The Behavior Problem Behind Your Audit Failures

By James Glover

Food safety audit failures are behavior problems, not protocol problems. According to AIB International,¹ the most common audit findings share a consistent thread: employees who know the correct protocols but don’t consistently follow them. Facilities don’t fail because they lack documentation. They fail because employees abandon protocols when deadlines are tight, supervisors are elsewhere, and shortcuts seem harmless.

FDA inspections occur every 3-5 years.² The behaviors that cause failures happen every day.

The Top Audit Failure Patterns

AIB International’s research¹ identifies the most frequent audit failures as employee behavior issues:

Pest activity from inconsistent monitoring and program follow-through
Inadequate cleaning when staff rush or abbreviate procedures
Pesticide and chemical control lapses from untrained handling or off-label use
Food safety plan gaps when documented procedures aren’t followed
Equipment and utensil issues from deterioration and neglected maintenance

Each of these looks like a knowledge gap. It isn’t. Employees know what the protocols require. The problem is consistent follow-through under real conditions.

Why More Training Won’t Fix This

Compliance training teaches information, not habits.

Research on habit formation³ shows that building automatic behaviors takes approximately 10 weeks of consistent practice. Most compliance programs compress everything into a few hours or days—nowhere near the timeline required for lasting behavior change. The forgetting curve compounds the problem:⁴ without reinforcement, most training content is gone within a month.

Facilities fix the immediate violation, update documentation, and wait for the next audit. Without changing the underlying behaviors, the same findings resurface.

That’s not a training failure. It’s a design failure.

Embedding Safety Into Daily Work

Lasting compliance requires training that builds habits during actual operations, not separate training events.

Rather than pulling employees out for classroom sessions, an effective approach delivers short, specific practice activities during regular work. Consider chemical storage compliance. Instead of a presentation on protocols, an employee receives an activity like: “During your next chemical walkthrough, verify that every chemical in your area is stored in its correct location and labeled properly. If anything is out of place, correct it and document what you found before you leave the area.”

The activity takes less than a minute to understand. It creates immediate practice under the exact conditions where protocol adherence eventually breaks down. That authentic context is what builds habits that persist when no supervisor is present.

Personalization helps produce genuine behavior change, not just checkbox exercises. Research on behavioral skill development⁵ consistently shows that relevance to an employee’s actual role and work environment dramatically improves adoption. A line supervisor needs activities around monitoring and escalation. A maintenance technician needs activities integrating safety checks into repair tasks. A new hire needs foundational activities. An experienced worker needs activities addressing complex scenarios. Generic training treats everyone the same. Effective training doesn’t.

For inadequate cleaning, an activity might be: “Before signing off on your next sanitation log, walk the line and verify one piece of equipment yourself before you sign—not after. Note whether it met the standard or needed attention.”

These activities require no additional equipment or scheduling. They happen during work employees already do, with intentional focus on the specific behaviors that prevent audit failures.

Measuring What Actually Matters

Completion rates and test scores don’t predict audit performance. Behavior change does.

Before launching a training initiative, establish baseline measurements by surveying both employees and their direct supervisors. Ask specific questions about the frequency of safety behaviors, confidence following procedures under production pressure, and understanding of why each protocol matters. After a sustained practice period, repeat those same assessments and compare.

Supervisor observations provide the most valuable validation. When shift leaders report that employees complete monitoring steps without prompting, maintain storage compliance between audits, and finish documentation on their own, you’re capturing the Level 3 behavior change that directly predicts audit outcomes. Connect those behavioral improvements to results: track violations across audit cycles, measure the frequency of repeat findings, and document the time required for corrective actions.

Compliance as Competitive Advantage

Audit failures are expensive. Beyond the audit and re-audit fees themselves, facilities absorb the cost of remediation, corrective documentation, and business disruption—and the deeper cost is the cycle that repeats when daily behaviors don’t change.

Facilities that break that cycle gain something beyond avoided costs. Following protocols consistently reduces incidents, accelerates certifications, and builds a workforce that treats compliance as automatic rather than effortful. Your employees already know what they should do. Give them the practice they need to do it consistently.

References

AIB International. “The Top Five Reasons Manufacturers Fail Audits.” https://blog.aibinternational.com/the-top-five-reasons-manufacturers-fail-audits
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. “How Does FDA Prioritize Domestic Human Food Facility Inspections?” https://www.fda.gov/food/inspections-protect-food-supply/how-does-fda-prioritize-domestic-human-food-facility-inspections
Lally, P., et al. “Making health habitual: the psychology of ‘habit-formation’ and general practice.” British Journal of General Practice, 2012. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3505409/
Murre, J.M.J., & Dros, J. “Replication and Analysis of Ebbinghaus’ Forgetting Curve.” PLOS ONE, 2015. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120644
Glover, James. “Leverage The Science Of Behavior To Improve Leadership Development.” Forbes, July 21, 2025. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2025/07/21/leverage-the-science-of-behavior-to-improve-leadership-development/

August 10, 2026

Beyond the Survey: What Supplier Compliance Behavior Reveals About Food Safety Culture — Before It Becomes a Recall

By Santoshi Muriki

No Comments

Most food safety culture assessments still lean on annual surveys and self-reported audit responses — snapshots of what people say, taken once or twice a year. Supplier compliance behavior tells a more current story: how fast a vendor answers a document request, how often the same corrective action keeps coming back, and how long a supplier sits in an at-risk tier before anything changes. This article lays out a practical way to read that behavior as a culture signal, based on firsthand work redesigning a risk-tiered supplier verification system across a network of more than 1,000 suppliers.

The Blind Spot in How We Measure Culture

Food safety culture finally has a seat at the leadership table. GFSI’s latest position paper defines culture as the shared values, behaviors, awareness of risks and organizational learning that should be measurable and continuously improved, not just part of crisis communication¹. That’s progress. The problem? The tools most organizations use to measure food safety culture haven’t kept up with the definition.

