By Melody Ge

Women in Food Safety (WIFS) features female leaders in food safety to share their inspiring stories. This month, we had the pleasure of speaking with Ingrid Munoz, FSQA Manager at the StarKist Galapesca site. We met Ingrid, who has worked for StarKist for 27 years, at the company’s headquarters in Reston, Virginia, where she is known throughout the company for her confidence, calm and “We got this!” good vibes.

Munoz came to Starkist through a friend’s introduction, first working at the laboratory at the Galapesca site, learning and absorbing everything she could about food safety, quality, processing and sanitation in tuna production. “It was challenging,” she said. “However, it was those responsibilities and challenges that hooked me, and I haven’t let go since then.” After working in the lab, Ingrid moved to fish reception, and then became a key leadership team member as the FSQA team leader at Galapesca site.

Ingrid mentioned one tip for women who are facing major changes, which is not to choose but to follow instinct, and you will shine naturally. “It’s about 60% knowing how to do it, and 40% knowing how to be when facing each choice,” she said.

At the end of the interview, Ingrid shared three principles that guide not only her career but also her life: passion, discipline and always step out the comfort zone! These three principles drive her entire FSQA team at the Galapesca site as well. Ingrid believes women will be more lifted, valued and heard in the future, and will certainly take key positions in the industry.

Ge: What is the main driver that has kept you working on FSQA with StarKist for more than 25 years?

Munoz: It’s perseverance and passion. In my opinion, it’s quite important to like what you are doing. I love what I do. The job is not easy, every day there are different issues. Whenever there are difficulties, these are the three main points I keep in my mind:

Think like a consumer
Think like a company owner
Think like an auditor

Fortunately, my company has given me the flexibility to try different approaches to improve our food safety and quality management system, while keeping these three thoughts in mind.

Ge: Well said Ingrid! Why are you passionate about FSQA?

Munoz: Because I like to take on new challenges and do things differently. I do prefer not to do the same things over and over. As we all know, every day is a different day in FSQA. That’s what originally attracted me to the field, and I feel the same way today.

GE: What have you learned from your female team members?

Munoz: Throughout working and guiding female team members, I have learned that FSQA is a field for women by our very nature. Women have a sixth sense when it comes to evaluating and predicting risks. We are dedicated and insightful. We are disciplined and we follow the rules. Women have unlimited capacities to innovate with creative solutions to continue improving food safety and quality.

Ge: Would you please share with us an unforgettable story that still has an impact on you today?

Munoz: My most unforgettable experience was in 2009. I was asked by our General Manager to lead the Quality Assurance (QA) department for four months while my boss (previous QA Manager) had to travel outside of country to fulfill a special mission. I accepted right away as I thought this would help me strengthen my abilities. Certainly, there were unknowns and challenges, however, I managed through with my big goal in my mind.

When my boss at that time returned, he congratulated me for having represented him better than he expected and, above all, because I led some significant changes that contributed positively to the management of the Safety and Quality System. This period of time was key to recognizing that I could achieve more. Shortly after, I was promoted from supervisor to department head. Not too long later, I was promoted to be the QA manager.

Always say yes to challenges, and you will be surprised how much you can achieve.

Ge: Thank you for sharing that! If you could turn the clock back to 20+ years ago, when you just started in the industry, what would you say to your younger self and would you make any decisions differently?

Munoz: I would say, “Ingrid, come on! Keep doing it, and enjoy more of what you do. Don’t be afraid!” Honestly, I don’t regret any decisions I have made so far. They were all good decisions at the time they were made. Certainly, as the industry grew, I got many other opportunities, however, I am faithful to my team and to Charlie. I appreciate and enjoy the opportunities I’ve had to try different things. My new ideas are always supported. I consider my team as my family, and I enjoy working with them. If I had it to do all over again, I would make the same decision to grow with the company and continue my commitment to support our consumers with safe and quality products.

Ge: What is your “golden nugget” tip for other females working in the industry?

Munoz: Think big! There are no obstacles that will stop us from growing and getting stronger. Do not lay down your own arms, because when we open up our arms and hold on to each other, all together we can do more than we think we can. Keep learning and keep motivating yourself. Follow your passion, exercise discipline and always step out of your comfort zone.

November 13, 2022

Food Safety Attorney

[Video] Food Labeling Regulations: Organic vs. 100% Organic

By Jennifer Allen

No Comments

October 31, 2022

FST Soapbox

Five Ways Restaurants Can Use Technology to Improve Food Safety

By Emily Newton

No Comments

Food safety concerns are coming under increasing scrutiny among both regulators and the general public. To protect consumers as well as their business’ reputations, restaurants must do all they can to address potential risks. Fortunately, there are several new technologies that can help retail food establishments improve and monitor their food safety protocols. Following are five of the most effective and easiest to implement advances.

1. Monitoring Ingredient Quality

One of the key technology-based advances in food safety are Internet of Things (IoT)-based sensors that can track temperature changes in refrigerators, warm storage or other areas in real time to ensure food stays out of danger zones. If temperatures fluctuate too much, these sensors can warn employees so they can respond swiftly to prevent spoilage and microbial growth.

