Food packaging automation technologies can increase productivity and improve food safety. We highlight three key packaging technologies worth investigating.
1. Image-Based Sensors
Foreign objects in packaged foods are a key cause of recalls and can lead to both physical harm and reputational damage. Some companies are incorporating food packaging automation solutions that rely on cameras to detect foreign objects before products leave production facilities.
In one example, researchers from Ritsumeikan University in Japan used a tactile-based image sensor mounted on a high-resolution camera to look for hard objects, including shell and bone fragments, within soft foods. This technology found sub-millimeter foreign bodies and required only 10 seconds to scan a piece of food.
Some sensors can sort food, such as rice, based on appearance. If the rice does not meet specifications—or if a contaminant is detected—the device emits coordinated air puffs to blow the subpar product or contaminant into a reject bin.
Image-based sensors do not replace people from inspection processes. The goal is to boost quality control by combining advanced technology with human oversight. This allows food packaging plants to reduce the risk of unsafe consumables reaching the market.
2. Robots
Robots have been game-changers in food packaging automation. Statistics show that Chinese food and beverage industry clients purchased an estimated $196 million in robotic technology in 2022, with companies from the U.S. investing roughly $160 million in these technologies. These numbers have climbed since 2020, suggesting more company leaders are embracing robotics for their operations.
Companies that don’t have enough employees to handle the workload can compromise safety if they give workers more responsibilities than they can handle or force them to work too quickly. However, robots can ease some of that strain. One robotic top loader for wrapped food products processes up to 120 products per minute, depending on the type.
In another case, a food packaging plant had only 30 employees but needed to switch to 24/7 production to meet customer demand. Adding three collaborative robots, or cobots, to the workflow made it safe for the small team to ramp up activities without getting overwhelmed.
It can take food packaging plant leaders time and effort to figure out the best ways to bring robots into a facility. It helps to determine which tasks are most prone to errors and likely to result in injury. Alternatively, managers can ask line workers which duties feel the most cumbersome or dangerous.
Many employees are initially hesitant about working with cobots. They feel more positive and comfortable about these changes when they realize the machines supplement their work rather than replace it.
3. Upcycled Food Packaging
Food packaging automation has benefits that extend beyond the production environment. Singapore-based Alterpack uses automated equipment to turn spent grain into takeout containers and other types of packaging. The packaging is microwave and freezer-safe, and people can toss it into their compost heaps after use.
The company’s goal is to help reduce dependence on single-use plastic packaging. The process requires cleaning raw materials, mixing a specialty formula and molding it into desired shapes. Automation keeps these steps safe and consistent.
Other types of automation specific to food packaging focus on consumer safety. One project from the Fraunhofer Institute for Process Engineering and Packaging involved embedding packages of meat and fish with chemosensors to measure freshness. The sensors change color automatically when exposed to volatile compounds that indicate product spoilage. The visual indicator makes it easy for consumers, grocery store workers, and others to see when food is no longer safe to sell or eat.
Elsewhere, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University made a type of smart food packaging primarily constructed from corn protein. The packaging contains innovative nanoscale mesh fibers and natural antimicrobial compounds programmed to sense common kinds of bacteria in food. When the bacteria are detected, the packaging automatically sprays out tiny amounts of antimicrobials to keep food fresher and safe to eat for longer.
These are just some of the forward-thinking ways food packaging designers can incorporate automation into their production process. Options like these will likely become more widespread as more people experiment with what’s possible, spurring progress in food safety, productivity and waste reduction.
Cases of norovirus are reaching new highs, necessitating a review of preventive measures for retail food establishments. After experiencing a lull during the first two years of the pandemic, norovirus cases came surging back in the first quarter of 2022, with outbreaks peaking at over 100 per week in late February, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[1] Last week, the CDC updated its NoroSTAT page showing a similar increase happening over the past four weeks.
“It’s not a coincidence that U.S. norovirus cases dropped to historic lows in 2020 and 2021, then came surging back as Americans began dropping their pandemic precautions this past spring,” said Chip Manuel, Ph.D., Food Safety Science Advisor, GOJO Industries. “People are fatigued by social distancing, isolation and masking, but it is important to remember that everyday practices like hand and surface hygiene help to control norovirus and many other infectious diseases.”
Food establishments can protect their customers from outbreaks by taking the following steps:
Keep sick employees home. 70% of norovirus outbreaks are caused by infected foodservice workers,[2]so preventing employees from coming to work sick with norovirus is an important step in preventing outbreaks in foodservice establishments.[3] Adopting sick leave policies and employee wellness screens will reduce the risk of a facility causing a foodborne illness outbreak. Employees that come to work sick can spread the virus to foods, surfaces, customers, and other employees.