Ask any quality team how they’re measuring culture, and you’ll get some variation on a survey: a yearly questionnaire, a maturity scale, an audit-tied score, a self-assessment. These tools are valuable in many ways, but they all suffer from the same structural limitation. They offer a snapshot of the present, and a representation of what someone has been encouraged to claim, not a reliable indicator of their past and future behavior.

One recent systematic review of food safety culture questionnaires found that respondents can suffer from lack of time or clarity to provide valid responses, and that survey questionnaires capture biased accounts rather than the actual behaviors they purport to represent². Other industry experts and researchers have voiced the exact same concern about survey results, pointing out that they represent recency bias and can create an impression of a food safety culture that differs from a company’s long-term, lived reality³.

This isn’t to say these instruments are useless. It simply means they answer a more specific, and often more limited, question than they are often perceived to answer. They provide insights into a food safety organization’s intentions or public image. They do not accurately or reliably assess what happens in a food supply chain when no one is there to fill out a form.

Behavior Is Harder to Fake Than a Survey Answer

This is where it all goes off the rails: Many existing compliance platforms are already leveraging a treasured trove of behavioral data on an ongoing basis, and it has zero to do with a survey. Supplier verification programs generate tons of it, as a matter of course.

Under the FSMA Foreign Supplier Verification Programs rule, for example, importers are expected to assess risk and performance on a continued basis and to maintain verification records,⁴ but regardless of whether the rule applies to a particular supplier, there is an underlying obligation that drives exactly the kind of evidence a culture survey never can: a history-complete with timestamps-of how a supplier acts when it is called to task in compliance.

That history might include things such as: How long it takes for a supplier to respond to an information request (e.g. Requesting an updated COA, corrective action response, and updated specification). Whether it appears to take two rounds of corrective action on a single nonconformance issue. How long does a supplier remain in at-risk status before its rating changes. Whether a serious incident is resolved before it becomes a near-miss or an open hold.

These aren’t opinions; they are objective records that the supplier produces because it had to, not because anyone asked a question that someone felt obliged to answer honestly.

Table 1 below shows how to interpret those kinds of signals and what happens typically when you don’t.

What This Looked Like in Practice

One of the most useful first observations we had during the process of redesigning an automated, risk-tiered system for verification of a supplier network of over 1,000 suppliers was entirely unrelated to tiering logic itself. This was an observation related to the movement (or lack thereof) of suppliers through the system over time.

A few of our suppliers seemed to continually generate the exact same corrective action, closed and reopened using slightly different phrasing. In terms of system reporting, each of these corrective actions were closed. The underlying problem is that it is simple as an allergen changeover step or a labeling control never actually gets fixed. It wasn’t reflected by tier status because our current tiering is dependent on the open/closed status of the corrective action, not the recurrence of the same underlying cause.

Once we began to also track the recurrences – a single nonconformance code against a single supplier within a specified period of time – we observed a pattern, not necessarily derivable from a survey: there was a select group of suppliers with a disproportionate number of recurrences, and a select group of suppliers which seemed to be consistently slower at responding to basic document requests than the remainder of the network. These two are not two different issues; they’re just two perspectives of the same underlying behavior.

This reframe altered the escalation process significantly; instead of escalating a supplier after a single audit or missed document request deadline, they now escalate automatically, prior to the hold, because they have two correlated issues.

From Lagging to Leading: Making the Shift

This difference matters because most food safety teams’ already existing metrics are backward-looking, they measure what’s already happened. Complaint totals and audit scores don’t predict whether we failed. Data from audits, complaints, and recalls tell us about the past, not what’s next⁵. They don’t give warnings about repeated mistakes.

Conversely, leading indicators were designed to signal what’s about to happen⁶. And supplier behavior is among the most readily available, and currently ignored, sources of leading intelligence organizations possess without purchase.

This shift in practice is achievable without new software. It just requires a new attitude toward the information organizations already possess:

Instead of, “Has the corrective action been closed?” the questions becomes, “Have these specific nonconformances ever come up for this supplier before-and if so, how often?”

Instead of, “What’s the supplier’s current tier?” the question is, “How long has the supplier been in this tier-is this time frame unusual?”

Instead of, “Was the audit finding addressed?” the question is, “How long has the closure of these findings taken relative to what other suppliers take on these same issues?”

Instead of, “Was the escalation resolved?” the question is, “What did it take for resolution to happen-and did that resolution occur before or after the occurrence of a near-miss?

These aren’t complex questions. Many compliance systems have this information at their disposal; it just is not being pulled to highlight trends because the reporting mechanisms were created to track status, not behavior.

Culture Shows Up in the Data You Already Have

Your survey is how you learn what your organization and its suppliers think about food safety, one to two times a year. Your supplier’s compliance behavior is what they do, day in and day out, because of the verification activity that is mandated by everyone anyway. It does not replace a culture survey, root cause analysis or a GFSI-based framework – it gives them an earlier, less easily “gamed” input signal.

The suppliers who get ahead of food recalls related to suppliers, usually aren’t those who had the most eloquently written survey.

They usually are the organizations who recognized a trend in response times, frequency and tier status, many months before a lab or customer alert became the warning. They aren’t just sitting there in some database; someone simply failed to connect the dots as culture, not forms.

References

Global Food Safety Initiative. “A Culture of Food Safety,” Position Paper, Version 2.0. GFSI, March 26, 2026.
Wang, Y., et al. “Measuring Food Safety Culture: A Systematic Review of Questionnaire Dimensions and Validation Practices.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2026.
Alliance to Stop Foodborne Illness. “Assessing Food Safety Culture: What Works Best?” stopfoodborneillness.org, March 2026.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “FSMA Final Rule on Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals.” FDA.gov.
LRQA. “Food Safety Performance Indicators.” LRQA.com, March 23, 2022.
SafetyChain. “Food Safety KPIs: The Six Leading Indicators.” SafetyChain.com, June 4, 2026.
FoodSafetyTech. “Effective Root Cause Analysis for CAPA Management.” FoodSafetyTech.com, Dec. 5, 2023.

