Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B
Retail Food Safety Forum

Developing an Enduring Food Safety Culture

By Dan Okenu, Ph.D.
No Comments
Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B

Food safety gap analysis is a process improvement management tool that helps to identify areas of risk and associated gaps in the internal food safety programs that must be addressed to ensure high confidence in your Food Safety management system. It is structured to benchmark the level of food safety, and to highlight potential areas of concern that might impact the business, customers and the overall business brand. Although a continuous internal self-assessment is encouraged, best practices require the use of third party consultants to sieve and weave through the entire organization to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of processes and systems and to make appropriate recommendations for improvement.

The NSF has a robust food safety gap analysis protocol which is referred to as a Maturity Model Assessment. It is very detailed and extensive involving site visits, observations and interviews of senior management. It is deliberately designed to completely evaluate the preparedness of the entire organization in food safety best practices. Such an unbiased third party instrument is an excellent assessment tool for any organization’s food safety culture.

Why is developing an enduring food safety culture important to the business? A senior manager in a large retail food company once told us in a meeting that although he had been with the company for almost 15 years that he still didn’t really understand what the Food Safety team was doing. We all thought that this manager was just being sarcastic but on closer scrutiny, we discovered that not only did he not understand the why and how of the many ongoing food safety projects, but also thought that a lot of those projects were not really required, since according to him, there had not been any major food safety event in the last 15 years while he had been with the company.

This is obviously a bad commentary on this particular organization’s food safety culture. First, the food safety team appeared not to be doing a good job in sensitizing all parts of the business on the importance and business value proposition of its food safety practices and initiatives. Second, that senior manager may have been working in a silo without interfacing with other business functions and stakeholders to completely understand how his projects and programs impact other parts of the business. Consequently, every food company must encourage and support the development of an enduring food safety culture to avoid such grievous disconnect between its food safety management system and the important stakeholders that influence its successful implementation.

An enduring food safety culture – will the customer notice?

Recently, we had an opportunity to visit a large retail food company in the Southwest. The parking lot was so tidy that we couldn’t find a single piece of trash usually left by customers on carts or littered around cars and cart holding stations. The facility floors were so polished and sparkling clean that you could see your reflection and yet the floor coefficient of friction remained at its best to avoid slip and fall accidents. After taking in all the neatly arranged food prep work areas, the correct use of gloves, proper hand washing and the overall professionalism of the foodservice workers, I managed to excuse myself to take a look at the restroom. In my mind, the condition of the restroom would be the true test for an organizational food safety commitment from the customers’ standpoint. Even as a Cleaning & Sanitation enthusiast who is never satisfied unless it feels and smells clean and sanitary, I was impressed by what I saw.

To further validate my observations, I left the guided tour and sneaked into one of the company’s stores in a less affluent neighborhood, and it still looked good.

Several days later, I had an opportunity to meet with the company’s senior vice president. How did you do it? I asked. I got a very simple response but yet so revealing. Food safety culture is taken seriously by the company leadership, from the top down (and not from the bottom up! my emphasis). The Director of Food Safety reports directly both to the senior vice president and to the CEO. This means that food safety has direct access to top level management.

Listen to this: every employee in the organization including senior management sat through a food safety training certification on a regular basis. The best part – the CEO actually attends food safety conferences along with the food safety team. According to the senior vice president, the rate of return on investment continues to be outstanding, and the company is still expanding, in spite of the uncertainty in the current business environment. Thus, it appears that an enduring food safety culture is also good for business!

Although a third party food safety gap analysis is recommended for evaluating an organization’s food safety culture and commitment, let me challenge you to do it differently using the benchmarks from this exemplary retail food company in the Southwest, as follows:

  • Are you able to get your CEO to attend a major food safety conference?
  • Does your food safety team have direct access to top level leadership management or at a minimum reports directly to a Vice President who can take far reaching decisions before situation snowballs into something big and messy for your customers?
  • Is there any kind of company-wide food safety awareness training for all employees especially including senior leadership management in your organization?
  • Is every company employee aware of how their specific job function interfaces with food safety in fulfilling the company’s mission and supporting customer satisfaction? A good example would be an hourly worker at the store level knowing why we need 50 – 100 ppm chlorine based sanitizer to sanitize food contact surfaces, and the CEO understands that proper sanitation of food contact surfaces using the right tools by employees with the right training is mandatory.

Cleanliness and the perception of cleanliness are the key customer indicators for any good food safety culture. Customers don’t care about complex food safety management system that sometimes is so cumbersome to implement by folks at the frontlines. Instead, customers care about the little tell-tale signs of food safety that they see during their brief visit to your retail foodservice establishment. If the customer can trust you in such little things like keeping the parking lot, dining room, restroom or drive-through clean, it becomes even easier to trust you on the big stuff that happens away from the prying eyes of the customer at the back of the house. There’s an empirical evidence that cleanliness is directly and significantly associated with increased sales and profitability.

So, let’s take a moment at the beginning of this year and make yet another new year resolution to perform our annual food safety gap analysis, assess our organization’s food safety culture and implement the much needed corrective actions to fill these gaps towards the establishment of an enduring food safety culture. Let us convince senior management that it is good business that not only pays for itself but pushes customer satisfaction and profitability beyond our wildest dreams. Happy New Year, folks!