Practice frequent proper hand hygiene and minimize bare-hand contact with food. Inadequate hand hygiene and bare-hand contact with foods are the most frequently encountered contributing factors to norovirus outbreaks.[4]Ensure bare-hand contact with foods is minimized by emphasizing proper glove use. More frequent handwashing, providing handwash stations, and providing alcohol-based hand sanitizers when soap and water are not available, are all best practices related to hand hygiene.
Disinfect high-touch surfaces regularly. Establishments should continue to disinfect high-touch surfaces since they have a direct carryover to controlling foodborne illnesses, especially norovirus. Examples include frequent disinfection of restroom door handles, handwash sink faucet handles, and restroom stall latches.
Clean before you sanitize. Proper surface sanitizing requires the surface to be cleaned first to remove all food debris, fats, oils, and other soils. The U.S. Food Code requires that all food-contact surfaces must be cleaned before the sanitizing step.[5]This ensures that the sanitizer solution will remain effective, as these soils can interfere with the sanitizer’s effectiveness.
Ditch the “rag and bucket” practice. Using a red bucket of sanitizing solution and a reusable cloth is a common way to sanitize tables in a restaurant. But research shows that reusable cloths can easily become breeding grounds for foodborne disease-causing bacteria.[6]They can then spread pathogens to other surfaces throughout the establishment. Sanitizer solution must be monitored throughout the day so it maintains a required concentration level and be changed out when the solution appears dirty, plus the cloths must be stored in the solution, laundered daily, and not used for multiple tasks. Switching to applying a food-contact sanitizer by spray bottle or a disposable wipe can reduce some of the risks associated with reusable cloths.
Use effective surface products with low toxicity that work quickly. Using ready-to-use products with short contact times (e.g., a minute or less for organisms of interest) can increase compliance with enhanced disinfection protocols, which help reduce the risk of an outbreak within a facility. These products also save your staff valuable time. The EPA categorizes products from I (highly toxic) to IV (very low toxicity.) If possible, select products rated as category IV to limit your staff and guests’ exposure to harsh fumes. When using higher toxicity products follow all “Cautions” noted on the product labeling, as these products may require handwashing after use and/or personal protective equipment, such as gloves, gowns, and eye protection during use.
“In 2022, the U.S. saw the largest number of norovirus outbreaks in more than 10 years, even though the 2021-2022 norovirus season peaked late (late February vs. early January),” said Hal King, Ph.D., Managing Partner, Active Food Safety and Founder/CEO, Public Health Innovations. “In 2023, we can expect even more norovirus infections will be circulating in our communities, and many of these infected persons will likely be workers and customers entering restaurants. The best means to reduce the risk of transmission of norovirus in restaurants is to continue to screen employees for wellness (with a focus on all foodborne disease signs and symptoms), continue disinfection of high-touch surfaces in the restaurant (especially the restroom areas), and ensure proper hand hygiene and glove use before, during, and after food preparation.”
[3] Duret, S., et al. Quantitative risk assessment of norovirus transmission in food establishments: evaluating the impact of intervention strategies and food employee behavior on the risk associated with norovirus in foods. Risk Analysis, 37(11), 2080-2106, 2017.
[4] Brown, L. G., et al. Outbreak characteristics associated with identification of contributing factors to foodborne illness outbreaks. Epidemiology and infection, 145(11), 2254–2262, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268817001406
[6] Scott, E. and Bloomfield, S. 1990. Investigations of the effectiveness of detergent washing, drying and chemical disinfection on contamination of cleaning cloths. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 68: 279-283.
On November 10, the White House released a National Security Memorandum (NSM) aimed in part at improving cybersecurity within the food and agriculture sector. The NSM contains a clear message: “The evolving threat environment requires the sector and its essential workforce to better prepare for and respond to incidents with broad impacts on our national and economic security.” If cybersecurity was not a priority for your organization in 2022, it should be one in 2023.
The food and agriculture industry has benefited greatly by incorporating technology into core business functions, which makes the industry more efficient. Farmers now provide more food on less land thanks in part to precision agriculture. A complex, interconnected logistics system—propelled by information technology—enables just in time delivery of product. But this interconnectedness creates risk that needs to be managed. Even if an adversary may not intend to disrupt the food supply chain, a short disruption can quickly rise to a national security concern.
This is the impetus behind the NSM: There is a national security interest in ensuring the integrity and resilience of the global food supply chain. Addressing these threats, however, requires individual action by an untold number of companies. Many of these companies operate on small margins and lack resources to understand the or mitigate cyber risks.
The cyberthreat environment is complex and ever changing. Nation state actors seek core intellectual property and other proprietary information. Social activists launch campaigns aimed at disrupting access to public-facing Internet sites. Mis- and disinformation spreads through social media channels.
