1

Volume 11, 2011

A recent review article about the merits of gloves in the food industry brings out several interesting facts. The piece was written by a group from Michigan State University in Lansing and published in the August 2010 issue of the Journal of Food Protection.

Our BodiesThe amount of bacteria we harbour on our bodies and the degree to which we shed these bacteria from the surface of our bodies may surprise you. Some scientists estimate that our lower arms (�nger tips to lower elbows) are host to as many as 10 million bacteria, with 90 per cent of these on our hands.

As new methods are developed to identify di�erent types and strains of bacteria, scientists have discovered that there is a great diversity of bacteria living happily on us. One study reported �nding 4,742 di�erent strains after sampling only 51 hands, Streptococcus and Staphylococcus being some of the dominant species. Women also have a higher diversity of bacteria than men.

Our skin cells are constantly being shed. As they leave our body, each cell can carry anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 viable bacteria. For the food processing industry, this can be a major problem.

Although mandatory in our business, hand washing has its limita-tions. A number of publications have reported �nding few di�er-ences between washing with antimicrobial and regular soaps. One reported that, even after careful scrubbing, bacteria will repopulate themselves in �ve to six days. So it’s easy to understand why gloves are used extensively in the food industry.

GlovesGloves made from either latex, rubber and non-latex materials such as nitrile or vinyl are commonly used in the food industry and do of-fer added protection, but there are a number of variables that deter-mine their e�ectiveness. Those who argue for gloves say they pro -tect hands from harsh chemicals and hazardous situations; protect foods from direct hand contact; are easier to monitor, audit and en-force than hand washing thoroughness and frequency; can be used to cover bandages; can improve grip; and are e�ective in preventing cross contamination.

Those who argue against glove use point out that they can limit �nger dexterity; can contaminate foods if not used properly; pro-vide a false sense of security, encouraging poor hygiene practices; are known to have pinhole leaks which permit bacteria to migrate from our hands onto foods; can cause skin irritations which discour-age proper glove use; and can fall apart, introducing foreign matter which may not be detected by conventional methods. The theme that resonates in the “nay” camp is that gloves can do more harm than good if not used properly. So to get the bene�t of gloves, follow these guidelines:

• Use gloves designed for the task. • Always wash, dry and sanitize hands before donning gloves.• Sanitizers can create pinholes. Do not apply sanitizer to the outside

of a glove once it’s on your hand, unless the glove is designed to be sanitized.• Change gloves regularly or at least every break following the proce-dure outlined above.• Always wash your hands after removing gloves, as research has

shown that bacteria collect in the perspiration under the gloves. • -

bing food workers’ gloved hands.• Constantly train and reinforce good hand hygiene practices.

Dr. Ron Wasik, PhD, MBA (Dr. Fix It), is president of RJW Consulting Canada Ltd. rwasik@rjwconsultingcanada.com

Gloves and Sanitation Go Hand in HandDr. Ron Wasik

2

Everybody’s hands are frequently contaminated with enteric micro-organisms, and food workers are no exception. These workers may be even more exposed because of their work with raw food ingredi-ents and their frequent contact with fellow workers and the public. Unlike hand contamination with staphylococci from the nasophar-ynx, the enteric bacteria that contaminate the hands of food workers more often are associated with raw foods of animal origin rather than poor personal hygiene after visiting the toilet.Hand hygiene compliance at the retail food service level is known to be inadequate. Hand hygiene practices of food workers are depen-dent on the type of work involved and the type and nature of the soil on their hands. Compliance begins with a commitment by manage-ment to designate safety as the number 1 concern in the establish-

ment and to introduce regular training programs for safe production of food and for when and how to wash hands e�ectively.

Many people, workers included, feel that their hygiene routines are su�cient because no adverse consequences have been experienced over many years of performing the same procedures. Gross hygiene errors may be in place for a long time in foodservice operations and not be identi�ed until associated illnesses are reported. For instance, two United Kingdom catering facilities (in Scotland and Wales) were thoroughly investigated in public inquiries following large outbreaks with illnesses and deaths. Workers with management acceptance had contaminated cooked meat products.