Gina Kramer
Food Safety Think Tank

An Introduction

By Gina R. Nicholson-Kramer
1 Comment
Gina Kramer

This new column on Food Safety Tech is a B2B forum for food safety tech, food manufacturing, food distribution, food retailer service/sales, and chemical and tools manufacturing companies in our industry. One of the important efforts we all have in common in this industry is we must continually identify food safety risk (or gaps) in food manufacturing, distribution, and sales to develop improved systems, methods, chemicals, and tools to fill these gaps and reduce risk. In the near future, many of these efforts will be mandatory due to the new regulatory rules being developed through FSMA.

Food Safety Think TankMy goal for this column is to facilitate new thinking to stimulate innovative solutions in food safety for our industry. I have the experience of leading large chain food sales and food service food safety programs; working with business professionals within our respective food companies and with our vendors, to develop systems and tools to improve food safety.

How can this column be of value to our industry?

  • Follow the column. Subscribe to FST News, and receive notifications of the column in your inbox whenever we post something new.
  • Participate. The column should be more than just a source for useful information; I actually want to start a conversation with you – industry professionals. Respond to column posts and share what you know, ask questions, submit ideas, inform us of gaps you see in food safety, and share your efforts, etc.
  • Contribute. We are actively looking for industry professionals who want to share their work in food safety. Whether it’s benchmarking existing solutions or sharing your research that defines gaps and new opportunities for innovation, we need your contributions. Let’s invoke a broad range of new ideas across a wide range of issues to speed up new or improved tools, reduce cost, improve efficiency, and even develop new business models for food safety solutions. Write to me at Gina@SavourFoodSafety.com. I look forward to hearing from you. 
Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B
Retail Food Safety Forum

Bridging the Gap in Food Safety Training at the Frontlines

By Dan Okenu, Ph.D.
No Comments
Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B

Whenever food safety professionals gather together in any conference, there is always emphasis on how to close the training gap that exists between industry best standards and the actual food safety practices on the frontlines of consumer interface. In retail foodservice, this enormous training gap can be better visualized in the publicly available records of local health inspections or in the privately held third party food safety audit reports. As a food safety enthusiast, I do check on these health department scores on restaurants before taking my family out for our favorite meals. Such consumer pre-check vetting is becoming routine for several social media savvy individuals as this information becomes easily accessible to the public on hand-held electronic devices.

HDScores is a good example of an app that shows health inspection scores for restaurants and other food establishments. As part of public service, local news media also publish these health inspection violations to guide consumers in making better and safe choices. These violations have direct negative impact on the bottom line, especially for repeat and gross violations like pest management issues which can lead to closure of the facility until adequate corrective actions are implemented and the facility is certified compliant before it opens for business again, in the interest of public safety.

According to health inspection records, there are three most common food safety violations, which include failure to wash hands, improper temperature control, and cross-contamination challenges. Below are examples of actual violation citations from health inspectors:

  • Single-use gloves used for multiple tasks that present risk of cross-contamination.
  • Food prep employees wearing gloves to prepare food and then used to open cooler doors and get items from the back kitchen; employees then return to the front prep line and continue food prep without discarding gloves, washing hands, and putting new gloves.
  • Cutting boards in disrepair with significant cuts and mold build-up.
  • Ice-machine and area around soda dispenser nozzles were unclean with significant mold build-up.
  • Dish machine observed cleaning dishes without dispensing any sanitizer.
  • Food observed in walk-in cooler and racks in prep area that had been cooling for 2+ hours without reaching 70 ̊ F.
  • Potentially hazardous food made onsite were observed without labels, and not properly cooled.
  • In use wet wiping cloths stored in chlorine sanitizer that was below 50 ppm.
  • Employee observed discarding trash outside, and then re-entered facility and started working on cookie dough without washing hands.

While food safety employees at the corporate offices are adequately trained and participate in refresher courses through conferences and workshops, the frontline foodservice employees are not as lucky, and yet they are the ones that actually implement the fancy and sometimes complicated SOPs conceptualized and developed by the corporate food safety staff.

Let’s face it folks; our food safety management system is as good as the efficiency and effectiveness of its implementation by employees with direct access to food and food products at the frontlines. We must endeavor to give these very important stakeholders the right tools and adequate training to get the job done.

A conscientious head of Food Safety in one of the large retail foodservice chains who wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of their approved SOPs, volunteered to exchange his corporate suit with an apron, and worked the entire day at the restaurant, performing assigned chores exactly as written and approved by corporate. To his chagrin, he discovered that the simplest of tasks was not only time consuming and labor intensive but absolutely impossible to implement according to the books. The SOPs were simply not operationally feasible!

The take home message was that SOPs must be operationalized within the context of the prevailing conditions in the retail foodservice units, in a simple language that could easily be understood and replicated by foodservice employees who are mostly young adults in career transition status.

Other factors that may account for this training gap include the high turn-over rate for these young hourly and seasonal employees who receive little or no food safety training before getting involved in the next peak sales rush hour. The use of e-learning modules on hand-held devices may be the preferred option to reach employees in real time, but it has its short comings in being impersonal with non-interactive mode of instruction and over generalization, even when different operational situations exist in the retail units. In foodservice operations, the back of the house is not for the fainthearted, especially during the high peak periods of breakfast, lunch and dinner. Without proper training, food safety can be compromised during such rush hours in trying to keep up with high volume sales within a small window period.