Organized cybercriminal gangs are motivated by money. Often, the victim is not necessarily the intended target. But sometimes the food and agriculture industry is targeted specifically. On December 12, the FBI, CISA, the FDA and the Department of Agriculture issued a public advisory warning of Business Email Compromise attacks, demonstrating the financial loss attacks can cause.
Developing a Common Approach to Cyber Risks
Developing a common approach to defend against these threats is challenging since industry and government view risk in different ways. This often leads to disagreement on risk tolerance and risk mitigation. While policymakers focus on national security risks, businesses focus on corporate risks.
While cyber risk is one of many business risks enterprises mitigate, these resources compete against other business priorities. Meanwhile, there is a government interest in ensuring that cyberattacks do not impact national security or cause wide-scale economic damage. Also, the fact that the most advanced cyber adversaries are nation states is a national security concern.
It is not reasonable to expect companies to be able to defend themselves against cyberattacks from well-resourced nation states. However, just because an organization is not able to defend itself from the most sophisticated attacks does not mean it should not defend against less sophisticated and more common attacks.
The economics of cybersecurity favor the attackers. Collaboration allows defenders to maximize their resources and gain more even footing to protect their companies.
Realistically, there is a limit to what companies can spend. At some point the cost is not worth the return, and it makes more sense to assume or transfer the risk. In short, the risk management calculus for industry (business risk) and government (national security risk) are different. A business may be effectively managing a threat appropriate to its business risk while government is concerned about the national security risk of that same threat.
While it is important for government to address perceived national security risks, government policy should be informed by industry subject matter expertise. Most of the food and agriculture industry is owned, operated, or managed by private industry. Industry best understands its risks, vulnerabilities, and interdependencies. This expertise needs to be included in policymaking.
Industry Guidance and Reporting Requirements
In the fall of 2022, Congress passed the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (CIRCIA) with the goal of helping companies defend against complex cyberattacks. When fully implemented, regulations developed under this law will require critical infrastructure “covered entities” –likely including food and agriculture companies—to report certain cyber incidents to DHS’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The idea is that CISA will use the information in the incident reports to better understand the threats and issue guidance to help industry and government protect themselves. CISA recently concluded a public “Request for Information” and is expected to issue the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for implementation of this program in March 2024.
CIRCIA signifies a more aggressive regulatory approach by policymakers and is symbolic of a larger debate that has been unfolding for 20 years. That debate being: What is the best way to increase cybersecurity within private industry? Some believe regulations are needed to force organizations to take proper security measures. Others contend that regulations will divert resources from security to compliance and do little to assist small businesses who have the fewest resources and are most at risk.
Regardless, mandatory incident reporting is on its way. However, it should not be viewed as a replacement for voluntary industry action. Voluntary collaboration with industry peers will remain a core component of industry cyber risk management.
There is a long history of such collaboration. For over 20 years, the IT-ISAC has facilitated the sharing of cyber threat intelligence within the IT industry. For over a decade, it also has supported a designated forum for food and agriculture companies to actively engage with each other to mitigate cyber risks. It is the only industry-only forum of its kind established to serve food and agriculture companies.
The Food and Ag SIG reflects three core realities in cybersecurity. One is that the attackers are already sharing with each other. They are actively leveraging their individual expertise to attack for a common benefit. To keep pace, industry needs to actively share threat analysis and effective defensive mitigations.
Second, the threat landscape is too complex for any one company to defend against alone. There are too many threat actors, too many vulnerabilities, and too few resources for any one company to adequately address the threat by itself. Companies are stronger when working together.
Third, the economics of cybersecurity favor the attackers. It is more expensive to defend than it is to attack. Defenders need to maximize their resources.
A Cost-Effective Force Multiplier
The Food and Ag SIG serves as a cost-effective force multiplier by enabling companies to share active threat intelligence targeting the food and agriculture industry. By engaging with analysts from peer companies facing similar business challenges and threats, companies can reduce their vulnerability to a wide range of risks. While there are common attacks all enterprises face, the food and agriculture industry faces unique actors that utilize customized methods for specific purposes. The IT-ISAC Food and Ag SIG helps companies address this challenge through:
An intelligence management platform containing active threat indicators and analysis.
Adversary attack playbooks on over 200 threat actors, including those targeting the food and agriculture industry. These playbooks catalogue tactics, techniques, and procedures used by attackers, including how they gain access to and move through environments and actions to defend against these threats.
A tracker of over 250 ransomware campaigns impacting the food and agriculture industry.
Engagement with cybersecurity analysts from the world’s leading technology companies.
Member-only meetings with analysts from peer companies in the food and agriculture industry.