July 16, 2026

Why Automated Data Management is the Foundation of Preventative Food Safety Testing

By Emily Newton

No Comments

The modern food industry operates under an increasingly stringent mandate to prevent contamination before it occurs rather than react to incidents after they happen. This shift requires manufacturers to adopt robust, automated data management systems that transform testing protocols from reactive checkpoints into proactive risk mitigation tools.

Automated data management serves as the critical infrastructure that enables preventive food safety programs, turning raw test results into actionable intelligence to protect consumers and preserve brand integrity.

The Regulatory Shift Driving the Need for Better Data

The regulatory landscape has pushed food safety programs toward documented prevention, verification and risk-based controls. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) shifts focus from responding to contamination to preventing it, demanding a more rigorous, data-driven approach to compliance that manual paper-based systems cannot support.

FSMA introduced the Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (HARPC) framework, which requires manufacturers to proactively identify and control potential hazards throughout their operations. Unlike the older Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points model, HARPC expands beyond critical control points to encompass the entire production environment.

Facilities must now document preventive controls, monitor their effectiveness and maintain comprehensive records that demonstrate compliance. Automated data management systems provide a practical way to meet these expanded requirements while maintaining operational efficiency.

Defining Data Integrity in Food Manufacturing

Data analytics interface. Photo by Deng Xiang on Unsplash

Not all data holds equal value in a regulatory environment. Data integrity refers to the completeness, consistency and reliability of information throughout its life cycle. Quality control managers rely on the ALCOA+ principles to evaluate their data systems, which demand that records be attributable, legible, contemporaneous, original and accurate. Without integrity, data becomes not just useless but dangerous, creating a false sense of security that can mask emerging contamination risks.

Digital transformation has become essential for achieving true data integrity in manufacturing environments. Manual logging systems introduce human error, transcription mistakes and after-the-fact entries that undermine the contemporaneous requirement.

Companies like SafetyChain demonstrate how facilities can transition from paper-based workflows to digital systems that capture real-time data through mobile devices. The platform replaces manual logs with digital forms and automated notifications, ensuring that quality control teams document deviations as they occur.

What Are the Main Advantages of Using Software for Food Safety Data?

Food safety software platforms centralize testing data, eliminate transcription errors and accelerate response times when results fall out of specification.

Environmental monitoring systems like Charm Sciences’ Charm eBacMap capture contamination patterns over time through trend visualization, revealing how issues evolve across testing cycles rather than showing isolated snapshots.

This temporal perspective helps quality teams distinguish between one-time incidents and systemic problems, enabling more targeted interventions. Additional capabilities include streamlined audit preparation, real-time alert systems and supplier compliance tracking.

1. Streamlined Compliance and Audit Readiness

Analysis using a laptop and paper. Photo by Scott Graham on Unsplash

Automated systems dramatically reduce the time and effort required to prepare for regulatory audits. Quality assurance managers who rely on paper logs must manually collect records from multiple locations, verify their completeness and compile them into coherent reports.

This process can take days or weeks, pulling staff away from their primary responsibilities. Digital systems maintain all records in a centralized database, allowing managers to generate comprehensive compliance reports in minutes rather than days.

The software company Safefood 360° illustrates how manufacturers can maintain continuous audit readiness through automated compliance workflows. The platform features more than 35 modules covering Global Food Safety Initiative and FSMA requirements.

Facilities can schedule standard reports to generate automatically, ensuring that compliance documentation remains current without manual intervention. When auditors arrive, quality teams can instantly pull records showing temperature logs, sanitation verifications, corrective actions and supplier approvals rather than scrambling to assemble paper files.

2. Enhanced Traceability for Faster Recall Management

The speed and scope of a recall directly correlate with the quality of traceability data. Manual systems require quality teams to search through paper records to identify affected lot codes, trace ingredients back to suppliers and determine which distribution channels received potentially contaminated products.

This investigation can take days, during which additional contaminated product reaches consumers. The financial and brand reputation impacts of food recalls can devastate manufacturers, making rapid response essential to limiting damage.

Automated traceability systems link product testing results directly to lot identifiers and production lines. For instance, Neogen Analytics demonstrates this capability through automated alerts that identify affected lots immediately when test results indicate contamination.

Quality managers can pinpoint the exact production window and distribution scope with high efficiency, reducing product recalls and associated remediation costs. This lot-level precision prevents the costly scenario of recalling entire production runs when contamination affects only a subset of output.

3. Proactive Insights Through Trend Analysis

Collecting data serves purposes beyond regulatory compliance. Large datasets reveal recurring issues, seasonal patterns and emerging trends that predict where contamination risks concentrate. Quality teams can shift from reactive problem-solving to proactive prevention by systematically analyzing historical test data. This analytical capability transforms food safety programs from defensive operations into strategic advantages.

Hot spot visualization represents one of the most powerful applications of trend analysis. These tools map contamination events to specific locations within a facility, revealing areas where sanitation protocols fail or where environmental conditions favor microbial growth.

Quality managers can target enhanced cleaning procedures, modify traffic patterns or adjust environmental controls in these high-risk zones. This targeted approach delivers better results than generic facility-wide interventions while requiring fewer resources.

The Future of a Data-Driven Food Safety Culture

The current generation of automated data management systems represents only the foundation for future innovation. Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies promise to transform food safety from a reactive discipline into a predictive science.

These systems can analyze millions of data points to identify subtle patterns that human analysts might miss, flagging emerging contamination risks before they manifest in positive test results. Quality managers will shift from responding to problems to preventing them through predictive interventions guided by algorithmic insights.

Frequently Asked Questions

Food safety professionals often ask similar questions when evaluating automated data management systems.

How does automated data management integrate with existing ERP systems?

Most modern food safety platforms offer application programming interfaces (APIs) that connect with enterprise resource planning software through standard protocols. These integrations allow bidirectional data flow, ensuring that production schedules, ingredient traceability and quality control data remain synchronized across systems without manual data entry.