In a recent Global Food Safety Survey of 649 food establishments worldwide, improved product quality and higher employee morale were identified as the greatest benefits of effective food safety training, while finding the time for training was recognized as the greatest challenge. Thus, to bridge this training gap among frontline retail and foodservice workers, some of the corporate policies that should be emphasized are as follows:

  • Set aside time for on-the-job training; the generally preferred training method in food industry.
  • A certified training director should be on site at all times, to train hourly and seasonal employees, and training the trainer should be a corporate responsibility.
  • Corporate staff must ditch their suits and ties, and pick up the aprons to serve in the frontlines at least once a month, not only to ensure that their SOPs are operationally feasible but to understudy the thorny operational issues that can be fixed to improve efficiency.
  • Improved hourly wages and paid sick leave will attract a more committed workforce and lower the turn-over rate to ensure continuity in food safety management at the store unit level.
  • The use of incentives to encourage healthy competition among retail units and employees will improve adherence to food safety standards.
  • Encourage active managerial control using evaluation tools like wireless temperature monitors, hand washing monitors or cleanliness testing swabs that measure cleanliness to ensure that corrective actions are implemented in a timely manner.
  • Empower the retail units to conduct self-in-house food safety auditing on a daily and weekly basis to determine performance, and assist in compliance and preparations for third party audits and local health inspections.

In conclusion, it is absolutely necessary to explain the “why” of every food safety procedure to retail and foodservice workers, so that they are fully aware of the food safety implications of their actions. It definitely makes a lot of business sense to invest in continuous training of these frontline employees on the rudiments of food safety, to empower them, to safeguard the huge cost of corporate food safety management system, to protect your brand, and to protect the public health.

Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B
Retail Food Safety Forum

Benchmarking Produce Safety in the New FSMA Regulatory Climate

By Dan Okenu, Ph.D.
No Comments
Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B

Produce safety featured prominently in the recently concluded Food Safety Consortium in Chicago November 17-18, 2014 for two reasons: First, produce remains the largest source of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States, and second, the recent supplemental notice by FDA calling for another round of public comments on the proposed rule for “Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption.”

Thus, a consortium of growers, processors, packers, suppliers, retailers, buyers, innovators, regulatory officials and food industry consultants came together in the retail foodservice track to discuss “Benchmarking Produce Safety from Farm to Fork.”

The central question revolved around compliance with FSMA provisions to continue supporting the availability of safe quality food in a cost-effective manner. Issues surrounding the provisions of foreign supplier verification and how to engage with FSMA-exempt small local growers and suppliers on produce safety were discussed. The thorny problem of a quick and reliable traceability system for produce was also addressed. Other issues that were discussed include: how to ensure and verify good agricultural practices in the farms; introducing a safe and effective kill step in both cut and whole produce; and how to avoid cross-contamination on washed ready-to eat (RTE) fruits and vegetables. We also deliberated on how to close the gap in-between FDA audits to ensure that proper food safety practices are in place all year round.

The consortium brainstormed on how to take the current produce safety industry practices to the next level, towards a science and risk-based preventive approach as provided for in FSMA. To adequately address the issue of auditing gaps and the FSMA foreign supplier verification provision, it was suggested that it could be cost-effective for large scale buyers to embed their employee on site with large scale growers, processors and suppliers, especially for those located in foreign countries. This will support a real time status update on the food safety practices in place at such foreign facilities by your corporate employees, and in fact reduce the need for expensive frequent and auditing visits that don’t really capture everything. It can also be a conduit for training and maintenance of corporate food safety and quality standard to enhance the delivery of safe quality products, especially if your company is doing business in developing countries where food safety policies and regulatory enforcement are still in rudimentary stages.

Alternatively, make it a corporate policy to do business with only GFSI-certified facilities and increase the frequency and duration of unannounced audit visits for a more representative assessment and documentation of the prevailing food safety practices in place.

In addition, some private-label food programs involve ownership of farms, manufacturing plants and processing facilities. Thus, some retailers operate their own farms and plants both here in the United States and in foreign countries, and that may enhance active managerial control on produce safety from farm to fork. Engaging small local growers who are FSMA-exempt through an organized Agricultural Extension Services will enable resource sharing for implementing standard food safety practices and support integration in the local market. It will not only bring down cost but will also increase the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables without the need of a long distance temperature-controlled distribution network.

Both government and the private sector can support the running of these extension services in a more robust manner that builds upon the current USDA Cooperative Extension System which provides useful, practical research-based information to agricultural producers. A safety gateway could be established for produce from local growers through innovation on an effective pathogen kill step that can achieve up to 5-log reduction using effective consumer-friendly sanitizers.