WashingHand washing times of 15 to 30 seconds have been recommended by di�erent agencies around the world. For many years sanitarians have speci�ed that the hands of food service workers should be washed and rinsed in hot water to reduce the risk of cross-contamination and disease transmission. However, the use of water at these tempera-tures has not been supported by research. Hand washing with water at high temperatures may contribute to skin damage when frequent hand washing is required, and insistence on hot water usage may be a deterrent to hand washing compliance.

To reduce the potential for bacterial transfer, food workers may need to wash their hands for longer than 15 s or may need to wash more often. Thorough rinsing is important because this action also removes potential skin irritants and contact sensitizers originating in food, soaps, metals, and facility disinfectants that could lead to dermatitis. Triclosan, triclocarban-trichlorocarbamide, and parachlo-rometaxylenol-chloroxylenol are commonly used antibacterial hand cleaning agents, however Gillespy and Thorpe found that germi-cidal soaps were not remarkably more e�ective than ordinary soap for reducing the numbers of bacteria transferable from the skin to handled objects. Infectious disease outbreaks have also been linked to workers with long or arti�cial �ngernails. Without the regular use of a nail brush, they are very di�cult to clean even with appropriate soaps, hand rubs, or gels.

DryingHand drying has two e�ects: removal of moisture through absorp-tion and removal of microorganisms through friction. The friction generated during hand drying is even more important than that generated during washing because the soaping stage has

Washing and Drying of Hands To ReduceMicrobial Contamination on Food Workers’ HandsProf. Ewen Todd, Michigan State University

3

loosened the microorganisms from the skin. The drying stage physi-cally removes microorganisms in a �lm of water from the skin by wip-ing and depositing them on a towel. Thus, hand hygiene e�ciency is a combination of washing e�ciency (soap, water, rubbing, and rins-ing) and hand drying.

Although cloth towels are popular because of their rapid drying, they become contaminated through multiple usages, and once pathogens are deposited on towels, they can survive long enough to

-rial in institutional paper towels, which are usually made of rougher paper than used for domestic paper towels. The coarser the grain of paper used, the more e�cient the friction e�ect will be for organism removal, although harsh, nonabsorbent paper towels could discour-age their use compared to softer paper. Also, hand-operated paper towel dispensers have their limitations. In a survey of 12 food pro-

cessing or food service facilities, researchers found coliforms, E. coli, and S. aureus on paper towel dispenser equipment. Air driers that are used in many communal washrooms allow one user at a time, and that take up to 1 min to dry the hands, have not been convenient and lead to avoidance or incomplete drying. In several studies, on aver-age people spent 22.5 s drying hands, and 41% wiped their hands unhygienically on clothes. Newer fast air �ow driers are become more widespread but yet have to be completely evaluated for their sani-tary qualities.

multiple hurdles to reduce pathogen contamination and reduce their spread are better than one or two hurdles, and when coupled with glove use and proper handwashing, these steps should minimize the opportunities for pathogens to reach the food being prepared.

Food Safety Practices in Retail Deli DepartmentsTom Bannon, National Sales Manager, Deb Canada

In a recent study in the Journal of Food Protection (Vol. 73, No. 10, 2010, pages 1849–1857), the authors observed 33 employees across nine retail food stores in the Maryland as they prepared deli meat, cheese, and deli salads, as well as other products such as sandwiches, fried chicken, etc. Their hand hygiene practices were surprising (to me at least).