What is the first step to transitioning from manual to automated data collection?

Manufacturers should begin by identifying their highest-value use case, typically the area where manual processes create the most risk or consume the most staff time. Starting with a focused pilot program allows teams to develop expertise and demonstrate return on investment before expanding to additional processes.

Building a Resilient, Proactive Food Safety Ecosystem

Moving to an automated, data-driven model represents a strategic necessity rather than an optional enhancement. Regulatory requirements continue to expand, consumer expectations for transparency increase, and the consequences of contamination incidents grow more severe. Manufacturers who invest in robust data management infrastructure position themselves to meet these challenges while competitors struggle with outdated manual systems.

July 16, 2026

Ask The Expert

Food Safety as Business Infrastructure Series (Article 3 of 5): Can your system absorb growth without losing control?

By Azure Edwards, M.S.

No Comments

Can Your System Absorb Growth Without Losing Control?

Growth is one of those business “problems” that arrives looking like a reward. Purchase orders get larger, customers become steadier, and a team that once stretched to meet demand grows into one carrying a level of production that gives the business real momentum. It also changes the load. Growing success brings more decisions, handoffs, documentation, requirements, and moments where delay or ambiguity has larger consequences. When those demands land on a structure designed for a less complex operation, the company can keep performing while it begins spending more to do the work—more time, more money, and more management attention than the same work used to require.

That is where growth can become instructive. It shows whether the business is carrying its recurring demands as a known condition, or absorbing them through people, margin, and momentum. At first, the signs point one way: a rising number of data findings suggests sharper detection, a corrective action log full of closed items implies responsiveness, and a team consistently delivering product looks like proof the system is working. All may be true; the question is what else the record is saying at the same time. This is where familiar responses like more training, reminders, and supervision warrant a closer look. Those interventions may be needed, but when the same type of issue keeps returning across a range of people, shifts, and locations, the question shifts from whether people know what to do, to what the system is requiring them to carry.

At one level of complexity, proximity can appear to function like infrastructure. Leaders close to the floor know which decision needs to move. Quality understands the history behind repeat holds for the same or similar products; operations knows where the procedure and the actual work performed have parted ways and which one is keeping the product moving. Growth changes that geometry. More shifts, products, customers, interfaces, and pressure on the same decision pathways create distance the earlier structure did not have to span. Knowledge that once moved because everyone was in the room now has to travel through a structure not yet equipped to carry it, much less deliver it to the decision-makers intact.

Food safety is one of the clearest places to see these pressures surface because so much of the work is explicit. Expectations are set by regulation and customer requirements. Outcomes are measured. Performance is documented. The record shows not only what happened, but what the system is repeatedly being asked to absorb. In one operation I worked with, deviations in a single control area multiplied roughly sevenfold between the second year and the fourth. The team read that increase as evidence they were catching more, recording more, and staying ahead of the work. They weren’t wrong; however, reading it in context made it clear that the same people, with the same hours and resources, were now identifying, investigating, and documenting several times the volume of administrative work to keep pace with the recurrence rather than resolving what produces it. The detection was accurate. What it cost to sustain the load is what remained unseen.

That cost is paid either way, counted or not. Whether the increase reflects more events, better capture, or both, the operation is spending more attention to keep the same part of the system from giving way. That attention has a cost before it ever shows up as failure: time, rework, decision delay, management bandwidth, compressed verification windows, and the effort people put into making the system appear smoother than it feels from inside the work.

Under that pressure, workarounds emerge as the relief valve. When allowed to persist long enough, the workaround stops being a workaround and becomes the informal procedure. At first, the escalation may be visible in the record. Left unaddressed, it can drop out of it — handled on the floor and no longer reported to the people who would need to act on it. That is the danger in normalizing deviations between work-as-done and work-as-imagined: the record stops registering the strain because the strain stopped being surfaced. Absorbed strain finds a harborage, a place to settle, concentrate, and integrate into the environment until it reads as part of normal operation. It behaves like a biofilm: not a single problem, but a network bonded to the operation, fed by the conditions around it, and protected by them. A pass with the sanitizer clears what shows on the surface and the verification comes back clean, while the network underneath is never reached, and keeps compounding. A schedule can flex and a customer conversation can buy time, but a food safety control cannot bend to the pace of growth without cost — to the operation, to the business, and to the people the product reaches.

The same system strain looks different depending on where it is read. On the floor, it may appear as variation, delay, or rework. In the governance structure, it may appear as authority that stalls, escalation that depends on relationships, or roles that have not caught up to scale. At the business level, it may appear as margin pressure, capacity uncertainty, customer strain, or the question of whether the next stage can be supported without exhausting the system that made the growth possible. Food safety gives the organization something concrete to organize around. When those three perspectives can step into the same room, growth strain stops looking like separate fires and becomes a map of what the next stage requires.

That is the distinction between a system that performs and a system that can bear the weight of its own expansion. Performance under familiar conditions proves less than it appears to. Growth tests something harder: whether the structure beneath that performance is coherent enough to carry what comes next — at a greater scale, with global supply-chain challenges, increased consumer demands, and perpetually shifting regulatory requirements. That capacity is the ability to carry the next demand without making people the permanent bridge between what the system requires and what the structure has been designed to support: expectations clear enough to travel, authority distributed enough that decisions move instead of stacking up, escalation that works because the pathway exists before pressure arrives, and knowledge that once lived in a few experienced heads becoming something the organization owns. Asking that structure to take on more than it can carry is not just ambition; it is the initiation of a series of hidden risks that won’t show up in any projection, P&L, or return, because it is a weight carried by the people, on the system’s behalf, until something eventually gives.

The operations that scale without losing control treat that infrastructure work as part of growth itself, by developing governance alongside expansion, rather than reacting to growth after the fact. Concentrated strain that no one is addressing does not stay contained. It surfaces as a recall, a headline, sometimes as harm reaching the person who trusted the label, and traces back, almost always, to a control that was normalized. These are not new failures. Read across any timeline of recalls, the causes are overwhelmingly ones already understood and already preventable: known hazards, met by known controls, allowed to recur. That is the plainest evidence that the systems are not learning from the record they already hold.

