of “styrene” in the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) 12th Report on Carcinogens in 2011.

Styrene is naturally present in foods such as strawberries, peaches, cinnamon, beef and coffee and is produced in the processing of foods such as beer, wine and cheese. It is also used to make polystyrene, a material used to make some foodservice packaging.

Polystyrene has been used in foodservice products like foam coffee cups, takeout containers and cutlery for more than five decades. During that time, polystyrene has been reviewed by various regulatory agencies and scientific bodies, which have deemed it safe for use in contact with food.

The NTP stated in its own report that “It is important to note that the reports do not present quantitative assessments of carcinogenic rise…Listing in the report does not establish that such substances present a risk to persons in their daily lives. Such formal risk assessments are the purview of the appropriate federal, state, and local health regulatory and research agencies.” So NTP did not conclude that styrene or plastic foodservice packaging made with styrene present any risk to human health.

Following the NTP report publication, several additional statements were released confirming the safety of polystyrene:

    • The U.S. National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences noted “Styrene should not be confused with polystyrene (styrofoam). Although styrene, a liquid, is used to make polystyrene, which is a solid plastic, we do not believe that people are at risk from using polystyrene products.”
    • The toxicologist who heads NTP stated “Let me put your mind at ease right away about Styrofoam,” noting that levels of styrene from polystyrene containers “are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting…In finished products, certainly styrene is not an issue.”

Furthermore, in 2013 the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group provided updated styrene migration data to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). The data show that current exposures to styrene from the use of polystyrene food contact products remain extremely low, with the estimated daily intake calculated at 6.6 micrograms per person per day. This is more than 10,000 times below the safety limit set by FDA (the FDA’s acceptable daily intake value of styrene is calculated to be 90,000 micrograms per person per day).

For more general information on styrene, please visit the Styrene Information and Research Center website at  www.styrene.org and www.youknowstyrene.org.

Updated November 2013