Brett Madden, Aviaway
Bug Bytes

How to Prepare an Integrated Bird Management Audit Program

By R. Brett Madden
No Comments
Brett Madden, Aviaway

Birds of different species can become a pest problem depending upon where they are landing, roosting or nesting. In terms of food facilities, birds can cause various concerns: Product safety risks, possible contamination (bird droppings/feathers), poor audit grades, inspection failure, secondary insect pest problems, vectoring of foodborne illness pathogens, plant closures or fines. It is for these reasons that it is essential that food, beverage and product manufacturers (FBP) establish an integrated bird management (IBM) program.

An IBM program will ensure that every essential team member is on the same page in terms of the protocols for managing pest birds within and around the facility. Even if a facility has taken a proactive approach to bird control, the potential exists for birds to enter a facility. Especially considering bird pressures around adjacent properties, buildings, bodies of water and food sources near the facility.

Read Part I of this series: Bird Problems and Control Methods for Food Production FacilitiesIBM for food industry facilities is a systematic approach to preventing birds from gaining access within a facility and reducing the length of time birds remain within a facility. Nuisance birds, depending upon how severe the bird pressure—i.e., how many birds are landing, roosting and/or nesting within a given area—can cause severe damage to equipment, property, food products, displays, vegetation, façade signage, ledges, roofs, HVAC equipment, drains, fire suppression, electrical equipment and more. The longer that birds are permitted to remain within and around a facility, the more damage they can cause, and the harder it is to remedy the problem. Thus, it is critical to remove any birds that have gained entry as soon as possible to prevent possible FBP contamination and the birds getting comfortable within the facility.

There are several components to developing an IBM program. First, you need to conduct a complete inspection of the interior/exterior of the facility, followed by a review of the current data as well as any historical bird data. Now that you have all the raw data, you can begin developing the site-specific IBM plan for the FBP facility. Now that you have the program designed, the program can be implemented. Finally, after a defined timeframe that the IBM program has been active, the program needs to be evaluated to determine if any adjustments need to be made to the program.

Inspection

The first step in developing an IBM program is to conduct an initial site inspection audit of the interior and exterior of the facility.

Integrated bird management, audits, food safety
An example of an integrated bird management food safety audit checklist. Credit: Aviaway

The following various elements need to be inspected and with said findings documented.

Interior audit, pest management
An example of an interior audit spreadsheet. Source: Aviaway. (Click to enlarge)

On the interior of the facility, look at the following items:

  • Active Birds with the Facility
    • List the areas and locations of birds
      • Example: Location(s): Food prep area(s), warehouse, etc.
    • Any history of birds and related areas
  • Interior Landscaping
    • Type(s) and necessity
  • Food Processing Areas
    • Any active control measures in place
    • Assess the level of risk
  • Bay Doors
  • Location(s): Gaps
  • Location(s): Bumpers
  • General Doors
    • Location(s): Gaps
    • Location(s): Bumpers
    • Location(s): Structural
    • Location(s): Doors left open
  • Additional Access Point(s)
    • Check all equipment areas that enter/exit building
  • Pipe-Line Penetrations
  • Sanitation
  • Conductive Conditions
    • Location(s): Standing water
    • Location(s): Food Sources
    • Debris
  • Bird Droppings or Nesting Materials
  • Staff feeding birds
    • All access to food and water
Exterior audit, pest management
An example of an exterior audit spreadsheet. Source: Aviaway. (Click to enlarge)

On the exterior of the facility, look at the following items:

  • Active birds with the facility
    • List the areas and locations of birds
      • Example: Locations(s): Rear loading dock
    • Any history of birds around the exterior of the facility
  • Adjacent Structures
    • Accessory buildings and structures
  • Sanitation Practices (Exterior)
    • Location(s): Dumpsters
    • Exposed food sources and spillage
  • Trash Receptacles
  • Trash Removal Frequency
  • Food Waste on Ground
  • Cleaning Practices
  • Cleaning Practices Schedule
  • Cleaning Food Waste Bins
  • Motion Doors
  • Bay Doors (Exterior)
    • Location(s): Gaps
    • Location(s): Bumpers
    • Location(s): Structural
  • General Doors (Exterior)
    • Location(s) Doors Being Left Open
  • Additional Access Point(s)
  • Bodies of Water
  • Conductive Conditions
  • Structural (Exterior)
    • Location(s): Pipe-Line Penetrations
    • Location(s): Flashing
    • Location(s): Pipes
    • Location(s): Openings
    • Location(s): Roof
    • Location(s): Roof Hatches
    • Location(s): Windows
    • Location(s): Canopy (Front/Rear)
    • Location(s): Awnings (Front/Rear)
    • Location(s): Façade Signage (Front/Rear/Side)
  • Drainage
  • Standing Water
  • Clogged Drains
  • Landscaping
    • Retention ponds
  • Bird Droppings or Nesting Materials
  • Exterior Storage
  • Merchandise Displays
  • Existing Bird Control Devices

Review

Next, after all the above items have been inspected and findings recorded, all the data needs to be reviewed. In addtion, all the current bird management practices within the facility, documentation practices, and current audit/inspection findings should be all evaluated together. All this information is your road map for developing your IBM Program. Make sure that while you are collecting all the said raw data, you also speak with all necessary staff to get the most accurate information possible.

Documentation

Now that you have conducted your inspections and collected all the data, it’s time to create a site-specific IBM Policy & Plan for the facility. The development and implementation of the IBM plan will provide the appropriate procedures that are to be implemented to prevent, control and exclude birds from entering a facility and from keeping birds an acceptable distance away from the facility. With proper training and implementation of IBM procedures, there will be a reduced likelihood that birds will be able to enter the facility, and the length of time birds remain inside the facility will be reduced—thus, reducing the level of pest bird damage caused, reducing hazards to food sources, equipment, the public, and the facility environment.

Each facility is unique in its operation, location and potential for bird activity. The facility’s IBM plan will be designed to factor its control options when remedying and preventing bird pressure.

Implementation

Now that you have an IBM Plan, it’s time to implement the plan. First, make any necessary changes based upon findings of the audit and review of all data. Next, correct any conducive conditions that were discovered during the inspection. All the items that may require adjustment may need to be planned out depending upon budgetary constraints. Define staff roles regarding bird control efforts on a front-line facility level. Each member of the action team must fully understand their role and responsibility about the implementation and day-to-day operation of the plan.

The IBM Plan is the roadmap that should be followed for managing pest birds throughout the interior and exterior of the facility and related structures. It will set forth the facility’s bird threshold levels and site-specific facility needs. Furthermore, the IBM Plan will provide in detail how each phase of the plan will be implemented at each facility. The facility coordinator, in collaboration with the IBM coordinator, shall be responsible for the administration and implementation of the IBM plan. Each of their roles and responsibly should be thoroughly reviewed and understood.

Next, conduct staff training on proper bird control removal methods if handing live removal internally. Otherwise, what are the approved processes for third-party vendors who are providing removal services? Finally, conduct a review of the new documentation process to record all necessary data for the IBM program. Data collection is a critical component in evaluating the success of the plan and determining if any adjustments need to be made.

Evaluation

To ensure goal compliance, the IBM program should be evaluated at each site annually. The review must consist of all records, the number of birds that gained access into the store, corrective actions taken (at the facility level and outside efforts), and any plan adjustments. By reviewing all the data collected, the plan’s effectiveness can be determined, and whether alterations need to be made. Note that the IBM plan is not a static document that sits in a binder. The plan will have to evolve as operations change, or the set goals of the program are not met.

Conclusion

A proactive approach to reducing bird populations is critical for food industry facilities. As such, the IBM program will ensure that your entire staff is adequately trained on all the site-specific bird control methods, reduce the frequency of birds entering the facility and create a documented bird control program that is designed for your specific facility.

Cori Goldberg, Reed Smith
FST Soapbox

USDA Publishes Hemp Rules: Will It Impact Food?