This is what the technology is for, and where its potential most often goes unrealized. The monitoring platforms, the scheduling systems, the real-time alerts, the data collection, the dashboards — the advances are real, and detection and data management have come a remarkable distance. But better instruments read through the same frame return more of the same, in finer detail. The data does its best work when the organization is willing to shift how it reads what it already sees, and has the authority, clarity, and will to act on it. That is the level of transparency this work asks for — a kind of self-sight most systems do not yet have, and it has to start with the business looking honestly at itself. Not to cut cost for its own sake, but to free the resources to fix what is actually breaking, and then to grow on a foundation that can hold the next thing rather than bolting another pillar onto one already straining under the load it already carries.

The real question is whether the system can keep growing without asking people to absorb what structure should be carrying — because people are the first place growth strain becomes visible, and they are the last place it should be allowed to stay. Read for what else they hold, a company’s own records show more than events. They show what the organization is asking its people, its controls, and its business model to carry, and for how long it has been asking. Inside the company, that reading shapes how decisions get made under ordinary pressure. Outside it, external parties such as regulators, auditors, and customers evaluate a system based on the evidence it generates, regardless of whether the organization is paying attention. When internal governance is coherent, it creates external legibility that fosters trust well before a crisis tests the brand. The true risk is not expansion itself, but scaling upon a foundation that is already overextended — a condition the system’s own records have likely been signaling all along.

Editors Note: the author Azure Edwards is presenting “You’ve Been Collecting Food Safety Data for Years. Why Isn’t It Making You Better?” at the Food Safety Consortium Conference, October 21-23. Washington DC

More info at Food Safety Consortium Agenda

July 7, 2026

Beyond the Certificate of Analysis: What Supplier Verification Really Asks of You

By Bala Murugan

No Comments

Walk into most receiving operations and supplier verification looks like a filing system. A lot arrives, a certificate of analysis arrives with it, the COA says the ingredient is within spec, and the document goes into the folder. Box checked. It feels like verification right up until a recall, an FDA inspection, or a customer complaint asks the harder question the folder was never built to answer: not “do we have the paperwork?” but “was the product actually safe?”

Those are not the same question. The space between them is where a surprising number of preventable failures live, and closing it is one of the highest-return moves a quality team can make.

What the rule actually asks for

It helps to start with what FSMA requires, because the regulation is more demanding and more sensible than “keep the COAs on file.”

The Preventive Controls for Human Food rule (21 CFR Part 117) turned supplier oversight from a procurement nicety into a defined food safety control. Under Subpart G, when a hazard in an ingredient is controlled before you receive it what the rule calls a “supply-chain-applied control” your facility has to run a risk-based supply-chain program that gives real assurance the hazard was significantly minimized or prevented.¹

Holding paperwork does not satisfy that. The rule expects you to use approved suppliers, decide on and carry out verification activities suited to the hazard, and document what you did. The part many programs miss is that the regulation deliberately scales the verification to the risk. For a hazard with serious health consequences say, a pathogen like Salmonella in a ready-to-eat ingredient an onsite audit of the supplier is the default expectation, before you first approve them and annually after, unless you’ve written down a defensible reason to do something else.³ For lower-risk hazards, sampling and testing, a review of the supplier’s records, or another fitting activity may be enough.

Read that closely and the rule is already making this article’s argument for you: verification is a spectrum, and a certificate is one tool on it right for some hazards, badly undersized for others.

Why a certificate isn’t proof

A COA is, at bottom, an assertion. It says someone tested a sample of a lot, by some method, and got a result. That can be genuinely useful. Treated as proof of safety, though, it has three weak points worth being honest about.

It describes a sample, not your lot. For contaminants that don’t distribute evenly mycotoxins, heavy metals, pathogens in dry goods are the usual suspects the result is only as good as the sampling behind it. Aflatoxin is the textbook case: a few contaminated kernels can carry thousands of times the toxin of the material around them, so a clean number pulled from a careless grab sample tells you about the scoop, not the shipment. If you don’t know how the supplier sampled, you don’t really know what their number means.

It’s only as good as the lab and the method. A result with no validated method behind it, from a laboratory whose competence for that analyte and matrix you can’t establish, is hard to lean on when it matters. That’s the practical case for accredited testing: ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation means a lab has shown technical competence for specific tests, works to validated methods, and proves itself through proficiency testing. A COA from an unknown lab and a report from an accredited one aren’t the same instrument, even when the numbers happen to agree.

And documents can simply be wrong through honest error, a stale specification, or, in the well-documented world of economically motivated adulteration, deliberate falsification. Anyone who has watched the adulteration stories around spices, oils, and honey knows that a supplier’s paperwork and a supplier’s product are not always the same thing.

None of this makes COAs worthless. It means they belong inside a program that occasionally tests whether they’re telling the truth not standing in for one.

Building verification that fits the hazard

The programs that hold up treat verification as a portfolio matched to risk, not a single document repeated for everything. A few principles do most of the work.

Match the effort to the hazard. Put your most rigorous tools onsite audits, independent confirmatory testing against the hazards that could hurt someone, and lighter activities against lower-risk ingredients. That isn’t just sensible; it’s how Subpart G expects you to make approval and verification decisions in the first place.

Spot-check your suppliers’ COAs with your own testing. The goal isn’t to retest every lot of everything nobody requires that, and nobody could afford it. It’s to confirm, on a risk-based cadence, that the supplier’s documentation matches reality, using a lab whose competence for that analyte and matrix you can actually demonstrate. The day your independent result and the supplier’s COA disagree is the day the whole program earns its keep.

Treat sampling as seriously as the assay. For unevenly distributed contaminants, the sampling plan is the control. Specify how representative samples get drawn and ground, because no instrument, however sophisticated, rescues a bad sample.