The same technology can help ensure ingredient quality in transit, too. IoT solutions can track temperature and spoilage-indicating nanoparticles in shipping, giving drivers and other stakeholders real-time updates to inform any necessary changes, such as delivering to a closer store before goods spoil.

2. Tracking Safety Procedure Compliance

Restaurants can also use technology to ensure employees meet food safety regulations. Many issues arise from unsanitary work practices, and conventional compliance-monitoring measures are inefficient and leave room for error. Digital technologies offer a solution.

Digital checklists make it easier to record compliance with daily food safety protocols. Their ease of use encourages participation, and employees who use these lists are less likely to overlook parts of the routine. Moving to digital instead of paper records also improves traceability, reduces the danger of missing documents and documents who was in charge if something wasn’t completed.

Restaurants with particularly critical safety concerns can go a step further by placing hand-scanning devices near sinks and workstations. These devices can detect potential pathogens on employees’ hands, indicating if they need to wash more thoroughly. Similar systems can also monitor body heat to suggest if an employee is ill.

3. Verifying Cleanliness

Other technologies that can help verify the efficacy of a restaurant’s food safety protocols include adenosine triphosphate (ATP) tests. These testing devices detect ATP, the energy unit found in all living cells, to reveal microbial contamination. Restaurants that regularly use these tests on surfaces throughout the kitchen and dining room can discover problem areas where cleaning practices are insufficient, or confirm that their current cleaning and sanitizing methods are working.

4. Minimizing Touchpoints

Cross-contamination is one of the most common risks in restaurants, and the presence of many high-touch surfaces exacerbates these concerns. Using touch-free alternatives to high-touch devices helps minimize the risk of cross-contamination.

Touch-free faucets and paper towel dispensers are perhaps the most recognizable examples of these technologies. However, restaurants don’t have to stop there. Automatic soap dispensers, touchless payment systems, hands-free condiment dispensers and automatic lights are available today and help reduce the number of high-touch surfaces.

Touch-free technology doesn’t negate the need for regular hand-washing and glove-changing, but it mitigates risks if employees fail to comply with standards. These systems are also typically more efficient than manual alternatives, so they can boost productivity.

5. Improving Traceability

Surveys suggest that just 6% of all firms have full visibility into their supply chains, making it difficult for restaurants to know exactly where things come from and how they get there. This makes tracing foodborne illnesses challenging, but new technologies can help.

IoT tracking and blockchain platforms provide more visibility, including real-time insights into shipment locations and quality. These digital records make it easier to go back after a safety incident to see where the problem originated. Restaurants can then accurately determine what to change to prevent similar issues in the future.

Restaurants that want to succeed must embrace food safety. Doing that effectively means capitalizing on new technologies to simplify processes, improve visibility and minimize risks.

October 13, 2022

Food Fraud Quick Bites

Where’s the Coconut?

By Karen Constable

No Comments

Coconut water and coconut milk are vulnerable to food fraud because they can easily be diluted with other liquids and adulterated with undeclared ingredients, such as added sweeteners and dairy products, that are difficult for consumers to detect. The FoodChainID Food Fraud Database[i] (formerly the Decernis and United States Pharmacopeia [USP] database) contains 20 records related to coconut water, coconut milk and coconut milk powder. These include one story of a “coconut water” manufacturer that was found to be using water, sugar and flavoring to make the beverage, which contained no coconut at all.[ii]

Because the potential diluents and adulterants are cheap and easily available, the fraud is both profitable and easy to perpetrate. Organic coconut products are also at risk of having their organic status faked. Six of the Food Chain ID records are for products that were falsely labelled “organic.”

The addition of undeclared sweeteners is a commonly perpetrated fraud in coconut water. In the U.S., it has been estimated that 15% of all imported coconut waters are adulterated with added sugars that are not declared on the label.[iii] In 2021, Brazilian authorities confiscated 173,000 litres of coconut water with added sugars.[iv] Authorities in the United Kingdom reported that the presence of undeclared sugars in coconut water was “widespread” in 2017.[v]

Coconut milk and coconut milk powder have been adulterated with undeclared cow’s milk powder[vi] and with cornflour.[vii] Adulteration with dairy products poses a serious food safety risk to allergic consumers. To protect such consumers, food fraud risk mitigation activities for coconut milks, creams and yogurts should include regular monitoring for the presence of dairy allergens.

References:

[i] https://www.foodchainid.com/food-fraud-database/

[ii] Trinidad Express Newspapers (2016) “Health Ministry Removes Local Coconut Water Off the Market.” Available at: https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/health-ministry-removes-local-coconut-water-off-the-market/article_0f37536d-0968-5a73-a6f2-cba56a4e6beb.html [Accessed 6 Oct. 2022]

[iii] Foodnavigator-usa.com (2014). “Fifteen percent of coconut waters mislabeled; let’s level the playing field.” Available at: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Suppliers2/iTi-15-of-coconut-water-mislabeled [Accessed 6 Oct. 2022].