By Cori Goldberg, Adam Brownrout, John Kendzior
No Comments
Cori Goldberg, Reed Smith

On October 29, 2019, the USDA released its long-awaited draft rule establishing a domestic hemp production plan, providing clarity to growers and ancillary businesses about how the USDA will regulate the hemp crop. The USDA, under authority provided by the 2018 Agricultural Improvement Act (2018 Farm Bill), was tasked with promulgating regulations and guidelines to establish and administer a program for the production of hemp in the United States. This rule has now arrived and been published in the Federal Register. The rule provides requirements for all state and tribal hemp production plans including requirements for testing hemp, licensing growers, disposing of non-compliant hemp, and collecting and storing information related to hemp production. The USDA will now accept public comment on the rule until December 30, 2019.

Although the USDA rule will greatly contribute to the expansion of legally grown hemp in the United States, this rule does not alter the law regarding CBD foods and CBD dietary supplement products. This is because the 2018 Farm Bill left intact FDA’s authority to regulate the sale and marketing of CBD foods, dietary supplements, drugs, and cosmetics, as those product types fall under FDA’s purview generally. FDA has allowed the sale of CBD cosmetics, with certain restrictions, and companies may submit CBD products to FDA through FDA’s drug approval process. However, it has maintained that the addition of CBD to foods and dietary supplements is illegal. Under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), once a substance is approved as an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) in an FDA-approved drug, that substance may not be placed into interstate commerce in a food. Also under the FDCA, once a substance is approved as an API in an FDA-approved drug, that substance is excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement. FDA approved the pediatric epilepsy drug, Epidiolex, whose API is CBD. Therefore, FDA has concluded that CBD may not be placed into foods in interstate commerce and that CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement definition and therefore may not be sold as dietary supplements. The USDA rule does nothing to change the legal status of CBD food or dietary supplement products. Thus, despite the expected increase of hemp availability following the passage of the USDA rule, CBD companies must wait for the FDA green-light in order to manufacture or sell hemp-derived CBD food products lawfully.Learn more about important regulatory & quality issues in the cannabis space from Cannabis Industry Journal

However, the rule does state that additional hemp is necessary to support the growing CBD market, and it notably put pressure on FDA by stating that if “FDA does not provide clarity about their plans for future regulation of CBD, there will continue to be uncertainty and downward pressure on the CBD portion of the hemp market.”

So what does the USDA rule do? Under the USDA rule, states and tribes will have the option of either submitting a proposed hemp regulation plan to the USDA for approval or agreeing to submit to the USDA’s general requirements. All state and tribal plans must include certain provisions, including but not limited to:

  1. Land used for production: State and tribal plans must identify a process for collecting, storing and maintaining relevant information regarding land used for growing hemp in the state. This includes information regarding the description, acreage, and boundaries of the farm land.
  2. Sampling and testing for delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC): State and tribal plans must implement testing procedures to ensure that plants do not exceed THC levels above 0.3% (as provided in the 2018 Farm Bill). All testing facilities must be DEA approved, as non-compliant product with THC levels over 0.3% would be considered “marihuana” and a schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). Additionally, laboratories will be required to report a “measure of uncertainty” in their testing, designed to provide a buffer for the potential variation in sampling and testing procedures. Accordingly, plants testing higher than 0.3% THC but still within the “measure of uncertainty” will be considered compliant.
  3. Disposal of non-compliant products: States and tribes must develop a procedure for destroying non-compliant cannabis containing more than 0.3% THC. Because non-compliant product is considered a controlled substance, all product must be disposed of in a manner consistent with the CSA. Therefore, product must be collected and destroyed by a DEA agent or law enforcement officer.
  4. Inspection of hemp producers: States and tribes must develop procedures for inspecting hemp producers on an annual basis and also for inspecting random samples. The state must also develop procedures to identify and attempt to correct certain negligent acts such as not obtaining licenses or producers exceeding acceptable hemp THC levels.
  5. Information sharing: State and tribal plans must include procedures for reporting information to the USDA. This information must be provided to the USDA within 30 days of receipt from the hemp producers and includes contact information for all hemp producers in the state, legal descriptions of the land used for hemp production, and the license status of all hemp producers in the state.
  6. In states and tribes without an approved or proposed plan, hemp producers will be subject to the USDA general plan. The general plan also provides similar requirements for the testing and sampling of hemp. The USDA will provide licenses directly to hemp producers in states without an approved or submitted plan as some states may not want to have primary regulatory authority of hemp. These states will essentially hand over regulatory responsibility to the USDA. These licenses will be available by application 30 days after the final rule is published. Notably, the draft USDA rule also provides that states and tribes are restricted from prohibiting the transportation or shipment of hemp or hemp products produced under a state plan, tribal plan or a license issued under the FDA. The interstate commerce provision should put an end to the arrests of those transporting legally produced hemp from one state to another. For example, in July 2019, a trucker was arrested and charged with felony possessions of marijuana and intent to distribute while transporting legally grown hemp through South Dakota (South Dakota still considers hemp a controlled substance).