Revisit suppliers on a schedule and whenever something changes. New ingredient, new origin, new supplier the hazard picture moves, and the paperwork lags. The supply-chain program, and for imported ingredients its sibling the Foreign Supplier Verification Program under 21 CFR Part 1, expects you to weigh supplier performance and reassess when new information about a hazard or a supplier turns up.

Write down the reasoning, not just the result. When you choose a verification activity other than the default for a serious hazard, the rule expects a documented justification.³ The artifact that protects you isn’t only the test report; it’s the recorded logic tying the hazard to the supplier to the activity you picked.

The shift worth making

The real change here is one of posture. A program built to collect documents answers “do we have the paperwork?” A program built to verify answers the question that actually keeps people safe: if this ingredient were out of spec right now, would we catch it before our customer did?

The distance between those two questions gets measured in recalls. FSMA’s supply-chain program sets a floor approved suppliers, risk-based verification, documentation. The manufacturers who turn that floor into genuine protection are the ones who treat a certificate of analysis as the start of verification, not the end of it, and who back their supplier programs with sampling and analytical competence equal to the hazards they’re trying to control.

Paperwork can promise safety. Only verification demonstrates it.

July 7, 2026

Allergen Alley

Aflatoxin: Managing A Stubborn Threat To Global Food Safety

By Stephen Fapohunda

No Comments

Aflatoxins are a group of secondary metabolites that can be highly toxic, mutagenic and most importantly, carcinogenic. They are produced primarily by species of the fungal genus called Aspergillus under favourable conditions of humidity, temperature and matrix integrity (is the food item healthy of not, whole or broken?) The regular species are Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus . Aflatoxins are categorized based on fluorescence and source. The B and G aflatoxins give blue and green colour respectively on UV light, while M group is specifically located in the milk of livestock. Both B and G categories are dietary aflatoxins .Ordinarily they are all colourless, tasteless and odourless.

Aflatoxin contamination of crops is a global food safety concern. The most dangerous form is Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC, which is the technical arm of the WHO. Generally many food items are susceptible(1.) however, notable candidate crops include maize, groundnuts, tree nuts, and spices on which contamination happens before harvest and during storage under poor conditions. (2, 3 )

For food brands, processors, and exporters, aflatoxins represent a dual risk: severe public health consequences and strict regulatory enforcement. In 2024 alone, the EU rejected 127 shipments from Africa due to aflatoxin levels exceeding 2 ppb for AFB1. For consultants and auditors, understanding aflatoxin risk is now a core compliance skill for food safety, sustainability, and ESG(Environmental, Social and Governance) audits.

Geography

Aflatoxin contamination is not random. It clusters in tropical and subtropical regions with high heat and humidity. High-risk zones are:

Sub-Saharan Africa like Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Senegal where maize and groundnuts show 60-90% contamination rates. This is why the various national regulatory agencies like NAFDAC (Nigeria) and KEBS (Kenya) enforce strict testing.

South/Southeast Asia comprising India, Thailand and Vietnam with spices, dried chilies, and pistachios being major export rejection points. Some parts of the US are also recorded to experience aflatoxin on farm and store. Significant work has been done on the Arizona field with regard to tree nuts, and cotton

Latin America with maize and peanut exports face EU/US border controls.

Low-risk zones include temperate regions like Northern Europe and Canada having a minimal pre-harvest risk but could invite post-harvest risk if imports are stored improperly.

For brands sourcing globally, geography is the first risk filter. For example, a peanut butter brand sourcing from west Africa may face substantially higher audit risk than one sourcing from the US.

Impact of Climate Change

As in other mycotoxins, climate change is making aflatoxin risk significant and expanding its range (4, 5)

The 3 mechanisms associated with climate change are:

Higher temperatures: A. flavus grows fastest at 28-35°C. As West Africa warms, more crops hit this range during growing season. Some predictions suggest a 20% increase in contamination risk in Nigeria by 2030.

Drought stress: Water-stressed maize and groundnuts crack, allowing fungal spores to enter.Both drought and heat combine to potentiate aflatoxin production,

Unpredictability: In recent times, regions previously “too cold” like Southern Europe are now reporting A. flavus in maize. For auditors, “climate risk” is no longer future talk. Clients must now ask suppliers: “What’s your drought mitigation plan?” If none, then the risk score goes up.

Recent taxonomic advances have expanded the list of known aflatoxin-producing fungi beyond Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus. Phylogenetic studies now confirm at least 18 species within Aspergillus section Flavi as aflatoxigenic, including newly described species such as A. korhogoensis from West Africa (6) and A. pseudocaelatus from South America These cryptic species are morphologically identical to non-toxigenic strains, creating false-negative risks for labs using only visual or TLC methods. Molecular identification targeting aflatoxin biosynthesis genes such as aflR, nor-1, and omtA is now required for regulatory compliance. Climate change is therefore driving range expansion of section Flavi species into temperate zones, increasing detection complexity for import/export audits (7, 8)

Detection

Effective interventions rest on reliable detection and quantitation techniques. Detection methods range from field tests to lab confirmation:

Field screening involves ELISA kits, lateral flow strips with sensitivity of about 5 ppb Many of these give results in less than 20min.

Laboratory confirmation involving Thin Layer chromatography TC, High Performance Liquid Chromatography HPLC and LC/MS-MS This can detect about 0.1 ppb. Because of the sensitivity, it is usually recommended and required for EU/US export certificates.

The Polymerase Chain Reaction ,PCR is used to detects fungal DNA, since aflatoxin occurrence depends on the thriving of the fungus.. The MALDI-TOF technique is now the Gold standard for fungal identification due to its speed, low cost per sample and high accuracy.

Health Impacts

Aflatoxin is a silent killer partly because of the difficulty in detection ordinarily. Acute exposure repeatedly at low doses incites aflatoxicosis. In 2004 Kenya outbreak recorded 317 cases and 125 deaths from contaminated maize. Symptoms express as liver failure, jaundice, or death in days.