[iv] Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (2021) “Ação de fiscalização do Mapa apreende 173 mil litros de bebidas com indícios de fraude.” Available at: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/mapa-apreende-173-mil-litros-de-bebidas-com-indicios-de-fraude [Accessed 6 Oct. 2022]

[v] The Grocer (2017) “FSA probe finds widespread addition of undeclared sugar in coconut water.” Available at: https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/soft-drinks/fsa-probe-finds-widespread-addition-of-undeclared-sugar-in-coconut-water/558787.article

[vi] Centre for Food Safety The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Food Alerts / Allergy Alerts – “Undeclared allergen (milk) found in prepackaged coconut milk powder.” Available at: https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/whatsnew/whatsnew_fa/2017_177.html [Accessed 6 Oct. 2022]

[vii] Azlin-Hasim, S., Siang, Q., Yusof, F., Khairi Zainol, M. and Mohd, H. (2019). “Chemical Composition and Potential Adulterants In Coconut Milk Sold In Kuala Lumpur.” Malays. Appl. Biol, [online] 48(3), pp.27–34. Available at: http://journalarticle.ukm.my/14685/1/48_03_04.pdf [Accessed 6 Oct. 2022]

October 10, 2022

Food Safety Attorney

Staying a Step Ahead on Produce Safety

By Jennifer Allen

No Comments

The FDA continues to make revisions and improvements to its Produce Safety Rule, with input from various stakeholders. One thing that is a constant drumbeat is that food growers and manufacturers need to do a better job of keeping consumers safe from foodborne illness arising from produce that was traditionally thought of by consumers as safe to eat (think spinach, romaine lettuce and red onions). Through the produce regulations (21 CFR 112.1-112.213), the FDA is attempting to come to grips with the seemingly endless parade of produce-based outbreaks, arming the food industry with an additional weapon for use in the constant battle with foodborne illness.

The regulations, broadly speaking, require farms of a certain size to develop processes relating to employee hygiene and training, agricultural water, biological soil amendments (compost, manure and the like), and buildings and equipment to decrease the risk of contamination of produce during growing, harvesting, packing and holding. But what does that mean for food manufacturers?

Subscribe to the Food Safety Tech weekly newsletter to stay up-to-date on the latest news and information on food safety.

One way to understand the regulations is to consider them in the context of a dish that seems to be increasingly popular in restaurants: the beet salad. Starting with the beets, the regulations do not apply to them. Why? Because the regulations don’t apply to produce that is rarely consumed raw. The FDA has provided an exhaustive list of this kind of produce and beets are, not surprisingly, on that list.

But what about the rest of the salad. Typical beet salads often contain leafy greens like spinach and arugula, and other produce such as carrots and avocado. With the produce regulations in place, food manufacturers should expect, and even demand, a greater level of safety and accountability from their suppliers with respect to these kinds of produce. All of these salad ingredients are considered covered produce under the act. But even though the regulations cover these ingredients, whether they provide food manufacturers with greater guarantees of safety and accountability really depends on who is growing, harvesting, packing and holding the produce before it reaches the manufacturing facility.

Broadly speaking, the regulations only apply to farms, which are generally defined as those establishments that grow and harvest the produce. Facilities that pack and hold produce must also follow the new regulations if they are majority owned by a farm that grows and harvests the produce. Non-farm packing and holding facilities can choose between following the new regulations or following current good manufacturing practices generally applicable to all foods (you can find these practices at 21 CFR 117). Establishments that only hold or transport produce are not required to follow either regulation.

What’s more, not all farms are covered under the new regulations. Farms that on average sell less than $25,000 per year of produce, adjusted for inflation with 2011 as the baseline year, are not covered by the regulations at all. And farms that sell an average of less than $500,000 of food each year, adjusted for inflation, may seek an exemption from the regulations if the amount of food they sell each year direct to consumers—or to restaurants and retail establishments within the same state or less than 275 miles away—exceeds the amount of all other food sales. That means the smaller and more local the farms a manufacturer sources from, the less likely it is that the manufacturer must follow the new regulations. It also means that if produce is packaged and held by a middleman, that middleman may not have to follow the new regulations either.

How To Mitigate Risk When Sourcing Produce

How does a food manufacturer then develop the knowledge necessary to have some power over what enters its facility and what risks to accept in sourcing produce? Well, if produce comes directly from a farm covered under the new regulations, the manufacturer should make sure that its supply contract requires the farm to provide regular certification that its produce has been grown, harvested, packed and held in compliance with the regulations. The same goes for produce coming from a packing and holding facility that is majority farm-owned. But even if the produce comes from a non-farm packing and holding facility, manufacturers can seek reassurance of safety in several ways.

If a produce supplier is not covered under the FDA Produce Safety regulations, manufacturers can still require certification that their suppliers comply either with the produce safety regulations or with existing current good manufacturing practices. If manufacturers have strong bargaining power over non-farm suppliers, they might even consider requiring that the supplier voluntarily comply with all or some of the produce safety regulations. Or manufacturers could require that the supplier obtain certification from the grower that the produce was grown and harvested in compliance with the produce regulations or (for non-covered or exempt farms) that the grower otherwise complied with current good manufacturing practices.