So while the USDA rule is much anticipated and grabbed the attention of many when published, food and dietary supplement manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are still stuck where they were before. We will all continue to wait and see what FDA will do.

Resource

  1. “Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program”. (October 31, 2019). Federal Register. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/31/2019-23749/establishment-of-a-domestic-hemp-production-program.
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Keeping Food Safe, the German Way

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food fraud, germany
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne.

Governments are responsible for the regulatory framework and consumer food protection to keep their citizens safe. In Germany, the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety is responsible for national food safety as well as cross-border trade and international information exchange. The German BLV is also the contact point for the EU’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, RASFF. To ensure consumer safety, the Max Rubner-Institut employs some 200 scientists who research food safety, nutrition and food fraud.

Resources

  1. Bundesamt fuer Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (November 11, 2019). Retrieved from Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, Germany, and Max Rubner-Institut, Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food.
Alec Senese, Bayer Crop Science, Digital Pest Management
FST Soapbox

Do You Embrace Technology at Home, But Not at Work?

By Alec Senese
No Comments
Alec Senese, Bayer Crop Science, Digital Pest Management

Many have seen some variation of the bell curve used to visualize the distribution of the five personality types of technology adopters (see Figure 1). These personality types were first ideated by Beal and Bohlen to highlight personality types that were more or less likely to adopt new technology in agriculture. This model has been expanded to include many other types of technology and is still used today.

Innovation Adoption Lifecycle
Figure 1. The Innovation Adoption Lifecycle.

Which type are you? While it can be fun dinner conversation to compare and contrast your tech enthusiast friends who always have the latest iPhone with laggard pals who insist on using a flip phone, is it possible that self-awareness of your product adoption personality could be vital to your personal and professional success?

Are you an early adopter who is excited and interested by how new technology offerings can change how you live and work? Or are you perhaps a member of the late majority that prefers to play it safe? More importantly, does your product adoption personality serve you in your career? Or does your resistance to change impede your company’s ability to thrive in a competitive marketplace where embracing innovation is key to protecting your product and brand? If the answer is yes, it may be worth keeping that propensity in mind as you make technology decisions at work.

We are each complex human beings who unintentionally bring our unique biases and habits to work with us. Rather than letting those biases and habits control our decisions, we can choose to be aware of our tendencies towards important issues like choosing whether to invest in new technology and approach problems through a less biased lens. When it comes to something as important as food safety and brand equity, we can’t afford to let our biases be in control. It is important to know that any technology provider worth their salt will happily answer questions and even let you try their solution. This firsthand experience is invaluable when choosing to invest in new solutions. Knowledge is powerful and you may be surprised at where it leads.

John McPherson, rfxcel
FST Soapbox

End-to-End Supply Chain Traceability Starts with High-Quality Data

By John McPherson
No Comments
John McPherson, rfxcel

End-to-end traceability technology across the food and beverage (F&B) supply chain has many benefits for companies at all nodes of the chain, not least of which is the ability to act to prevent problems such as irreversible damage, loss, and theft. For these technologies to best deliver on their promise, however, they need standardized and quality-assured data. F&B supply chain stakeholders need to take steps to achieve effective data management to truly take advantage of the benefits of traceability and real-time monitoring technologies.