Briefings from security experts on attacks and adversaries targeting the industry.
Daily reporting on trending threats and vulnerabilities.
Vendor neutral Incident specific reporting.
Looking ahead, 2023 will continue to be an active year for cybersecurity. The skillsets of attackers continue to advance. Nation states have the intent and capability to attack private industry. There remains too much reward and too little risk for many criminal gangs. As long as the likelihood of making money remains high and the risk of getting caught remains low, we will continue to see organized cybercriminal activity such as ransomware, despite the great work of our under-resourced law enforcement professionals.
In this environment, every company needs to re-evaluate their security posture and practices. While there is no one-size fits all approach to security, there are steps companies can take to manage their risks. Engage with your industry peers. Back up data. Deploy encryption. Implement and improve patch management policies. Enable multi-factor authentication. Segment networks. Implement credential access and control policies based on an employee’s need for access and terminate such access upon employee separation. Review (or create) and test incident response and business continuity plans. Simple actions can have big results.
Voluntary industry action and active collaboration not only enhances your corporate security it makes the industry as a whole more secure. Active sharing of cyber intelligence and effective mitigations improves security and reduces the potential of disruptions within the supply chain. The voluntary actions of individual companies managing enterprise risk can indeed have the collective effect of reducing national level risk.
For the past two years, Food Safety Tech, creator of the annual Food Safety Consortium conference, has been supporting FSQA professionals through its virtual Food Safety Tech Hazards Series.
Focused on the four core areas of food safety: detection, mitigation, control and regulation of risk, the series has addressed pathogens, pest control, and physical and chemical hazards facing the food industry.
The virtual conferences, which have attracted thousands of attendees, provide information on ongoing and emerging risks for both new and seasoned FSQA professionals, featuring speakers from industry, regulatory agencies and standards bodies.
In 2023, we are building on the popularity and success of these virtual events by expanding the Food Safety Tech Hazards Series to include two in-person events coming this spring and fall.
In 2022, salmonella– and listeria-related cases represented 37.4% of food and beverage product recalls, an uptick from 33.3% in 2021. “Food safety hazards continue to be a challenge for all aspects of the food industry from farm to fork.” said Rick Biros, president of Innovative Publishing Company, publisher of Food Safety Tech and director of the Food Safety Consortium conference. “The detection, mitigation and control of food safety hazards issues must be discussed among peers and best practices must be shared, something you can’t do virtually. The human connection is so important for conference attendees. Whether it’s a random connection over lunch, a one-on-one question with a speaker after a presentation or a seat next to a new friend in a learning session—connecting with others is what makes events so valuable. This year’s in-person events are designed to help facilitate this much needed critical thinking and sharing of best practices.”
“We look forward to bringing the Food Safety Tech Hazards series to an in-person audience in 2023,” said Inga Hansen, editor of Food Safety Tech. “This format will complement our virtual series and allow for the live discussion and networking that can only be achieved in person.”
An upcoming decision by the Supreme Court could have an enormous impact upon the nation’s pork supply and prices, as well as other industries. For the sake of smaller pig operations nationwide and people in California who are not wealthy, I hope the Court rules that a California law requiring that state businesses can only sell pork from humanely raised pigs is unconstitutional.
At issue is National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, a suit born out of California’s 2018 ballot measure Proposition 12, which forbade the sale of pork in the Golden State unless the sow that birthed the pigs was granted 24 feet of space. Most commercial pig operations confine pigs in smaller spaces. After California voters passed the measure—over 60% voted in favor of it—two trade groups sued, arguing that it upended interstate commerce and defied sensible business practices.
The rule would barely touch the California pork farming industry, which is relatively small—the state accounts for just 1% of the pork producers in the country. But pig farming in states like Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Illinois and Indiana—the nation’s top 5 pork producers—would suffer quite a bit should if measure is not struck down by justices.
By imposing this 24-foot requirement on all pork imported into California, the state is effectively dictating how industries in other states do business. While California isn’t a big pork production state, it’s a large consumer—Golden Staters consume 15% of all pork produced in the United States, and import 99% of their pork. If the law remains in place, only the largest pig producers in the industry could serve California, and thus survive in a highly competitive marketplace nationwide; they will have the resources to meet California’s demands and create separate facilities for California pork. So one regrettable side effect of Proposition 12 would be the acceleration of consolidation among pig operations.
Another ripple effect, should the law remain in place, will be an increase in pork prices in California, which will hit the poor the hardest. The large operations in pig production states that have the resources to create separate facilities for California pork will likely charge far more for the bacon, chops, and ribs they produce. And there will be less of it, further pushing up prices.