Even if produce comes from non-covered or exempt farms, manufacturers may still consider asking the farm to follow basic practices that mitigate the risk of contamination. Although the produce regulations include certain larger-scale, and costly, measures, they also include some simple requirements that even small farms can implement cost-effectively.

Question manufacturers should consider include: Has a company representative visited the farm that grows its produce? If it has, did workers have access to bathrooms or handwashing facilities? How clean was the area where the workers sort and pack the produce?

Depending on the amount of bargaining power a manufacturer has, it might be able to convince the grower to install portable toilets or handwashing stations, or to clean up its sorting area. Even installing signs that instruct workers to wash their hands or report to a supervisor if they are sick, can go a long way toward mitigating the risk of contamination.

At minimum, manufacturers should keep good records showing who grew, harvested, packed and held their produce, so that in the event of an outbreak of a foodborne illness, they can provide FDA with essential information to help determine the source. Manufacturers should also ensure that their supply contracts contain provisions requiring suppliers to notify them promptly whenever the suppliers have reason to suspect that produce may have become contaminated.

October 4, 2022

FST Soapbox

The Role of Temperature Monitoring and Reporting Technology in Food Safety

By Steve Knuth

No Comments

The traditional process for ensuring food safety in storage and transportation focuses on maintaining temperatures that are safe for the types of food or beverage the organization sells. Doing this without data logging technology means that the organization needs to appoint an individual to check refrigeration temperatures on a regular cadence and record that data by hand in case of an audit by the FDA.

Unfortunately, this method lacks 24/7 accountability of temperatures and allows for human error/neglect. If a refrigeration unit goes down outside of the regularly scheduled temperature monitoring cadence, the product can quickly fall outside of the designated safe temperatures. If the food is outside of the safe temperature range for an extended period, that food must be disposed of and will cost the organization a tremendous amount of time and money.

Subscribe to the Food Safety Tech weekly newsletter to stay up-to-date on the latest news and information on food safety.

This problem is equally apparent in transportation. Companies often utilize third-party transportation companies, which means they are relying on someone outside of the organization to responsibly manage and record temperatures and report back to the necessary parties. But the risk of human error and equipment failure can come into play. Temperature issues can even stem from drivers shutting off refrigeration while they sleep to save diesel fuel.

The most effective way to maintain quality control within storage and transport is by utilizing real-time data monitoring with a connected high-precision data logger. Multiple types of data loggers can be used to monitor temperatures in different scenarios. These includes traditional data loggers connected by Ethernet and wireless data loggers with Bluetooth or cellular connectivity. Each version has its role in food and beverage safety.

Connected vs. Manual Loggers

In fixed cold storage, such as within a restaurant or storage facility, an Ethernet or Wi-Fi-connected data logger is a great choice due to its affordability and reliability. For users who’d like to check temperatures on their mobile device while moving around the facility, a Bluetooth logger with mobile application support can be a strong option as well.

These loggers allow the user to get a 24/7 view of their refrigeration unit and correct issues before they lead to food disposal. For instance, if a food storage unit goes down over the weekend when no one is staffing the facility, or a restaurant is closed for a holiday, and temperatures within a refrigerator fall outside of the norm, these connected loggers will alert the user via email or text to correct the issue so they can save the product from spoiling.

One tip for using a connected logger is to set the alert feature to notify the user when temperatures reach the high and low end within the safe temperature spectrum for the food or beverage being stored. This provides an alert before the unit temperature falls outside the safe range, allowing the user to take corrective action before the product falls into unsafe temperatures.

In food and beverage delivery, transport companies are liable for temperature issues, especially if corrective action is not taken. This is where a cellular-connected data logger becomes critical. With a traditional data logger, there is no way for a consignor to know whether a temperature issue has occurred, unless it is checked manually by the driver. At that point, it may be too late to save the consignment. However, cellular-based technology allows consignors to do real-time monitoring without any interaction with the transport company.

Because many shipments are made using third-party transporters, cellular-based data loggers are becoming increasingly popular for maintaining trust between the transporter and all other segments of the supply chain. These wireless loggers also allow a trusted driver to monitor conditions while in route, allowing the driver to take corrective action before temperatures reach critical ranges.

Connected Data Loggers and FSMA

Transporters must also be fully aware of the Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA). These regulations make quality data loggers even more important as transporters may have to verify at any given moment that food was handled properly while in their possession. FSMA also emphasizes the importance of data logging technology. The act requires food handlers to develop a plan that meets the guidelines for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), which should involve an advanced data logger. Issues with data entry, misreading and misinformation are the responsibility of the transporter, and failure to comply with these guidelines can result in seizure, injunction and recalls, all of which can damage the reputation of the entire supply chain.