Chronic exposure at low doses over many years can lead to liver cancer. AFB1 metabolizes in liver to AFB1-8,9-epoxide which binds DNA. The WHO has estimated 25% of global liver cancer cases are aflatoxin-related, mostly in Africa and Asia.

In children symptoms observed include stunted growth and immune suppression. Some studies in tropical Africa revealed that very a high aflatoxin exposure can lead to double the stunting rates. For infant food brands, this is a regulatory flashpoint . Therefore any claim like “100% natural, safe for kids” on a maize product label without proof of aflatoxin testing is a compliance red flag.

Regulations and Impact on International Trade

As a result of the health impact to human and animals, aflatoxins are one of the top reasons food shipments are rejected at borders across the globe For Aflatoxin B1, the EU set limit is 2 ppb(parts per billion) and 4ppb for total aflatoxins . The FDA in the USA accepts 20ppb for total aflatoxins in maize and nuts

The EU rejected about 2,200 consignments between 2020 and 2024, which averagely cost $50,000 in lost goods shipping, per rejection. The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed RASFF is an effect step for European member states that ensures a preemptive action against contaminated imported shipments. In Africa, the instruments for enforcing regulations are relatively weak, leading to a freer circulation of toxic food items.

Apart from rejection, recall costs can kill brands sometimes leading to a sharp drop in stock. For ESG audits, “supply chain mycotoxin risk” is now a scored item.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission sets global baseline. 15 ppb total aflatoxins for most nuts. Countries can be stricter. Nigeria adopts the Codex standard and enforcement now includes random market raids for aflatoxin testing with penalties for violators.

Intervention Strategies

It is very difficult, if not completely impossible to attain zero-level howver, biological control measures have been reported as effective (9) Aflatoxin risk but it can be managed at 3 levels:

Pre-harvest: Drought-tolerant seeds, proper spacing, timely harvest and biological control like Aflasafe are all effective measures Aflasafe is a non toxigenic A. flavus strain that outcompetes toxic strains.6 Nigeria saw 80% reduction in maize after use(Ranajit (10). The product employs a ‘fungus-fight’ approach.7 In the US, the fields of Arizona witnessed a successful bio-control using same mode of action. The product is Aflaguard with Aspergillus favus strain AF36 (11)which is approved for organic use against pistachio, peanuts, almond and corn .

Post-harvest. The use of fast drying to at most 13% moisture within 48hrs as well as proper storage in hermetic bags like PICS bags have been confirmed as reliable . Keeping the storage environment well ventilated and devoid of any other contaminant is also crucial.

Processing. Physical sorting by removing visibly mouldy food items and the use of laser sorters to remove damaged kernels are an attraction to exporters, processors and even domestic consumers. Roasting may reduce AFB1 by 40-60% but doesn’t eliminate it . Activated clay binders and charcoal are effectively used in animal feed but not for human food.

A winning recommendation is a combination of Awareness, Good Agricultural Practice (GAP), HACCP, ,Capacity building and a soup of Interventions. Generally, the chemical solution is now being discouraged due to inherent hazards

References

_{1.Esan A; S O Fapohunda; CN Ezekiel; M Sulyok and R Krska 2020 Distribution of fungi and their toxic metabolites in melon and sesameseeds marketed in two major producing states in Nigeria. Mycotoxin Research https://doi.org/10.1007/s12550-020-00400-0}

_{2.Adewunmi ,A A and Stephen O. Fapohunda 2019. Mycotoxins in Nigerian cereals and public health implications. Recent Advances in Food Science; 2(4): 200-216}

_{3.Adewunmi A, Stephen O Fapohunda, OlumidecAfolabi and Abiodun Joseph. 2021: Occurrence of mycotoxigenic fungi in guinea corn oleand pearl millet marketed in South west Nigeria. Recent Advances in Food Science 4(3) 341-357}

_{4.Fapohunda S O and A AAdewunmi 2019Climate Change and Mycotoxins–The African Experience. Croatian Journal of Food Science and Technology 11(2)DOI: 10.17508/CJFST.2019.11.2.09}

_{5.Esan A and Fapohunda S O (2020)Fusarium toxins, climate change and food security Recent Advances in Food Science Open access 3 (3)332-340}

_{6.Carvajal-Campos, A ,AmaLethiciaManizan ID , SouriaTadrist , David KoffiAkaki ,RoseKoffi-Nevry , Geromy G. Moore , Stephen O. Fapohunda , A Sylviane Bailly, Didier Montet , Isabelle P. Oswald ID , Sophie Lorber, Catherine Brabet and Olivier Puel(2017). Aspergilluskorhogoensis, a Novel Aflatoxin Producing Species from the Côte d’Ivoire. Toxins 9, 353; doi:10.3390/toxins9110353 1-22}

_{7.Sharma, A.K., Kumar, A., & Rijal, R. (2025). Phylogenetic studies and distinction of aflatoxin-producing Aspergillus species in section Flavi, Ochraceorosei and Nidulantes: A review. Gene, 937, 149151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2024.14915}

_{8. Schamann, A., et al. (2024). Comparative analysis of the genomes and aflatoxin production patterns of three species within Aspergillus section Flavi reveals an undescribed chemotype. Communications Biology, 7, 1134. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06738-w}

_{9,Fapohunda S. O, Esan A O. andAnjorin S. T (2017)Biological Control of Mycotoxins : an Update World Veterinary Journal7 (4) 117-127}

_{10.Cotty PJ.1990. Effect of atoxigenic strains of Aspergillus flavus on aflatoxin contamination of developing cottonseed. Plant Dis. 1990;74(3):233–235. doi: 10.1094/PD-74-0233.}

_{11.Bandyopadhyay R, Atehnkeng J, Ortega-Beltran A, Akande A, Falade TDO and Cotty PJ (2019) “Ground-Truthing” Efficacy of Biological Control for Aflatoxin Mitigation in Farmers’ Fields in Nigeria: From Field Trials to Commercial Usage, a 10-Year Study. Front. Microbiol. 10:2528. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02528}