Along these lines, California is an intensely diverse state. Many of the cultures that populate two of the state’s largest broad immigrant categories—Latin American (representing half of immigrants) and Asian (with 39% of the state’s immigrants)—include people from countries including Mexico, the Philippines and Vietnam, where pork figures largely into their cuisines. With inflation rising at rates not seen in more than 40 years, the nation’s poor, including many new immigrants, already are suffering. A dramatic spike in pork prices would further disrupt their lives.
During oral arguments, both liberal and conservative justices explored the heart of the problem with Proposition 12. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for example, asked if it would be acceptable for California to “pass a law that said we’re not going to buy any pork from companies that don’t require all their employees to be vaccinated or from corporations that don’t fund gender-affirming surgery?” Justice Elena Kagan wondered if a state could ban the import of wood products unless they were treated with specified pesticides.
Potential Precedent of Prop 12
Their probing questions reveal concerns about Proposition 12’s potential precedent for sparking more legal warfare between states with competing political identities. Should the justices allow Proposition 12 to stand, what stops Texas voters from approving a law that bans the importation of products from companies that pay for employees’ birth control? Or Massachusetts voters from voting in favor of prohibiting chicken from states with abortion bans, which today would damage the chicken industry in Indiana, the third-largest chicken supplier in the nation, as well as other states.
One result, said Justice Kagan, could be that states “are constantly at each other’s throats” by targeting one another’s industries with bans on commercial activity between states.
The justices ruling will hinge on how they interpret the Constitution’s commerce clause, which aims to encourage interstate commerce and block trade wars between states. It is obvious that California’s law will inhibit interstate commerce between California and the nation’s pork-producing states. But that doesn’t mean justices will conclude that the California law should be dumped. Other justices, especially Justice Neil Gorsuch, seem to side with California.
“We’re going to have to balance your veterinary experts against California’s veterinary experts, the economic interests of Iowa farmers against California’s moral concerns and their views about complicity in animal cruelty,” Gorsuch told a lawyer representing pork producers, as reported in the New York Times. “Is that any job for a court of law? I mean, the commerce clause, after all, is in Article I, which would allow Congress to resolve any of these questions.” He also wondered whether since some pork producers are willing to satisfy California’s new requirements, wouldn’t it be a good idea to let the market decide whether the law works?
If justices’ do decide the California law is illegal, it could have repercussions beyond the pork industry. For example, California sets auto emissions standards for vehicle sales in the state that exceed federal standards; it is the only state with the right to do that. The so-called “California Waiver” imposes burdens upon automakers that seek to sell in the nation’s largest market for auto sales. Meanwhile, a new California law requires that by 2035, all new vehicles sold in the state are electric, hydrogen-fueled or at least plug-in hybrid. If the Supreme Court, which will issue its opinion on National Pork Producers Council v. Ross between December of this year and June of 2023, rules against California it also could impact the sanctity of laws like California’s emissions standards.
“How many laws would fall?” Justice Barrett asked during the hearing. “California has higher emission standards on automobiles and many other states. Would that fall?”
No matter what the Court decides with this case, it will affect life in the U.S. In the context of the pork industry, I sympathize with animal rights advocates who seek to improve conditions for livestock. But Proposition 12 is the wrong way to go about effecting meaningful and fair change in the pork industry.
Does your product description pass muster? Step into the lawyer’s kitchen with food attorney Jennifer Allen, Partner at Zwillinger Wulkan, as she breaks down FDA labeling regulations on misleading or untrue product claims.
Pest Control (PC) companies have become so good at controlling insects, birds, rodents, and other pests that facility oversight of pest management programs often falls by the wayside. This neglect can cause huge issues when pest management plans are dusted off by an auditor or inspector or when there is an unexpected infestation. Here are a few, easy methods to help you improve your Pest Control Program and validate the efforts of your third-party PC provider.
Validating Facility Pest Maps
A common PC program nonconformance involves discrepancies to the Facility Pest Map. The number and placement of internal tin cat traps, fly lights, external bait stations, pheromone traps, etc. can become inaccurate over time. Ask your PC provider to update your map at least annually or when there are major changes. Small changes can be written on the map if they are dated and initialed. When a new version of the map is released, select someone to validate it by physically walking around the facility, checking the placard number and placement of the traps to the map, and making note of any discrepancies.
Review Pest Control Service Reports for observations on conditions that could lead to a pest control issue and suggestions for corrective actions.
It’s also a good idea to periodically walk the map throughout the year to ensure that these devices haven’t been damaged. We all know how much forklifts love to crush tin cats, and these traps always seem to get moved around (used to prop open door or knocked out of the way). Different sections could be added to a monthly GMP internal audit to ensure the entire facility and surrounding grounds are covered.