With all things considered, connected data loggers are extremely cost-effective technology options that can save thousands of dollars and hours of hassle. Because they can be monitored by multiple parties, the transporter or manager of a storage unit/restaurant can become aware of issues regarding temperature before the only safe course of action becomes product disposal.

Loggers help save money in the form of legal fees, compensation and premiums, while also drastically reducing the risks of consumer illness and public relations disasters. Some data logger companies also offer free cloud storage, allowing monitoring and analytics tracking in all locations, at any time of day.

With the high costs of noncompliance in the food industry, it is important for storage managers and transporters to understand that implementing high-precision, connected data monitoring tools can help put these issues to rest.

September 26, 2022

Food Genomics

Near Infrared Moisture Transmitters To Better Assess Shelf Life

By Emily Newton

No Comments

Recent news mentions of near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy have centered on the James Webb Space Telescope and the remarkable images it’s capturing. These pictures are exciting, but they are not the only applications for NIR technology. Scientists are using it closer to home to better predict food shelf life and prevent food adulteration.

Assessing Shelf Life

Currently, the best-by or use-by dates printed on food labels are assigned arbitrarily and contribute to millions of pounds and billions of dollars of food waste each year. These dates are often randomly assigned and can vary from state to state. For example, milk in Montana must have a sell-by date 12 days after it was pasteurized. California leaves the sell-by dates up to the manufacturers and Texas does not provide any guidelines.

Determining the shelf life of a product is challenging. Other than simply monitoring to determine when something spoils, food processing plants are limited to studies identifying and testing spoilage causes. Everything from the microbiology of the food to the amount of water or pH level can impact how quickly a product spoils and how long it might last on a shelf.

Near-infrared is the section of the light spectrum that lies just outside what the human eye can detect, right next to red. Utilizing NIR moisture transmitters and spectroscopy during food testing phases can more accurately determine spoilage causes and the shelf life of a given product.

Sensors use this nonvisible portion of the light spectrum to detect the chemical bonds between atoms in carbon-based or organic compounds. Each compound has a unique wavelength. These scanners can also monitor the atomic bonds’ degradation, indicating food spoilage.

This capability also allows NIR spectroscopy to better predict food shelf life by monitoring the quality of ingredients, painting a clearer picture of how long they might last on the factory floor or grocery store shelves.

Preventing Food Adulteration

Food adulteration and counterfeiting are growing problems. In the best-case scenario, consumers might buy salmon trout thinking they’ve purchased salmon. In worst-case scenarios, food adulteration can be dangerous or even deadly.

For example, milk powder is used in everything from baked goods to baby formula. It’s valued based on its protein content, which was traditionally determined using a nitrogen assay. Food counterfeiters found that diluting milk powder with other nitrogen-rich substances could fool the assay, allowing them to profit more while stretching their supplies.

Unfortunately, many of the nitrogen-rich chemicals chosen for this adulteration—such as melamine and cyanuric acid—become dangerous in higher concentrations. This can harm infants who may rely on milk powder in formula for their primary nutrition.

NIR spectroscopy can help identify and prevent food adulteration, because it cannot be fooled as easily as a nitrogen assay. Each organic compound has a unique fingerprint, and NIR spectroscopy can recognize those fingerprints. Preventing food adulteration could help reduce waste and avoid costly or dangerous recalls.

Detecting Spoilage and Predicting Taste

The good news for food manufacturers is that NIR spectroscopy may soon become much more affordable and accessible. Researchers have developed a pocket-sized, Bluetooth-enabled NIR scanner that can detect food spoilage in animal proteins and determine the freshness and shelf life of produce.

It estimates the water content, fats, proteins or carbohydrates in animal product samples. It can also detect and monitor variables in produce, such as total soluble sugar, which determines how sweet the ripened product might become, as well as titratable acidity and other similar data points.

Pairing this data gathering with a machine learning system means that the more samples these scanners are exposed to, the more accurate their readouts will become. Imagine being able to pull a phone-sized device from your pocket to determine when best to harvest a crop or which tomatoes on the shelf will taste the best. The technology isn’t ready for those commercial applications yet, but the potential exists.

NIR spectroscopy might seem like complex science destined for outer space or underground laboratories. But it’s ability to detect spoilage and product adulteration, predict shelf life and even signal when foods are ready for harvest signal a bright future for the technology in food safety.

September 13, 2022

Retail Food Safety Forum

Combating Norovirus in Restaurants: Proper Sanitizer and the Wiping Step Matter

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

A comparative study of four commercially available sanitizers found that an ethanol-based product was significantly more effective in destroying human norovirus (hNoV), and all products tested benefited from a wiping step to physically as well as chemically remove traces of the virus.

The purpose of the study, which was published in Food Microbiology (August 25, 2022), was to assess the anti-hNoV efficacy of various surface sanitizers when applied to a laminate material commonly used for restaurant tabletops.

Researchers from North Carolina State University, in partnership with GOJO, evaluated four products with different active ingredients (ethanol [EtOH], acid + anionic surfactant [AAS], quaternary ammonium compound [QAC] and sodium hypochlorite [NaOCl]) and a water control against two human norovirus strains—hNoV GII.4 Sydney and hNoV GI.6—and the cultivable surrogate Tulane virus (TuV). They used identical spray bottles and a robotic arm to wipe the surfaces to ensure consistency in methods between products.