GRAS classified sanitizers like electrolyte water, Ozone, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide and sodium hypochlorite are under various stages of R&D and some have been found to extend produce shelf life as well. Since the absence of a microbial risk does not preclude chemical contamination; continuous testing and monitoring for chemical residues that may result from the use of pesticides, contaminated soil or manure is recommended. A reliable produce traceability system will facilitate the investigation of foodborne illness outbreaks and timely corrective actions.Current R&D innovations in this area include the use of DNA tagging to assist in identifying both cut and whole produce even when out of the box. It was also stressed that behavior change is as important as the technology-driven interventions, and as such should be encouraged among retail and foodservice workers to embrace best practices and avoid actions that may lead to cross-contamination of RTE foods. Washing and rinsing of produce singly in running cold water is not only recommended for removing dirt and foreign matter but also for eliminating potential cross-contamination that may result from soaking fruits and vegetables.

Overall, it was a lively discussion that was spiced with practical real world examples by highly experienced industry leaders and decision makers.

Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B
Retail Food Safety Forum

Ebola Virus and Body Fluids Clean-Up in Retail Food Operations

By Dan Okenu, Ph.D.
No Comments
Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B

As the Ebola scare spreads in the United States and threatens the rest of the world, it is a race against time to find an effective vaccine or cure. Until then, the old reliable public health method of contact tracing, patient isolation and quarantine of suspected cases to disrupt transmission remains the only choice out there. The establishment of body temperature monitoring stations at the major airports will only capture elevated temperature symptomatic cases. This implies that infected individuals still within the incubation period of up to 21 days may not have high fever and thus may slip through the system. Examples include the index case from Liberia that arrived Dallas, Texas without elevated temperature or symptoms, and the recently infected Dallas Nurse that was cleared by CDC to fly to Cleveland, Ohio without elevated body temperature.

Apart from airports and hospitals, other public places, including retail food service outlets, have the risk of becoming potential sources of contact for fully bloom symptomatic cases that can indeed transmit the Ebola virus and infect several others. Recently a Doctor under voluntary Ebola quarantine after returning from Liberia broke the quarantine to visit her favorite restaurant.

Some of the Ebola transmission dynamics that should be a source of concern to the retail industry are as follows:

  • Ebola virus is transmitted through close contact with body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, sweat, feces, vomit, breast milk, semen, etc.) from a sick Ebola patient.
  • Ebola virus can spread through contact with objects likes clothes, bedding, syringes/sharps, medical equipment or contact surfaces contaminated by blood or body fluids of a patient.
  • Emergency body fluids incidents are regular occurrence from customers in retail food facilities.
  • According to CDC, Ebola virus dried on contact surfaces like door knobs and countertops can survive for several hours, while Ebola virus in body fluids can survive for several days on contact surfaces at room temperature.
  • Restrooms at retail outlets are accessible to both customers and the general public, and thus may constitute a hazard in Ebola virus transmission, if not properly cleaned and disinfected (not sanitized!).
  • Ebola patients can transmit the virus within the time frame of the first appearance of symptoms before hospital isolation. Patients may visit retail environments during this infectious period before the onset of severe symptoms that will trigger immediate hospitalization.

The foodservice and retail environment is among the vulnerable public places where infection may be possible if appropriate measures, protocols and employee training are not in place. What can retail management do differently to be ready and to proactively safeguard their facilities and protect their customers and the entire public health? The good news is that a lot of these measures are already contained in the Food Code and thus would only need to be reinforced to highlight their importance during these Ebola times.

Some of these proactive measures may include the following:

  1. Establish proper protocol for cleaning and disposal of body fluids (see previous blog on Combating Norovirus Hazards in Retail Foodservice). The pathogen kill-step is the most important step in any body fluid clean-up process and must be done with a disinfectant grade chemical. Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) like gloves, disposable aprons, and protective eye goggles is mandatory.
  2. Compliance with use of gloves and no bare hands contact with ready-to-eat foods.
  3. Adequate and frequent washing of hands by food handlers while encouraging hand washing by customers through the provision of the necessary accessories in hand wash sinks. According to CDC, Ebola virus is readily killed by using soap and water, bleach or hospital grade disinfectants.
  4. Handle body fluids in the restroom, grocery store aisles, play areas, dining rooms, and kitchen areas as potential infectious materials.
  5. Establish and implement an appropriate Employee Health Policy without punitive measures; to encourage hourly paid employees to stay home when sick.
  6. Introduce a non-residual disinfectant grade chemical (instead of regular sanitizers) for disinfecting restrooms, play areas and high touch points like doors knobs and equipment handles. Note: Disinfectants cannot be used on food contact surfaces.
  7. Eliminate or put on-hold programs like Back Stage Tours that bring customers in close proximity with food and food preparation areas at the back of the house.
  8. Buffet style food services should develop a better strategy to completely protect food from self-service customers.
  9. Proper cleaning and sanitizing of food contact surfaces using best practices like the single use no-rinse cleaning and sanitizing wipes from Sani Professional (see previous blog on Clean Matters). Hand sanitizers should be made available to customers at strategic locations throughout the retail facility to encourage use.
  10. Training and re-training of employees on best practices cannot be over emphasized in this new era of Ebola scare and confusion.

Finally, retail and foodservice employees should be trained to recognize the obvious signs of sick customers especially if accompanied with vomiting and diarrhea. The affected incident area should be cordoned off and the facility may be closed down depending on the severity of the suspected case. The State and Local Public Health officials and the CDC should be notified immediately. In these Ebola times, it’s better to err on the side of caution than to regret actions on a potentially positive Ebola case.