Since FSMA was introduced in 2011, actors across the F&B supply chain have had to change their behavior. Prior to FSMA, companies tended to react to events; today, proactive and preemptive measures are the norm. This is in line with what the legislation was designed to do: Encourage the prevention of foodborne illness instead of responding after their occurrance.

F&B manufacturers and distributors rely on technology to help predict potential obstacles and mitigate issues along their supply chains. But expressing a desire to embrace technologies such as real-time monitoring solutions and predictive analytics isn’t enough to achieve ultimate supply chain efficiency. Only by taking the necessary steps can companies get on track to ensure results.

Any company that is thinking about deploying a traceability solution has a lot to consider. Foremost, data must be digitized and standardized. This might seem challenging, especially if you’re starting from scratch, but it can be done with appropriate planning.

Let’s examine what F&B companies stand to gain by adopting new, innovative technologies and how they can successfully maximize data to achieve end-to-end supply chain traceability.

New Technologies Hold Huge Potential for F&B Supply Chains

The advantages of adopting new technologies far outweigh the time and effort it takes to get up and running. To smooth the process, F&B companies should work with solution providers that offer advisory services and full-service implementation. The right provider will help define your user requirements and create a template for the solution that will help ensure product safety and compliance. Furthermore, the right provider will help you consider the immediate and long-term implications of implementation; they’ll show you how new technologies “future-proof” your operations because they can be designed to perform and adapt for decades to come.

Burgeoning technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain are driving end-to-end traceability solutions, bridging the gap between different systems and allowing information to move seamlessly through them.

For example, real-time tracking performed by IoT-enabled, item-level sensors allows companies to detect potential damage or negative events such as theft. These devices monitor and send updates about a product’s condition (e.g., temperature, humidity, pressure, motion and location) while it is in transit. They alert you as soon as something has gone wrong and give you the power to take action to mitigate further damage.

This is just one example of how data from a fully implemented real-time, end-to-end traceability platform can yield returns almost immediately by eliminating blind spots, identifying bottlenecks and threats, and validating sourcing requirements. Such rich data can also change outcomes by, for example, empowering you to respond to alerts, intercept suspect products, extend shelf life, and drive continuous improvement.

As for AI technologies, they use data to learn and predict outcomes without human intervention. Global supply chains are packed with diverse types of data (e.g., from shippers and suppliers, information about regulatory requirements and outcomes, and public data); when combined with a company’s internal data, the results can be very powerful. AI is able to identify patterns through self-learning and natural language, and contextualize a single incident to determine if a larger threat can be anticipated or to make decisions that increase potential. For example, AI can help automate common supply chain processes such as demand forecasting, determine optimal delivery routes, or eliminate unforeseeable threats.

Blockchain has garnered a lot of buzz this year. As a decentralized and distributed data network, it’s a technology that might help with “unknowns” in your supply chain. For example, raw materials and products pass through multiple trading partners, including suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, carriers and retailers, before they reach consumers, so it can be difficult to truly know—and trust—every partner involved in your supply chain. The immutable nature of blockchain data can build trust and secure your operations.

To date, many F&B companies have been hesitant to start a blockchain initiative because of the capital risks, complexity and time-to-value cost. However, you don’t have to dive in head-first. You can start with small pilot programs, working with just a few stakeholders and clearly defining pilot processes. If you choose the right solution provider, you can develop the right cultural shift, defining governance and business models to meet future demands.

To summarize, new technologies are not disruptive to the F&B industry. If you work with an experienced solution provider, they will be constructive for the future. Ultimately, it’s worth the investment.

So how can the F&B industry start acting now?

How to Achieve End-to-End Traceability

Digitize Your Supply Chain. We live in a digital world. The modern supply chain is a digitized supply chain. To achieve end-to-end traceability, every stakeholder’s data must be digitized. It doesn’t matter how big your company is—a small operation or a global processor—if your data isn’t digitized, your supply chain will never reach peak performance.