Analyze Service Reports and Trends
It’s amazing how often Pest Control Service Reports are generated and fall into the black hole that is the Pest Control book. Sometimes they are signed by a facility representative, but how often is that person paying attention to the report’s contents to really understand the facility’s vulnerabilities? Many PC providers include observations on conditions that could lead to a pest control issue, suggestions for corrective actions, and other valuable advice for improvement. How often are these words heeded? Often pest control nonconformances discovered in audits and inspections were previously identified by a PC provider. Someone at the facility should be periodically analyzing these service reports to extract this information and act upon any necessary corrective actions. The designated employee can set themselves a calendar reminder to perform this task on a monthly or quarterly basis, remembering to document any corrective actions.
In addition to service reports, many PC providers also provide trending information, which summarizes pest activity over time. Many facilities don’t understand how valuable this information can be. For example, looking at rodent activity (gnaw marks on the bait) of your external bait stations can help identify the locations in your grounds with the most rodent activity. Some rodent activity is expected, but if it’s excessive, there could be a root cause that can be improved. For example, there may be a harborage point or perhaps the grass in the back field should be mowed more frequently in the summer or you may identify areas where additional bait stations are needed.
Leveraging Pest Control Provider Expertise
Many PC providers have entomologists and other pest experts on staff that can conduct an initial vulnerability assessment, which is normally revised annually, to customize the PC program and better protect the facility. These individuals can also be utilized to troubleshoot infestations. Once the type of pest is identified, specific corrective actions can be implemented to eradicate the infestation and preventive actions carried out to prevent a reoccurrence. For example, if birds are a problem around the shipping docks, nets might be used to reduce access to the rafters for nesting birds, or random sirens might be used to scare away migratory birds. For insect infestations, different chemicals (and the application of those chemicals) might be used to maximize remediation.
Post a copy of the Pest Sighting Log in the employee breakroom, and empower employees to report any issues.
At a minimum, PC providers should be providing you with a PC book which contains: a current facility map, regular service reports, current licenses for all PC technicians, and the Safety Data Sheets for all chemicals that might be used inside your facility.
Better Utilize the Pest Sighting Log
All PC programs use a Sighting Log in which any pest observations made between PC technician visits can be identified and acted upon. Too often, this log is hidden in the PC book and only used by a designated facility representative. There might be an understanding that sightings observed by other employees are reported to QA, so they can log the sighting. Sometimes this procedure works, but it’s often disrupted and the PC technician doesn’t receive this valuable information. How many issues could be prevented by identifying the problem early?
A solution is to post a copy of the Pest Sighting Log in the employee breakroom and direct the PC technician to check it during services. Train all employees of the purpose and location of this log, and empower them to report any issues. Employees have a vested interest in preventing pest infestations in their workplace, so you might be surprised how successful this simple change can be.
Pest Control Program Innovations
PC programs haven’t changed much in the last few decades. PC providers use technicians to make regularly scheduled visits to maintain pest control devices and apply chemicals when needed. For large facilities, this can be an arduous practice involving hours or even days of work. In the past few years, there have been significant efforts to automize these efforts, allowing remote monitoring of PC devices. Most of the larger PC providers have been working towards this technology and a few now these devices commercially available.
There are some clear benefits to remote monitoring. It gives PC technicians more time to investigate potential issues instead of checking empty traps. Also, remote activity notifications can lead to earlier action, which can prevent mild issues from turning into full-blown infestations. These devices can also be used in hard-to-reach places, such as a narrow void in the ceiling. There are still some concerns with this technology; it’s much more expensive than traditional devices and an automated system could lead to complacency.
While we wait for the technology to become perfected, there are many small changes that can make immediate improvements to your PC program. Validate your program to better understand vulnerabilities, analyze service reports and trends to identify emerging issues, and leverage the resources (pest experts and internal employees) already available to maximize efforts and strengthen your PC program.
Amid continuing threats to our food supply, food businesses should understand how tech tools can help improve all facets of their operations—from increasing sustainability to ensuring their suppliers are committed to safety and quality. In the coming year, more operators will rely on technology to save money, reduce waste, improve training, boost accuracy, and make more informed business decisions.
The good news is that tech solutions have become more affordable and accessible for food businesses of all sizes. Therefore, digital solutions will become more widely used in the coming year, as food businesses ditch their manual systems and/or disjointed tech stacks that don’t provide holistic views of their enterprise in favor of modern, integrated, intuitive tools.
Following are some of the key challenges that necessitate a shift to new technologies.
The Need for Sustainable Food Production
Climate change is putting food production at risk. Extreme weather is destroying traditionally grown crops and, moving forward, there will be a renewed effort around sustainable food production, including efforts such as vertical farming, hydroponics, and aquaponics.