Interestingly, bare-hand contact with ready-to-eat (RTE) foods was not observed at any time during the study. This lack of bare-hand contact with RTE food is in contrast to other research that has found extensive bare-hand contact with RTE food by restaurant employees in other states. One possibility is that since the deli preparation ar-eas were often in plain view, food employees may have perceived an increased pressure from customers to wear gloves at all times. In-

deed, customer presence has been reported by food employees to have a positive in�uence on their performance of other food safety behaviors such as hand washing. Speci�cally, food employees at res-taurants have cited concern about appearing sanitary to customers, particularly in kitchens where they can be seen, as well as awareness of customers watching them to see if they had washed their hands, as factors that promote hand washing.

One of the larger problems identi�ed by study authors was the fre-quency of contact between gloved hands and potentially contami-nated equipment and utensils prior to touching RTE food. For ex-ample, food employees frequently touched the deli case handle at the stores prior to handling RTE food. Most often, food employees touched such non–food contact surfaces prior to slicing deli meat and cheese onto gloved hands.

Based on the observations in this study, if care had been taken to limit gloved hand contact with just the wrapper or casing of the RTE products and if the products had always been sliced onto a deli tissue on the hand, for example, the number of inappropriate hand contact points would have decreased by up to 86%. Another potential mea-sure is to have ensured that the objects and/or surfaces that food employees handled prior to touching RTE food were clean and sani-tized. Such risk mitigation measures should be further developed and tested in order to identify the most e�ective method to improve hand hygiene compliance during food preparation.

4

42 Thompson Road West, PO Box 730, Waterford, Ontario CANADA NOE 1YO Tel: 519 443 8697 Toll Free: 1-888-332-7627

Fax: 519 443 5160 Toll Free 1-800-567-1652 • Email: debcanada@debcanada.com • www.debgroup.com

Deb Skin Care Products at a GlanceThe Deb Global Range Product Range is now available and has been carefully devised to meet the specific skin safety needs and cultural diversity of your organization. Our food skin safety regimen combines products that may be used in food processing establishments with support activities intended to improve hand hygiene compliance. Please use the product applications chart below to identify the ideal product and contact us for any additional information.

Deb® InstantFOAM ™ HAND SANITIZER

Deb® Pure RESTORE

Deb® Universal PROTECT

Deb® Sun PROTECT

Deb® Pure WASH

Deb® Lotion WASH

Deb® Hair & Body WASH

Deb® Lime WASH

Deb® Citrus POWER WASH

Deb® Sun�ower WASH

Deb® Natural POWER WASH

Deb® Ultra WASH

Deb® Universal WIPES

Deb® Ultra WIPES

Debonaire Anti-Bacterial Foam (Unscented)®

Debonaire Anti-Bacterial Foam ®

Florafree Anti-Bacterial Gel Skin Cleanser®

Deb® Clear FOAM WASH

Deb® Azure FOAM WASH

Deb® Rose FOAM WASH

PRODUCT

Synt

hetic

& P

etro

leum

Ba

sed

Oil

& G

reas

es

Gen

eral

Dirt

& G

rime

Inks

& D

yes

UV-

A &

UV-

B ra

ys

O

f�ce

/Com

mer

cial

/Lei

sure

Oil

& W

ater

Bas

ed P

aint

s

Resi

ns &

Sea

lant

s

Hea

vy In

dust

rial

Ger

ms

& B

acte

ria

Med

ical

Roo

ms

& L

abor

ator

ies

Dry

& D

amag

ed S

kin

App

licat

ion

in P

roce

ss

Prod

uct m

ay b

e us

ed in

Foo

d P

roce

ssin

g Es

tabl

ishm

ents

Tar &

Bitu

men

Dril

ling

Mud

Lacq

uers

& V

arni

shes

G

ener

al &

Lig

ht In

dust

rial

Gen

eral

Hyg

iene

Adh

esiv

es

Out

door

Food

stu�

s, O

ils &

Fat

s

Fo

od In

dust

ry &

Cat

erin

g

Nor

mal

Ski

n

Alk

yd &

Acr

ylic

Bas

ed P

aint

s

Skin ConditionLocation Contamination

CFIAYes Pending