If you haven’t begun transitioning to a digitalized supply chain, you should start now. Even though transforming processes can be a long journey, it’s worth the effort. You’ll have peace of mind knowing that your data is timely and accurate, and that you can utilize it to remain compliant with regulations, meet your customer’s demands, interact seamlessly with your trading partners, and be proactive about every aspect of your operations. And, of course, you’ll achieve true end-to-end supply chain traceability.

Standardize Your Data. As the needs of global F&B supply chains continue to expand and become more complex, the operations involved in managing relevant logistics also become more complicated. Companies are dealing with huge amounts of non-standardized data that must be standardized to yield transparency and security across all nodes of the supply chain.

Many things can cause inconsistencies with data. Data are often siloed or limited. Internal teams have their own initiatives and unique data needs; without a holistic approach, data can be missing, incomplete or exist in different systems. For example, a quality team may use one software solution to customize quality inspections and manage and monitor remediation or investigations, while a food safety team may look to a vendor management platform and a supply chain or operations team may pull reports from an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system to try and drive continuous improvement. Such conflict between data sources is problematic—even more so when it’s in a paper-based system.

Insights into your supply chain are only as good as the data that have informed them. If data (e.g., critical tracking events) aren’t standardized and quality-assured, companies cannot achieve the level and quality of information they need. Data standards coming from actors such as GS1 US, an organization that standardizes frameworks for easy adoption within food supply chains, can help with this.

There are many solutions to ensure data are standardized and can be shared among different supply chain stakeholders. With recent increases in recalls and contamination issues in the United States, the need for this level of supply chain visibility and information is even more critical.

Data Security. Data security is crucial for a successful digital supply chain with end-to-end traceability, so you must plan accordingly—and strategically. You must ensure that your data is safe 24/7. You must be certain you share your data with only people/organizations who you know and trust. You must be protected against hacks and disruptions. Working with the right solution provider is the best way to achieve data security.

Incentive Structures. Incentives to digitize and standardize data are still lacking across some parts of the F&B supply chain, increasing the chances for problems because all stakeholders are not on the same page.

Companies that continue to regard adopting traceability as a cost, not an investment in operations and brand security, will most likely do the minimum from both fiscal and regulatory standpoints. This is a strategic mistake, because the benefits of traceability are almost immediate and will only get bigger as consumers continue to demand more transparency and accuracy. Indeed, we should recognize that consumers are the driving force behind these needs.

Being able to gather rich, actionable data is the key to the future. Industry leaders that recognize this and act decisively will gain a competitive advantage; those that wait will find themselves playing catch-up, and they may never regain the positions they’ve lost. We can’t overstate the value of high-quality digitized and standardized data and the end-to-end traceability it fuels. If companies want to achieve full visibility and maximize their access to information across all nodes of their supply chains, they must embrace the available technologies and modernize their data capabilities. By doing so, they will reap the benefits of a proactive and predictive approach to the F&B supply chain.

Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

The Hellcat of Pet Food

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud, pet food, cat food
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne.

Pet food is a highly profitable business. Global pet food sales hit a record $90 billion in 2018, and adulterated or mislabeled feed is not uncommon. In the United States, the FDA ensures correct labeling and adherence to quality standards in pet food. Over the course of six years, a processing facility in Texas shipped low quality, mislabeled ingredients such as feathers and by-products, labeled as premium single ingredients, to pet food manufacturers and distributors. The guilty party had to pay $4.5 millions in restitution to the fraud victims, and the defendant is on a five year probation.

Resources

  1. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Missouri (October 24, 2019). “Texas Manager Pleads Guilty to Pet Food Fraud, Company Pays $4.5 Million Restitution”. Retrieved from The United States Department of Justice.
Karen Everstine, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Public Food Standards

By Karen Everstine, Ph.D., Steven M. Gendel, Ph.D.
No Comments
Karen Everstine, Decernis

In 1995, a honey processing company was indicted on charges of adulterating industrial honey labeled “USDA Grade A” with corn syrup to increase profits. Ultimately, the jury found in favor of the honey processor, in part because there “weren’t enough regulations governing honey to make the charge stick.”