It is indeed a good time also to rethink the level of food safety culture in your organization and what you can do to ensure that your organization is not in the news for the wrong reasons. Foodservice and retail operations must remain on alert until the US Public Health Service and other relevant US government agencies have a complete handle on this monumental public health emergency.

Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B
Retail Food Safety Forum

Food Spoilage and Food Loss in Retail Environments

By Dan Okenu, Ph.D.
No Comments
Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B

It can be frustrating to consumers to discover some rotten fruits or not-so-fresh vegetables in their grocery packs in spite of due diligence at the stores. It also leaves a bad taste in the mouth while in your favorite restaurant, you’re served cold food, observe that the taste is just not right, the color of your favorite menu is not the same again or become suspicious that the food texture has been compromised and it doesn’t feel crispy or crunchy any more.

These are the tell-tale signs of food spoilage that customers are confronted with on a daily basis. In foodservice and retail environments, food spoilage constitutes a major food safety and food quality hazard with far reaching regulatory implications as well as being an economic burden with considerable food loss and profit loss. Food manufacturers and processors have achieved a high level of food preservation through several advanced technologies including heat treatment, temperature and water control, pasteurization and canning, specialized packaging like reduced oxygen packaging, fermentation and antimicrobial preservatives. However, food spoilage remains a major challenge in retail and food service. This is mostly as a result of the many food processing and preparation activities, food storage practices, repackaging and food portioning that are required in retail.

In addition, the modern consumers’ preference for fresh foods and the backlash on the use of unnatural preservatives leave foods more vulnerable to spoilage resulting in substantial food loss. Here, we discuss some of the challenges of food spoilage and how to minimize its impact on food safety, quality assurance and profitability in retail food operations.

Spoiled ApplesThe most important proactive measure against food spoilage is a tight managerial control on Supplier Food Safety and Quality Assurance. The condition of the food items upon delivery to the retail units will impact the overall shelf life, taste, texture, structural integrity and pathogen level during storage and food preparation activities. Food transportation best practices, cold chain requirements, temperature monitoring system, freeze-thaw detection, appropriate packaging, adulteration prevention and food tracking should be addressed at the supplier level to ensure that deliveries are wholesome safe quality foods. Integrated pest management at suppliers’ facilities and delivery trucks are also essential. Random testing of food products for pathogen content and quality control will assist in compliance with FDA/USDA regulations and internal corporate standards.Thus, a comprehensive evaluation and verification of the supplier food safety and quality assurance programs will help to ensure compliance with all relevant federal/State/local regulations (see previous blog on Supplier Qualification and Compliance using GFSI Benchmarking).

After suppliers deliver safe quality foods, in-store food safety and quality assurance control measures must be activated immediately to maintain safe quality food status until food is served to the customer.

At the retail units, appropriate food handling and storage practices to eliminate cross-contamination is key.

The use of rapid cleanliness monitoring test swabs to validate clean and sanitary food contact surfaces will enable timely corrective actions that would eliminate potentially hazardous food cross-contamination.

Proper hand hygiene by all foodservice employees should be mandatory.

Keeping cold food cold and warm food warm is a food safety mantra that ensures foods don’t get to the temperature danger zone. Temperature monitoring systems for freezers and refrigerators using wireless technologies will ensure a better food storage control even during non-business hours.

Emergency preparedness training for natural disasters and power outages should be in place to avoid surprises.

Compliance with FDA regulations for safe refrigerated storage, hot holding, cooling and reheating of food within the time and temperature criteria will help eliminate spoilage organisms and preserve the taste, texture and overall quality of food throughout its shelf life, especially for meat and poultry products.

Proper management of products’ shelf life, expiration dates and observing the principle of first in first out (FIFO) should be encouraged. In fact, the food code requires a system for identifying the date or day by which food must be consumed, sold or discarded. Product date marking enables compliance with this food code requirement to date mark all prepared food products, and to demonstrate a procedure that ensures proper discarding of food products on or before the date of expiration. Local health inspectors reference these product date marking labels and enforce them, in addition to food prep activities that may lead to cross-contamination, adulteration or spoilage. Inventory control, forecasting and Lean Six Sigma are important tools for managing food supplies, storage, preparation, stock replenishing and elimination of excess food items that may get past their shelf life.

Raw proteins (meat, sea food and poultry) are arguably the largest cross-contamination sources for pathogens in foodservice. Any novel pathogen reduction or elimination process like the potential production of pathogen-free chicken would be a welcome relief, and will not only save money and labor; it would protect the public health as well.

Produce (fruits and vegetables) remains the largest source of foodborne illness outbreaks in United States, because it’s a ready-to-eat food that doesn’t get the benefit of cooking at high sterilizing temperatures. An effective pathogen kill step for produce using consumer-friendly natural washes like electrolyzed water may serve as a gate keeper in case the safety system fails at the plant level. Ice-cold electrolyzed water is also known to refresh produce and may extend their shelf life as well.

GMO-food products could be engineered to resist pests and spoilage organisms with improved shelf life, but its general acceptability and the FDA labeling disclosure requirements are still contentious issues.

While industry is racing to develop several promising anti-spoilage technologies, active managerial control of the various components of an effective food safety and quality assurance system remains the best practice against food spoilage and associated food losses in retail food operations.

Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B
Retail Food Safety Forum

Supplier Qualification and Compliance using GFSI Benchmarking

By Dan Okenu, Ph.D.
1 Comment
Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B

An efficient supply chain is very important in retail food operations. To safeguard the supply chain, a comprehensive supplier food safety program should be an integral part of retail foodservice (see my previous blog on Combating Norovirus Hazards in Retail Foodservice). This becomes even more challenging because one, retail foodservice chains don’t own their suppliers; they’re independently managed businesses, and two, the new regulatory burden placed on retailers by FDA through the proposed FSMA rule to ensure that retailers are accountable on the sources and safety of their products to continue serving safe quality foods to their customers.

Thus, continuous verification of supplier qualification and compliance is as important for food manufacturers and food processors, as it is for food retailers. To fulfill this very important business requirement, the retail Food Safety & Quality Assurance job function would usually include the following roles:

  • To conduct continuous food safety audits and monitor suppliers to ensure compliance with all FDA/USDA, State and local regulatory standards;
  • To monitor adherence to product specifications, identify deficiencies and implement corrective actions in a timely manner;
  • To perform internal and external testing to verify risk assessment and risk mitigation procedures.

How do retail folks try to tackle these important business functions, especially since most retail chains have so many domestic and international suppliers? The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) benchmarking provides a common ground for farmers, manufacturers, food processors and retailers on global food safety best practices. GFSI strengthens the supply chain, eliminates multiple auditing, increases confidence in safe quality food delivery while protecting the public health.

The different GFSI schemes which include PrimusGFS, BRC, SQF, GlobalGAP and FSSC2200 are auditing entities involved with several scopes of food safety and quality assurance service standards, while others like AIB, SGS, NSF and SAIGlobal are certification bodies that perform facility audits. As a business-driven initiative, majority of food processing facilities depend on the GFSI Guidance Document for supplier qualification and compliance by using any of their benchmarking schemes. The advantages are tremendous and include less product recalls and voluntary withdrawals, enhanced traceability, clearly defined risk management and HACCP control, acceptable uniform international standards, eliminates redundancy and frees up time and resources for both food manufacturers and retailers.

Apart from supplier compliance and approval, food retail companies also want to ensure that all potential suppliers align with their corporate values and standards of ethics. GFSIschemes however do not cover these corporate needs like environmental sustainability, animal welfare, ethical sourcing, compliant labor utilization, organic and non-GMO product verification. Moreover, the auditing time frame for most GFSI schemes is only about a few days and thus gives just a snapshot of the food safety practices in these GFSI-approved facilities. Retail food companies will therefore require a more elaborate supplier monitoring and approval system to ensure that certified facilities are not just compliant within the FDA auditing time frame of about one to four days, but that their food safety culture and practices are consistent with their corporate mission to deliver safe quality food to customers.

Additionally, such continuous monitoring and verification will ensure that suppliers are also complying with company policies outside the provisions of GFSI schemes. Proper training of retail Food Safety & Quality Assurance managers on FDA/USDA inspection requirements and corporate expectations at the food processing facilities is absolutely required. The use of third party auditors to assist retailers in verifying supplier qualification and compliance is also advisable because of the often overwhelming number of suppliers involved.

Finally, as FDA begins to implement FSMA, it would be pertinent to verify FSMA readiness of the different GFSI schemes. This will ensure that GFSI certified food manufacturing and processing facilities remain in compliance with the new regulatory provisions for FSMA covered facilities. It would help to avoid costly disruptions in the supply chain and allow businesses to meet their projected growth while serving safe quality food to their customers and protecting their business brand. Overall, GFSI certification remains the gold standard that will guarantee supplier qualification and compliance at both domestic and international locations.

 

Ravi Ramadhar, Food Safety Business Director for Life Sciences Solutions, Thermo Fisher Scientific
In the Food Lab

Molecular Diagnostics – Generation 3: 2005 to Present

By Ravi Ramadhar
No Comments
Ravi Ramadhar, Food Safety Business Director for Life Sciences Solutions, Thermo Fisher Scientific

In my previous blog, I covered the first two generations of Molecular Diagnostics: Generation one, was the advent of these tests prior to 1995, while the second generation saw the evolution of molecular diagnostics with the emergence of standardized food molecular and method workflow.

The advent of automated DNA sequencing and use of multiple fluorescent dyes by companies like Applied Biosystems and Roche led to the development of multiple fluorescent dyes and real- time quantitative PCR systems (qPCR). At first these qPCR systems were only used in the research environment, but quickly found their way to the food industry.

Applications such as quantitation of GMOs and multiple pathogen targets became common. Real-time PCR systems permitted users to visualize amplification as it happened and enabled simultaneous detection of multiple targets. With the use of newer chemistries and improved enzymes, shorter amplification cycles – sometimes as low as 40 minutes – could be achieved. The real-time systems offered faster time-to-result with additional target probes and thus higher target specificity. As with most molecular methods, the workflow was sensitive to food matrix inhibition and required alternative sample preparation methods to meet the wide variety of food matrixes.