“We had two major research questions. First, what is the efficacy of sanitizers commonly used by the retail food industry against human norovirus? Second, what is the relative importance of including a wiping step during the sanitizing process?” said Lee-Ann Jaykus, Ph.D., William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor of Food Microbiology at North Carolina State University and co-author of the study. “We found that on Formica, only one of the four products tested was able to provide any significant activity against human norovirus; the other three products inactivated only a negligible amount of virus.”

The researchers used controlled antiviral surface assays to assess the relative anti-hNoV efficacy of the sanitizers, and outcomes were compared following 30- and 60-second contact times without wiping and 30- and 60-second contact times with wiping.

Following a 30-second contact time with the EtOH-based product, log₁₀ reductions of 3.6 ± 0.7, 4.1 ± 0.5 and 3.4 ± 0.2 were observed for GII.4, GI.6 and TuV, respectively. Treatment with all other products resulted in statistically significantly lower reductions in viral titer.

Following 60-second contact time with the EtOH-based product log₁₀ reductions of 4.0 ± 0.5, 4.3 ± 0.6 and 6.3 ± 0.5 were observed for GII.4, GI.6 and TuV, respectively. The other formulated or diluted products produced ≤0.5 log₁₀ reductions.

The addition of the wiping step provided greater log₁₀ reductions in virus concentration for all products tested against all viruses.

“The addition of a wiping step to the sanitation process provided removal of 95% to 99.9% of the virus on the surface,” said Dr. Jaykus.

When comparing performance among the three viruses, “The performance against all three viruses was nearly identical for each of the four products,” said Dr. Jaykus. “In other words, if Product A inactivated 50% of one human norovirus strain, it also inactivated around 50% of the other human norovirus strain and the Tulane virus. This tells us that Tulane virus might be a better surrogate than the viruses currently used as proxies for human norovirus upon which to base label claims.”

When the paper towels were processed for residual virus five minutes after wiping, no evidence of residual virus could be detected on the used paper towels with the EtOH-based product treatments. For the NaOCl-based product, no detectable virus was present on spent paper towels used in wiping studies for GII.4 hNoVs, and relatively low concentrations of virus were recovered from paper towels for GI.6 and TuV. For the AAS-based product, the concentrations of virus recovered from the paper towels were approximately 2.3, 1.3 and 1.4 log₁₀ lower than that of the untreated control for GII.4, GI.6 and TuV, respectively. For the QAC-based product and water, the concentration of virus recovered from the paper towels was similar to that of the initial dried inoculum, suggesting low (if any) virus inactivation by the product.

“One of the most interesting findings was that the quaternary ammonium-based compound (QAC) did not show any real anti-noroviral activity against the virus strains tested. This is important because the vast majority of the restaurant and retail sector in the U.S. routinely uses QAC-based products to sanitize tables in dining areas,” said Dr. Jaykus. “Further, we were able to recover infectious virus from paper towels used to wipe contaminated surfaces, which suggests that if the sanitizer does not kill the virus, towels used in wiping could spread viruses if reused on another surface.”

September 6, 2022

FST Soapbox

Food Crisis Backup Planning

By Kari Hensien

No Comments

We were collectively shocked by the Covid-19 crisis that disrupted the food industry. We didn’t see it coming and we weren’t prepared for the long-lasting, widespread repercussions of that crisis, including product and labor shortages, supply chain disruptions and record-setting inflation.

Many food businesses were reliant on certain suppliers, and if they couldn’t deliver necessary products, companies either had to go without or scramble to find an alternate solution. As an industry, we were reactive—not proactive—to the pandemic and the ensuing fallout.

Now that we have some perspective, a big takeaway is that food businesses need to have better backup plans to address supply chain disruptions, product shortages and delays. This is especially important because:

Extreme weather is causing crop failures, livestock deaths and suboptimal soil conditions, resulting in more world hunger. Extreme drought conditions are destroying produce out west, including in California, a region that grows significant amounts of produce to ship nationwide. The Midwest, which produces approximately three-quarters of our country’s corn supply, is facing the opposite problem, as frequent floods wash away precious soil. Europe’s record-setting heat is torching vegetation, while India is pausing exports because of a severe heat wave.
The ongoing Ukraine/Russian war is predicted to give rise to a “food catastrophe.” Our global food system relies on a few big food commodity exporters, and Ukraine and Russia are two of the biggest. Together, these two countries supply approximately 60% of the global sunflower oil production—a product that goes into hundreds of consumable goods. It is a significant threat to the global food supply that so many of these exports have stalled.
Soaring inflation and resulting record high food prices are putting food out of the reach of many, leading to a worldwide rise in food insecurity, leading to increased hunger and malnutrition. The number of food insecure people is predicted to grow globally from 440 million to 1.6 billion, and nearly 250 million people are facing famine.
The ongoing labor shortage is contributing to disruptions and food waste all along the supply chain. Crates of perishable foods are being left to rot in shipping containers, warehouses and trucks because there aren’t enough workers to get them safely to their final destinations.

