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.
My 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Compliance with use of gloves and no bare hands contact with ready-to-eat foods.
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.
Handle body fluids in the restroom, grocery store aisles, play areas, dining rooms, and kitchen areas as potential infectious materials.
Establish and implement an appropriate Employee Health Policy without punitive measures; to encourage hourly paid employees to stay home when sick.
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.
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.
Buffet style food services should develop a better strategy to completely protect food from self-service customers.
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.
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.
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.
The 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.
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.
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:
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
Last week, in this blog we discussed that Norovirus is the leading cause of foodborne illness worldwide, some potential sources of outbreak, and the importance of proper handwashing and cleaning and disposal of body fluids. In this second part of the blog, we will cover developing an employee health policy, building a comprehensive food safety program, and training of employees.
Develop an employee health policy
It is important to develop an employee health policy with detailed guidelines for sick employees. Sick foodservice workers are required to stay off work until fully recovered and cleared by their Doctor. When an employee becomes sick at work, such an employee must report to the immediate supervisor, and be allowed to leave work to attend to the ill-health. Reportable diseases must be reported upon diagnosis to enable the Local Health Department and affected foodservice establishment take necessary actions to protect the public health. There should be a crisis management plan in case the media gets involved in any such reportable infectious disease situations. To enable ill-health reporting compliance by employees, foodservice establishments are encouraged to adopt an employee health policy that is not punitive in nature.
Managers and supervisors should also be trained to recognize abnormal behaviors and tell-tale signs of ill-health in employees who may choose not to report due to the potential of losing hourly wages. Employee health policy training should be mandatory – to report injuries, ill-health and to follow the exclusion policy from food prep until fully certified and cleared to return to work by the Doctor.
For more resources on employee health policy, please see FDA’s Employee Health and Personal Hygiene Handbook for practices and behaviors of food service workers that can help reduce the spread of infectious diseases in retail food operations.
Self-auditing of food safety procedures
Active managerial control will enable verification of the food safety program for potential corrective actions that may be required including retraining of staff. A self-auditing system will ensure that risk mitigation is applied at every stage of foodservice operations with HACCP plans implemented and verified. In addition, a third party auditing will identify the weak links in the system and help prepare the establishment for Local Health inspections. Proper cleaning and sanitation of contact surfaces, observing the temperature rule – keeping cold food cold and hot food hot or routine cleaning and sanitizing of high touch points surfaces are examples of food safety procedures that managers can evaluate and verify on daily basis to continue serving safe quality food to customers. Effective implementation of these food safety standard will have a direct correlation with reduction in cross-contamination including Norovirus prevention.
Comprehensive supplier food safety program
Food can get contaminated at any point during the farm to fork journey. A robust supplier food safety program will ensure better control of potential risk transfer in retail food operations. A system that ensures that approved certified suppliers are continuously verified will capture any potential system failure and implement corrective action both at the supplier and retail levels. The use of approved suppliers is an important risk mitigation step that should be mandatory and verified to ensure that all deliveries are of the highest food safety and quality standard. Since risk burden may be accentuated at retail foodservice due to multiple operational processes in the kitchen, it is important to assess the risk burden at the supplier level, to enable effective mitigation. Thus, a dedicated supplier food safety monitoring, evaluation and verification is absolutely required at retail foodservice to assist in eliminating any food safety weak link in the supply chain. The safe quality food outcome will remain complementary and supportive of the supply chain’s mission of “never run out”.
Training of employees on standard operating procedures
Proper and continuous training of employees is fundamental to a successful food safety program in retail food operations. We may have the best food safety program in place but if these important SOPs are not properly implemented at every operational step as a result of training gap, it may in fact introduce a greater risk into the system. Since most hourly foodservice workers are young adults with a higher than normal turn-over rate, effective communication and continuous training will help keep a good handle on the food safety know-how of each batch of employees. Consequently, it is absolutely necessary to have a certified food safety manager as the person-in-charge to oversee foodservice operations. Training the trainers, managers and training directors will assist in meeting the training needs of all employees including hourly and temporary workers and for compliance with food code requirements.
Online food safety courses and training is the preferred method of instruction for most large retail foodservice chains. These training materials can be accessed anywhere in handheld devices and can be updated in real time. Online training however should not be a replacement for personalized one-on-one onsite training on the job. Hand washing compliance, no bare hands contact with RTE foods, clean-up of body fluids, separating high risk raw chicken, beef and sea foods from RTE foods using a color coded system, and observing critical control points in the food prep process are some of the SOPs that require continuous training and verification to ensure 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.
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.