Within this generation of solutions, alternatives were introduced, that promised faster, easier or more sensitive results. These included alternative to either the detection method or enzymes utilized Iisothermal amplification, for example without need for multiplexing capability of qPCR or internal controls, as well as targeting alternative nucleic acid such as RNA were introduced to the food market. These incremental improvements did not lead to any significant new paradigms or improvements to the food testing workflow. Their emergence instead led to an explosion of additional and alternative molecular platforms for food, without any real innovation. Within this, solutions introduced to the food industry eventually brought us to where we are today.

Directly taking systems from the clinical diagnostics workflow and introducing these platforms and systems as food solutions. While these systems automate the entire workflow or automate the PCR setup it remains to be seen if with their higher complexity and high maintenance these systems can survive the food industry. The basic molecular workflow for food has remained intact since its introduction in the late 1990s with innovation more or less stagnant. What’s needed is for someone to truly develop a platform from the ground up with the food laboratory in mind.

Today’s landscape and what’s next

Today, there are some early signals of where innovations and changes for food labs will emerge. A recent poster by Nestle, for example, highlighted the uses of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and DNA sequencing to develop a DNA method to allow the identification of coffee varieties through the value chain, from the field to the finished product. The method is applied on routine basis to guarantee the purity and authenticity of raw material used by Nespresso.

Applications of NGS in outbreak response and trace back investigations are being used in parallel with existing technologies. Finally, availability of new sequencing data enables better assay design and development of adjacent technologies.

NGS was preceded by emulsion amplification and sequencing by synthesis. These developments led to the development and introduction of digital PCR. Within a digital PCR reaction, millions of simultaneous reactions from one sample occur. The advantages of dPCR include lower and absolute, not relative gene copy number. The data has high precision and has better tolerance to inhibitors. These characteristics can lead to better and more precise molecular tests in food. , Before dPCR wide spread adoption is seen, however, the limitations of high cost and limited dynamic range must be addressed.

It’s not only in the testing labs and adjacent technologies that NGS is having an impact. In the labs driving innovation in food and food ingredient development, applications of NGS are being used to develop targeted food ingredients.

Nestle is the leader in this convergence of food, health and nutrition and over the last three years, the company has acquired and formed partnerships targeting the space. In its formation of the Nestle Institute of Health Sciences, Emmanuel Baetge, head of NHIS, emphasized NHIS expertise and research capabilities using systems biology, next generation sequencing, and human genetics.

The world of food safety is as dynamic as the natural flora of food itself. Changing regulations, evolving organisms, technological change and consumers’ changing tastes require new solutions. The requirements of the food laboratory have not changed. They are the protectors of brands and the teams we trust to deliver safe and quality foods. However, how they do that has and will continue to change.

Next time… molecular serotyping.

References:

  1. Wetterstrand KA. DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP) Available at: www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts. Accessed 1/13/2014 [DOA 1/13/12014].
  2. Beilei Ge and Jianghong Meng , 2009 14: 235 Advanced Technologies for Pathogen and Toxin Detection in Foods: Current Applications and Future Journal of Laboratory Automation DOI: 10.1016/j.jala.2008.12.012.
  3. Morisset D, Sˇ tebih D, Milavec M, Gruden K, Zˇ el J (2013) Quantitative Analysis of Food and Feed Samples with Droplet Digital PCR. PLoS ONE 8(5):e62583. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062583.
  4. http://www.nestle-nespresso.com/asset-libraries/Related%20documents%20not%20indexed/Nespresso%20poster%20ASIC2012%20DNA%20traceability.pdf
Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B
Retail Food Safety Forum

Combating Norovirus Hazards in Retail Food Service – Part 3

By Dan Okenu, Ph.D.
No Comments
Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B

In the past two weeks, this blog has covered how Norovirus is the leading cause of foodborne illness worldwide, some potential sources of outbreak, and the importance of proper handwashing, developing an employee health policy, building a comprehensive food safety program, and training of employees. One critical aspect of Norovirus management is proper attention paid to cleaning and disposal of body fluids.

Proper cleaning and disposal of body fluids

The food code requires that retail foodservice establishments have proper procedures in place for emergency body fluids clean-up. Body fluids incidents in the dining room, play areas or back of the house are arguably the single most important source of Norovirus cross contamination in the restaurant, if clean-up and disposal are not performed according to standard operating procedures. The components of an effective and compliant SOP for emergency body fluids clean-up may include the following:

  • Written step by step procedure to contain, isolate, clean and disinfect affected areas;
  • Ready and easily accessible emergency body fluid clean-up kit;
  • Use of PPEs like disposable aprons, gloves and protective eye glasses;
  • Norovirus approved disinfectant as a kill step before and after clean-up;
  • Containment of body fluids spill using absorbent yellow spill pads to reduce aerosols;
  • Affected area should be isolated to avoid accidental dispersal by guests;
  • Discard all affected open food and decontaminate all affected surfaces;
  • Stop all food prep until body fluids are contained, cleaned and affected area disinfected;
  • Perform clean-up with disposable towels and yellow spill pads for easy disposal;
  • Wear triple gloves to avoid contaminating the clean-up kit and storage area;
  • Dispose clean-up trash straight in outside dumpster without passing through kitchen; and
  • Employee must wash hands twice, first in the bathroom and then in the kitchen.

The pathogen kill-step is the most important step in the body fluid clean-up process. The preferred option is to use a disinfectant grade chemical instead of regular sanitizers.