Below are several steps food brands can take to address and prepare for these ongoing threats to the supply chain.

Use tech tools to manage your supply chain. Today’s digital solutions allow you to audit and evaluate your supply chain’s sustainability and resilience. These innovative tools can help you get a better handle on your supply chain by organizing supplier certifications into a system that offers better visibility and is easier manage.

Embrace sophisticated technologies. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and other technologies may help solve some of our most pressing supply chain challenges. For instance, when the Suez Canal was blocked in 2021 it halted all shipments through that major passageway, causing a supply chain crisis. AI rerouted ships to avoid the blockage, so food deliveries could continue via a detour. AI can also monitor shipments to ensure safety and quality, notifying suppliers and buyers about any safety breaches.

The FDA’s New Era of Smarter Food Safety calls for a broader approach to food safety and traceability, and AI can help achieve those goals. Moving forward, AI will be instrumental in increasing transparency all along the supply chain, providing end-to-end visibility and predicting the path of foodborne outbreaks.

Develop back up plans. How are your suppliers pivoting to manage the simultaneous threats against our global food supply? How are they preparing for climate change? What will they do if they can’t get necessary produce from California, corn from the Midwest or grain from Ukraine? How will they recruit and retain enough labor to deliver necessary products safely to their final destinations? It’s smart to find backup suppliers, especially those closer to home, to ensure an uninterrupted supply of foods. Work with suppliers that are focused on solutions, safety and quality, and keep careful track of each supplier’s safety certifications.

Consider vertical farming. Increasingly, companies are looking for alternate supplier and agriculture solutions, such as vertical farming, which grows crops closer to their final destinations. Growing foods closer to their final destination helps reduce food deserts and safety risks, boost sustainability and minimize food wastage. Vertical farms are typically indoor climate-controlled spaces. These growing conditions protect crops from severe weather, and offer a viable solution to bypass a variety of current issues from the climate crisis to supply chain headaches.

Pivot to agroecological farming. Agroecological farming practices mitigate climate change and prioritize local supply chains. Using this approach, farmers adopt agricultural techniques based on the local area and its specific social, environmental and economic conditions. Agroecology focuses on sustainability, working to reduce emissions, recycle resources and minimize waste. Those that embrace this farming approach believe that traditional farming often faces—and contributes to—a variety of problems, including soil degradation and excessive use of pollutants. Intensive, traditional farming approaches typically focus on short-term output vs. long-term sustainability, which exhausts many natural resources, local resources and wildlife. Agroecological farmers adhere to strict standards that support animal welfare, fewer pesticides and antibiotics, healthier soil and no GMOs.

Be proactive. In hindsight, we should have been more proactive during the Covid-19 crisis, developing backup plans for the huge supply chain disruptions that were headed our way. Before the pandemic, we couldn’t possibly have anticipated the ramifications of a disrupted supply chain and we didn’t understand the need to have backup plans in place for alternative food sources and waste reduction. Today, we have a more realistic perspective and recognize the need to plan ahead for any eventuality.

Our food supply is being threatened by simultaneous crises—from climate change to war—so we must be proactive, prepared, resilient and flexible in developing a solid Plan B.

August 25, 2022

Ask The Expert

Culture Media: A Hidden Risk to Halal Certification

No Comments

Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, and growing fast. A Pew Forum report forecasts that Muslims will comprise 26.4% of the world population by 2030, and the majority of Muslims strictly adhere to the rules of halal. Studies have suggested that these factors will bring immense business opportunities for industries where halal manufacturing is relevant. A report by the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) calculates the global market of halal products to currently stand at $2.3 trillion U.S. annually, of which food comprises 67%, pharmaceuticals 22% and cosmetics and perfumes 11%. Halal certification proves that a manufacturer has fully implemented halal practices at a facility. However, there is a hidden risk: non-halal materials can be carried into production areas via culture media. This can negatively impact halal certification.

Andreas Bubert, Ph.D., Senior Global Product Manager Culture Media, at Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, discusses the concerns behind commonly used culture media and how to ensure halal-compliance.

How can culture media introduce non-halal contaminations into halal-certified manufacturing facilities?

Dr. Bubert: Culture media are widely used in the food, pharmaceutical, beverage and cosmetics industries for quality control of samples before market release as well as for environmental control, or hygiene testing, of the production areas.

Such culture media are often complex mixtures of ingredients. They are rich in nutrients and contain water-soluble extracts of plant or animal tissue, for example enzymatically digested animal proteins such as peptone and tryptone. These protein hydrolysates are excellent natural sources of amino acids, peptides and proteins in growth media. They are the most important source of nitrogenous nutrients and most often obtained by enzymatic digestion or acid hydrolysis of natural products such as animal tissues, milk and plants. The number of available protein hydrolysates, also called peptones, is enormous. They can promote and sustain the growth of most common microorganisms. For enzymatic digestion, papain, pepsin, trypsin or a mixture of enzymes of the pancreatic juice are typically used. A very common source of pancreatic juice and pancreas-derived enzymes is swine pancreas.