Honey is defined as “the natural sweet substance produced by honey bees” from the nectar of plants. However, there is not currently an FDA standard of identity for honey in the United States, which would further define and specify the allowed methods of producing, manufacturing and labeling honey (there is, however, a nonbinding guidance document for honey). Some of the details of honey production that a standard of identity might address include allowable timing and levels of supplemental feeding of bees with sugar syrups and the appropriate use of antibiotics for disease treatment.

In circumstances where strict regulatory standards for foods are not available, they may be created by other organizations.

What Is a Food Standard?

A food standard is “a set of criteria that a food must meet if it is to be suitable for human consumption, such as source, composition, appearance, freshness, permissible additives, and maximum bacterial content.”1

To ensure quality, facilitate trade, and reduce fraud, everyone in the supply chain must have a shared expectation of what each food or ingredient should be. Public standards set those expectations and allow them to be shared. They help ensure that stakeholders have a common definition of quality and purity, as well as the test methods and specifications used to demonstrate that quality and purity. Public standards help ensure fair trade, quality and integrity in food supply chains.

How Is a Standard Different from a Method?

A method is generally an analytical technique to assess a particular property of the content or safety of a food or food ingredient. For example, methods for detection of nitrates in meat products or baby food, coliforms in nut products, or high fructose syrups in honey. Methods are an important component of food standards.

A food standard goes a step further and provides an integrated set of components to define a substance and enable verification of that substance. Standards generally include a description of the substance and its function, one or more identification tests and assays (along with acceptance criteria) to appropriately characterize the substance and ensure its quality, a description of possible impurities and limits for those impurities (if applicable), and other information as needed (see Figure 1).

FCC Standard, USP
Figure 1. The Anatomy of an FCC Standard (Source: Food Science Program, Food Chemicals Codex, USP)

Figure 1. The Anatomy of an FCC Standard (Source: Food Science Program, Food Chemicals Codex, USP)

A standard defines both what a food or food ingredient should be and documents how to demonstrate compliance with that definition.

Public Standards and Food Fraud Prevention

Many of the foods prone to fraud are those that are not simple food ingredients, but agricultural products that can be more complex to characterize and identify (such as honey, extra virgin olive oil, spices, etc.). Milk products are an example of a commodity that is prone to fraud with a wide range of adulterants (for example, fluid cow’s milk is associated with 155 adulterants in the Food Fraud Database). Ensuring the quality and purity of a product link milk requires implementation of multiple analytical techniques or the development of non-targeted methods.

The creation of effective public standards with input by a range of stakeholders will be particularly important for ensuring the quality, safety and accurate labeling of these high value commodities in the future.

Reference

  1. A Dictionary of Food and Nutrition 2005, Oxford University Press.

Resources

  1. The Food Chemicals Codex is a source of public standards for foods and food ingredients. It was created by the U.S. FDA and the National Institute of Medicine in 1966 and is currently published by the nonprofit organization USP. The FCC contains 1250 standards for food ingredients, which are developed by expert volunteers and posted for public comment before publication.
  2. The Decernis Food Fraud Database is a continuously updated collection of food fraud records curated specifically to support vulnerability assessments. Information is gathered from global sources and is searchable by ingredient, adulterant, country, and hazard classification. Decernis also partners with standards bodies to provide information about fraudulent adulterants to support standards development.
Alec Senese, Bayer Crop Science, Digital Pest Management
Bug Bytes

If You Think Plague Is a Thing of the Past, Think Again

By Alec Senese
No Comments
Alec Senese, Bayer Crop Science, Digital Pest Management

Rodents are vectors of more than 50 pathogens, including plague.1 While plague may be considered a problem of the past, according to the World Health Organization, between 2010 and 2015, there were 3,248 cases of reported plague worldwide and 584 deaths. While it is clearly not the 1300’s when the plague killed millions, the CDC confirms, “plague occurs in rural and semi-rural areas of the western United States, primarily in semi-arid upland forests and grasslands where many types of rodent species can be involved.” While the fact that plague is still lurking is a bit surprising, it should be no surprise that rodents can spread more than 50 diseases. Not the least of these diseases is Salmonella braenderup, the cause of recall of approximately 206,749,248 eggs in 2018. The good news: In the age of IoT, new technology can enable an immediate response to help prevent infestations from growing out of control.