Ecolab’s Insta-Use Multi-purpose Disinfectant Cleaner is effective against Norovirus (and other viruses), mold, mildew and bacteria. It cleans, deodorizes and disinfects in one labor saving step and packaged in an easy to use compact cartridge with less storage space requirement. Caution: Disinfectant is not approved for food contact surfaces and cannot be used as a replacement for regular sanitizers on food contact surfaces.

Proper training of team members and associates is required before use to encourage compliance.

In conclusion, Norovirus is still a major infectious pathogen associated with foodservice operations in spite of several regulatory control and technological advances to curtail its occurrence and prevalence. Until a viable vaccine or an effective drug becomes available against Norovirus, rigorous implementation of food safety procedures, behavioral changes and continuous training of both foodservice workers and customers will remain the industry’s best practices at prevention and control. Overall, it makes a lot of business sense to do all that it takes to protect your customers against the threat of Norovirus infection, and by so doing, equally protect your business brand and the entire public health.

Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B
Retail Food Safety Forum

Combating Norovirus Hazards in Retail Foodservice

By Dan Okenu, Ph.D.
No Comments
Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B

Norovirus is the number one cause of foodborne disease outbreaks worldwide. It makes people sick causing nausea, stomach cramping, vomiting and diarrhea or “stomach flu” and leads to a lot of discomfort and even death, especially in vulnerable populations like children and the elderly. Elevated risk of infection is associated with certain foods that are served raw, like fruits and vegetables, contaminated ready-to-eat (RTE) foods, or improperly cooked Oysters from contaminated waters. According to the CDC, Norovirus is the leading cause of illness and outbreaks from contaminated foods in the United States, especially in retail foodservice settings like restaurants.

Some of the potential sources of Norovirus outbreaks in retail foodservice are as follows:

  • Infected food handlers
  • Infected non-food workers and guests
  • Bare hands contact with RTE foods
  • Contamination of food deliveries at source
  • Improper cleaning and disposal of body fluids
  • Training gap on sanitizer and disinfectant use
  • Aerosolized vomitus around food and people
  • Contaminated food contact and non-food contact surfaces
  • Improper hand washing by food handlers
  • Cross contamination from restrooms
  • Cross contamination from high touch points in the back of the house

It is apparent from the statistics that Norovirus constitutes a major hazard to the retail foodservice industry. The good news, however, is that there are a lot of cost-effective strategies that can be implemented in a proactive manner to reduce its spread and impact on businesses, protect customers and the bottom line. Some of these preventive measures will be discussed here and in next week’s blog post.Norovirus_thumb

Proper Hand Washing by Foodservice Workers

Proper hand washing is the most cost-effective method for preventing cross-contaminations including Norovirus in a retail foodservice environment. Hand wash sinks should be appropriately located to encourage compliance by both foodservice workers and guests. For example; the food code requires handling dry clean dishes with clean hands during the dish washing process. Thus, it makes a lot sense to install a hand wash sink in close proximity to an automated dishwasher. This will enhance hand washing compliance by Team Members before handling and stacking dry clean dishes. Adequate soap and hand sanitizers should be provided at all hand washing stations including restrooms. Whereas the use of hand sanitizers is not a replacement for proper hand washing with soap, there is evidence that hand sanitizers are effective against Norovirus. Proper hand washing remains the preferred option however, since the use of soap can indeed get rid of other cross contaminating organic matter and dirt. Incentive programs may be used to encourage frequent and proper hand washing by foodservice workers. More resources may be found at handwashingforlife.com to help foodservice establishments update their hand washing culture.

While enforcing proper hand washing among foodservice employees is desirable, it is also advisable to encourage hand washing among guests. Norovirus can be transmitted by infected guests to the foodservice establishment especially in buffet style restaurants where guests come in very close proximity with RTE foods. Facility design that encourages hand washing by guests was elegantly captured by the Florida based PDQ restaurant chain that installed a hand wash sink in their main dining room with a strong brand statement that “quality and clean go hand in hand”. The strategic location of a hand wash sink encourages hand washing by guests, especially among children in the full view of their parents, and with less cross contaminating contact surfaces as found in the restrooms.

Restroom Cleaning and Sanitation

Color coded cleaning and sanitizing tools are recommended for restrooms to prevent cross contamination. Tools will be dedicated for use in restrooms only and stored in a dedicated storage or closet to avoid accidental use in other areas of the foodservice establishment. The restroom can be the most important part of the restaurant with opportunities to prevent infections. Guests may also use the cleanliness of the restroom as a measure of food safety commitment by the retail food establishment (see my previous blog on “Clean Matters”). Thus, extra efforts are required to maintain and keep restrooms in a clean and sanitary condition all the time. Use of disinfectant grade chemicals for disinfecting restrooms, body fluids clean-up and high touch point areas is recommended. The alternative of preparing high concentration sanitizers is laborious and prone to mistakes by foodservice workers. In addition, such high concentrated sanitizers like 1000 – 5000 ppm chlorine-based sanitizer can be a safety concern to employees when used without PPEs. Frequent cleaning, disinfecting and replenishing of hand soap and sanitizers in the restroom are effective measures against restroom infections and cross contaminations including Norovirus.

Stay tuned for more preventative measures to be discussed in next week’s blog post…