The food industry must leverage technology to address multiple issues, from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to changing the way we grow food. Faster innovation is essential to make farming more sustainable, create new infrastructure, reduce our dependence on foreign food supplies, increase the transparency all along the supply chain, and reduce risk from farm to table.
Quality and Accuracy are King
Integrated software can boost accuracy, which will elevate a variety of critical metrics, including revenue, safety, quality and customer loyalty. Tech tools help you plan better, track inventory, monitor customer preference, and anticipate upcoming needs by tracking key metrics across your enterprise. Remember, if you don’t measure accuracy, you can’t improve it. Additionally, if there are accuracy problems, these tools can help you identify if you have one problematic employee or if there are more widespread problems at a specific location (or locations). Based on this data, you can take corrective actions, including increasing training and adjusting processes.
Training Will Change
Historically, food businesses trained employees by explaining how things should be done, then expected staff to do exactly what they learned. But what if you thought about training differently? What if you used tech tools to provide critical information in bite-sized chunks to boost employees’ understanding? What if you sent information right to their phones so they always have resources at their fingertips? Then, you could use automated reminders to ensure they don’t forget a crucial safety check during a busy shift.
One important change that’s expected to trend in the coming year is building collaborative cultures versus punitive ones. It’s important that employees feel encouraged to ask questions, seek feedback, and be empowered to take ownership of safety and quality efforts. Train, practice, demonstrate, and reinforce to boost employee confidence and retention, using tech tools to reinforce these lessons.
The Supply Chain Will Become More Transparent
It’s critical to implement safety and quality protocols for your business, but that alone is not enough. Every food business must also inspect safety, quality, and traceability all along their supply chain, as well. Thanks to more affordable, accessible tech tools, this is now possible for brands of all sizes and budgets, and you can get started without a big investment. Focus on what the regulations require and use digital solutions to seamlessly manage your vendors’ safety and QA certifications. Today’s solutions allow you to organize and track this important information in a centralized location for quick, easy access.
Food Businesses Will Audit Differently
Remote brand protection grew in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, as companies needed alternative ways to protect their locations/facilities when travel restrictions prohibited them from physically reaching them for audits or inspections. Now that the pandemic is over, expect food businesses to continue auditing differently.
Maybe it’s unrealistic to reach all your locations regularly, or it’s cost prohibitive to send in-person auditors to numerous locations multiple times per year. Tech solutions can save quality teams as much as 70% of their current program budgets, which is a huge win at a time when every dollar counts.
Increasingly, food businesses will ditch the paper checklists for more efficient, accurate, transparent, and frequent auditing, including self-assessments. Digital solutions will help ensure that every safety and quality check is done regularly (and properly). The days of relying solely on annual third-party inspections are over. Now, food businesses are embracing a combination of third-party and remote inspections plus frequent self-inspections to maximize safety and minimize risks.
It can feel overwhelming to try and manage all aspects of your organization’s safety and quality programs while also navigating the ongoing problems that are putting our food production at risk. Food businesses will have to work hard to keep the lights on and deliver products (and promises) to customers. Tech solutions will make all aspects of your business operations easier, faster, and more accurate, while also boosting safety and quality.
You may remember the horse meat scandal of 2013, which involved the recall of at least 10 million products[i] and prompted a new era of awareness of food fraud risks among the international food safety community. In that scandal, horse meat was being used to replace beef.
Despite the widespread publicity received by the horse meat scandal, similar frauds have happened since 2013. For example, in 2021, six people were arrested in Brazil and accused of stealing horses, then selling their meat “disguised” as beef.[ii] Authorities said that up to 60% of restaurants in the area had unknowingly purchased the fraudulent “beef.”
Horse meat is not only used by criminals to replace beef. In regions where horse meat is regularly consumed, such as in many parts of Europe, the ingredient itself is vulnerable to food fraud. Fraud occurs when horses that are not safe to eat are used for human food.
Veterinary drugs, including pain killers and horse worming treatments, can render horsemeat unsafe and make the horse unsuitable for food. Horse passports are used to keep records of veterinary drug treatments and show whether a horse has been ‘signed out’ of the human food chain.[iii]
In September 2022, authorities in the Netherlands discovered incorrect passports for slaughtered horses in the human food supply chain.[iv] The food originated in the Netherlands and was distributed to Belgium, France, Germany and Italy.
Horse meat fraud is attractive to criminals because it offers good profits. There is an abundant supply of horses from the equine racing and recreational horse industries. Unwanted horses are expensive to keep, so they are sold at very low prices or even given away for free. Operations that process cheap or free horses for food can be very profitable.