With rodent populations on the rise due to climate change and the resultant public health issues in major cities across the United States, public health officials and pest managers face unimaginable challenges in staying ahead of rapidly growing and spreading rodent infestations. Earlier this year, Los Angeles had a typhus outbreak that resulted from a rat infestation near an encampment for those experiencing homelessness. The unsanitary conditions created a harborage for rats that spread the flea-borne illness. Cases of typhoid have doubled in the area since 2012. When and where will the next pathogen outbreak from rodent activity hit?

If that’s not frightening enough, it is important to highlight that once an infected, flea-carrying rodent enters a facility, eliminating the rodent does not always necessarily mean eliminating the presence of plague pathogens. The World Health Organization explains that once vectors have been introduced through rodents and their fleas, it is not enough to eliminate rodents. Vector control must take place before rodent control because “killing rodents before vectors will cause the fleas to jump to new hosts.”

Controlling the spread of pathogens via rodents is becoming increasingly important, particularly in sensitive environments like food processing and manufacturing facilities. Effective management begins with early and accurate detection and sustained through continuous monitoring. However, the traditional method of manual rodent inspection by its very nature cannot provide facility and pest managers with either early detection or continuous monitoring.

Thanks to IoT, monitoring systems can now be used in a wide variety of rodent monitoring devices inside and outside a facility. The systems transmit messages in real time over wireless networks and provide pest managers, facility management and public health officials with 24/7 visibility of rodent activity in a monitored location, which will enable more timely responses and help improve the effectiveness of mitigation efforts. Digital IoT technologies are rapidly becoming the modern proactive tool used to help predict and control rodent issues before they occur in an age when traditional, reactive methods are insufficient.

Reference

  1. Meerburg, B.G., Singleton, G.R., and Kijlstra, A. (2009). “Rodent-borne Diseases and their Risk for Public Health”. Crit Rev Microbiol.
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Comparing Ceylon and Cassia

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food fraud, cinnamon
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne.

Cinnamon is in high demand worldwide, with Ceylon cinnamon or true cinnamon (Cinnamon verum) the most sought-after and higher priced variety. It is therefore tempting to “cut” Ceylon cinnamon with cheaper cassia cinnamon. Previous detection methods for such adulterations included HPLC testing or DNA barcoding, which was time consuming and could only be applied by experts. New FT-NIR (Fourier transform near-infrared) and FTIR (Fourier transform infrared) spectroscopic methods in combination with multivariate analysis enable quick detection of cinnamon adulteration.

Resources

  1. J. Yasmin, M.R. Ahmed, S. Lohumi, C. Wakholi, H. Lee, C. Mo, B.-K. Cho, Corresponding author: chobk@cnu.ac.kr, Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods: 11 (3)- Pages: 257 – 267 (25 April, 2019). “Rapid authentication measurement of cinnamon powder using FT-NIR and FT-IR spectroscopic techniques”. Retrieved from Wageningen Academic Publishers, wageningenacademic.com
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Fraudsters Who Deserve Prison Time, Too

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food fraud, adulterated meat
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne.

Uninspected and adulterated beef with a value of more than $1 million was sold to prison institutions in 18 states across the United States, a crime that carries a potential five-year prison sentence. The meat processor illegally used whole cow hearts and went a long ways to hide illegal ingredients from USDA inspectors.

Resources

  1. Erin Dooley, Public Affairs Officer, Office of the Inspector General USAO – Texas, Northern (September 24, 2019). “Meat Packing Plant Execs Plead Guilty to Selling $1 Million in Adulterated Ground Beef to Federal Bureau of Prisons”.