Peptone-containing media are primarily made of animal and non-animal origin materials but are nevertheless usually non-halal. If, for example, peptone made from casein or soy is treated in an early processing step with enzymes that are extracted from swine pancreas, the whole culture medium is considered to be non-halal. Culture media with ingredients of porcine origin or processed with porcine enzymes and intended for hygiene testing or aseptic process simulations can therefore carry non-halal ingredients into halal-certified production areas.

Even if the formulation looks to be completely halal on the ingredient list, the culture medium may not be halal because it is produced where non-halal media also are. This results in commingled contamination.

Regulatory standards usually stipulate only the origin of the peptone itself for culture media formulations, whether it is sourced, for example, from casein, meat or soy—not the origin of the enzyme to process the peptone. Therefore, culture media manufacturers are not obliged to provide this information in accompanying product literature such as technical data sheets, certificates of analysis or safety data sheets. Some culture media manufacturers provide this information to customers on request. So there is a hidden risk for end-users that non-halal contamination is carried into the production area via culture media.

Which kind of culture media need to be halal?

Dr. Bubert: Culture media used for quality control do not need to be halal-certified because they do not contact the end product. They are only considered for special reasons, for example if the lab personnel wishes not to handle porcine ingredient media, or if the QC lab is very close to the halal production areas. Typically, halal certification organizations do not require QC labs to use halal-certified culture media for release testing of halal products to the market.

But for hygiene control, halal culture media are necessary, especially for surface monitoring to determine the level of microbial contamination. Such media come in specific formats, for example contact plates, dip slides or swabs, that facilitate easy contact with production equipment.

Halal culture media are also considered for microbial air monitoring, during which they are introduced into the production area. However, in the course of this the media do not necessarily get into direct contact with surfaces of production equipment.

Furthermore, using halal culture media for Media Fill tests in aseptic filling lines is also a consideration. Aseptic filling lines need to be regularly tested for sterility. For sterility tests in pharmaceutical facilities that produce vaccines, dialysis reagents or other liquid pharmaceuticals, Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB) is mostly used. In beverage facilities that make soft drinks such as ice teas, isotonics and flavored water, typically also filled under aseptic conditions, Linden Grain medium is the culture medium of choice, especially where acidic beverages with a pH of 4.6 or lower are produced.

Halal raw materials are also considered when producing culture media for fermentation purposes or to produce starter cultures that support the fermentation of foods and beverages. Starter cultures are typically added directly to the food or beverage at the beginning of the fermentation process.

If such media are not specially handled in halal-certified areas, this may compromise the status of the whole production facility and thus of all the end products manufactured in it.

Which considerations should be made before using halal-certified culture media?

Dr. Bubert: Halal-certified culture media are relevant to all halal-certified companies that monitor their production facilities for microbiological contamination.

Customers are increasingly paying attention to which organization provides the halal certification. Halal certification of culture media should be carried out by an internationally recognized certifying body with accreditation. The Indonesian MUI and the Malaysian JAKIM authorities are leaders in setting halal criteria. To our knowledge, only these two authorities publish lists of recognized, accredited certifying bodies in countries all over the world. These listed local certifying bodies are widely accepted and referenced, which ensures strict and reliable halal certification.

For culture media, many countries also have other regulatory demands such as compliance with ISO, FDA-BAM or other local standards for food, water and cosmetics products or pharmacopoeial standards for pharmaceutical and cosmetics products. So, in addition to halal compliance, media used must also be regulatory compliant with respect to their typical composition, pH—usually after autoclaving—and the quality control procedures as described in the respective standards.

Use of halal-certified culture media in halal-certified production areas of F&B, pharmaceutical and cosmetics production facilities is recommended to avoid difficult discussions with authorities or certifiers about the halal certification status.

Halal certification for culture media products used for environmental monitoring is not only needed by various industries in Islamic countries but also where a significant percentage of the population is Muslim, as well as by companies that export halal-certified end products to Islamic countries.

Companies that produce halal-certified products should look closely into the halal-compliance of the culture media they use to avoid compromising the status of the whole production facility and thus of all the end products it manufactures. On the other hand, halal certification can boost sales if the product carries a halal logo. It also improves a business’s image and reputation, especially in countries with a larger Muslim population.

You can find halal-certified culture media and learn more about this topic at Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Content sponsored by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

About Andres Bubert, Ph. D.

Dr. Andreas Bubert is the senior global product manager of culture media at Merck KGaA, Life Science, Darmstadt, Germany. Dr. Bubert has a Ph.D. in molecular microbiology and more than 20 years’ experience in the food and beverage industry at Merck KgaA. He is a member of AOAC RI Advisory Council, German VAAM and has authored over 40 publications.

Obstacles Help Us Grow Stronger

[Video] Food Labeling Regulations: Organic vs. 100% Organic