Food fraud perpetrators who wish to use unsuitable horses for human food must therefore falsify horse passports and other documents to make the horse meat appear legitimate, or use clandestine slaughterhouses and sell the meat through illegitimate supply chains.
There have been 11 notifications of problems with horse passports in Europe since January 2020 reported in the European Commission’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). These include “Incorrect passports of slaughtered horses”; “Poor traceability records (forged passports) for horse from the Netherlands”; “Horse without medicine pages in the passport”; “Horsemeat from an animal excluded from the food chain” and “Incorrect registration information on horse carcasses.” In 2017, a veterinary drug banned in Europe was found in horse meat imported from Brazil.[v]
Authorities in Spain and Belgium recently smashed a criminal network that was profiting from horse meat fraud and that involved illegal slaughter and falsification of documents. Forty-one people were arrested over their links to the operation. The alleged perpetrators are accused of obtaining horses that were not fit for human consumption, slaughtering them in clandestine operations and falsifying documents to make the resulting meat appear to be legal and safe. The network is believed to have been operating since 2019 and may have netted the criminals more than EUR 1.5 million.[vi] One commentator estimated that a horse obtained for less than EUR 100 was worth EUR 1500 after illegal processing and falsification of its legal status.[vii]
With increasing numbers of Americans paying closer attention to the contents of the food they eat, food manufacturers are understandably eager to publicize the health benefits of their products. The FDA allows food manufacturers to make health claims on food labels, but, perhaps not surprisingly, it is strict about how manufacturers make those claims, and all health claims require pre-approval.
First, what qualifies as a health claim? A health claim is any claim on a label or labeling that expressly or impliedly characterizes a relationship between a substance and a disease or health-related condition. The claim may state that increased consumption of a particular substance reduces certain disease risks, or it may state that decreased consumption reduces that risk. The former claim would be associated with a product high in a particular substance, the latter with a product low in a particular substance. A health claim may not state that the substance diagnoses, cures, mitigates, or treats disease. Only pre-approved drugs and medications may carry those claims.
The statement “Adequate calcium throughout life, as part of a well-balanced diet, may reduce the risk of osteoporosis,” is an example of the former type of health claim. It connects consumption of a higher amount of a particular substance (calcium) with the reduced risk of a particular disease (osteoporosis). In contrast, the statement “Diets low in saturated fat may reduce the risk of heart disease” is an example of the latter type of health claim. Note that health claims are different from structure/function claims, which don’t reference a specific disease. The statement “Calcium builds strong bones” is a structure/function claim, a type of claim that does not require FDA pre-approval.
You can find the list of currently approved health claims in the regulations at 21 CFR 101, commonly referred to as Subpart E. As an example, if your product contains calcium and vitamin D, you would look to 21 CFR 101.72 for guidance on how to make a claim on your label that consuming more of these substances reduces the risk of osteoporosis. You would look to §101.75 for guidance on making a claim about reduced saturated fat and heart disease.
Disqualifying Substance Levels
But before you make any health claim, you must first ensure that your product doesn’t contain disqualifying levels of certain substances, namely fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. You can find those levels in 21 CFR 101.14. The reason for that requirement is, health claims lead the consumer to believe that the product they are consuming is “healthy.” If, for example, your readymade meal product contains 2,500 mg of sodium, the FDA frowns on you marketing it as healthy, even if you’ve manufactured the meal with increased levels of vitamin D.
Key Criteria To Support “Healthy” Labeling
If your product passes the initial test above and meets the following criteria, you can make a health claim:
All your statements are consistent with the detailed and specific requirements in Subpart E;
Your claim is limited to describing the value of either decreased or increased consumption of the substance as part of a total dietary pattern;
Your claim is complete, truthful, and not misleading;
All the information is in one place, without intervening material. Note that in place of making a direct claim on the label, you may instead refer the consumer to another location, such as a website, for information about the claim. If you include a graphic image to portray the claim, it must be immediately adjacent to the verbal claim or reference statement;
The claim enables the consumer to comprehend the information and understand its relative significance in the context of a total daily diet; and
The particular substance is either low enough or high enough to justify the claim.
These six requirements can be summed up in the following statement: Don’t offer false promises to the consumer. Reduction of disease risk is a lifelong process. No single food or group of foods can work miracles. Consuming a low fat dessert product will probably not protect the consumer from heart disease if she routinely consumes it after enjoying a fast-food meal. Your health claim shouldn’t suggest in any way that it will. After all, you’re selling a food product, not a magic bullet.
Wait! Wait! Don’t go yet!
Sign up for our FREE newsletters and get the top stories from FST right in your email inbox.
Food Safety Tech is the leading online trade journal.
Join the Food Safety Tech community and stay engaged the way you want to!
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.