July 1, 2026

Beyond Detection: Building a Multi-Layered Food Safety Defense System

By Michael Ciepiela

No Comments

In today’s rapidly evolving food safety landscape, recalls continue to outpace many of the advancements made in manufacturing efficiency, automation, and operational performance. Early in my career, a member of the operations team once told me, “If those belts aren’t running, we aren’t making any money.” To a certain extent, that statement is true. The purpose of manufacturing is to efficiently produce a quality product that consumers enjoy. However, in the food and beverage industry, success is measured by more than throughput and production volume. Unlike the latest television or smartphone, where the Voice of the Customer (VoC) may focus on features and performance, food consumers have a much simpler expectation: confidence that the product they are consuming is safe. The challenge arises when operational excellence begins to outpace the food safety systems designed to protect both consumers and brands.

Growth, continuous improvement, and increased throughput should never come at the expense of robust food safety practices. Instead, food safety programs must evolve alongside manufacturing operations to ensure both objectives advance together. The industry frequently discusses food safety culture and what it truly means to establish and sustain one. A strong food safety culture is not achieved simply through policies, procedures, or certifications; it is demonstrated when organizations refuse to compromise established controls, even when production pressures mount. Finding new ways to “keep the belts moving” should never result in bypassing the safeguards designed to prevent food safety failures. Food safety is not the responsibility of a single department—it is a shared responsibility that extends across operations, quality, sanitation, maintenance, supply chain, and leadership teams alike.

During my 13 years in the food industry, I have witnessed a remarkable transformation in how food safety programs are managed. The industry has progressed from paper-based records and spreadsheets to sophisticated Electronic Quality Management Systems (EQMS) capable of real-time monitoring, automated workflows, and predictive analytics powered by artificial intelligence. At the same time, consumers, customers, and regulators are demanding greater transparency, stronger supply chain oversight, and higher standards of accountability than ever before. As a result, food safety and food defense can no longer rely solely on hazard detection. The future of food safety lies in prevention through a multi-layered defense system that integrates supplier controls, facility design, environmental monitoring, advanced detection technologies, employee engagement, and data-driven decision making. The most effective food safety systems are not those that detect hazards after they occur, but those designed to prevent hazards from occurring in the first place.

So, what is a hazard?

Under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), food manufacturers are required to identify and evaluate potential hazards that could be introduced, occur naturally, or be unintentionally introduced throughout their manufacturing processes. This evaluation extends beyond the product itself and includes every step of the process flow, from receiving raw materials to packaging and distribution. Manufacturers must also consider all process inputs, such as water, ice, compressed air, and employee handling practices, as well as outputs including waste streams, rework, and by-products that could impact food safety.

In addition to evaluating process-related hazards, manufacturers are required to conduct a hazard analysis for each ingredient used in their products. Whether the finished product consists of a single commodity, such as fresh produce, or a complex multi-ingredient formulation, every ingredient must be assessed for potential biological, chemical, and physical hazards. These hazards may originate from the raw material itself, the supplier’s manufacturing practices, transportation conditions, storage environments, or the processing activities conducted within the facility.

A hazard is generally defined as any biological, chemical, or physical agent that has the potential to cause illness, injury, or adverse health effects if not properly controlled. Examples include pathogenic microorganisms such as Salmonella or Listeria monocytogenes, undeclared allergens, cleaning chemical residues, metal fragments, glass, plastic, or other foreign materials. Understanding where hazards originate and how they can enter the food supply chain is the foundation of an effective food safety system and serves as the first step toward developing preventive controls designed to mitigate risk before contamination occurs.

Following the Process Flow

When people hear the phrase “hazard intrusion,” it is natural to immediately think of physical foreign materials such as plastic, metal, glass, wood, or other extraneous objects entering a product. While physical hazards are often the most visible and easiest for consumers to recognize, they represent only one category of food safety hazards. An effective food safety program must also account for chemical hazards, such as undeclared allergens, cleaning and sanitation chemicals, lubricants, and pesticide residues, as well as biological hazards, including pathogenic microorganisms such as Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and pathogenic strains of E. coli.

One of the greatest challenges facing food manufacturers is that these hazards can be introduced at virtually any point throughout the supply chain and production process. Hazards may originate from raw materials and ingredients, supplier practices, employee handling, equipment design, utility systems such as water or compressed air, sanitation activities, environmental conditions, packaging materials, or transportation practices. Even after multiple preventive controls have been established, opportunities for contamination can still exist if systems are not properly maintained and verified.

This reality highlights why modern food safety programs can no longer focus solely on detecting hazards in finished products. Organizations must implement multiple layers of preventive controls designed to identify, mitigate, and control risks before they impact product safety. Understanding how physical, chemical, and biological hazards can enter the process is the first step toward building a comprehensive food safety defense system capable of protecting both consumers and brands.

Shifting to Prevention

While the detection of a food safety hazard before product release is certainly a success, it often still carries significant consequences for the manufacturer. Foreign material findings, allergen cross-contact events, or pathogen detections frequently result in product holds, rework, additional inspections, production downtime, investigations, and increased labor costs. Although these outcomes are far preferable to releasing contaminated product into commerce, they still represent failures somewhere within the process that require resources to correct and manage.

The consequences become substantially greater when a hazard is not detected and affected product reaches the consumer. Product recalls can cost organizations millions of dollars in direct and indirect expenses, including product retrieval, disposal, regulatory oversight, legal liability, lost sales, brand damage, and diminished consumer trust. In many cases, the long-term impact on a company’s reputation can far exceed the immediate financial costs associated with the recall itself. For this reason, food safety professionals often face the challenge of justifying investments in new technologies, equipment, and preventive control programs, particularly when capital expenditures are under scrutiny.

This is where the philosophy of modern food safety has fundamentally shifted. Rather than relying solely on detection systems to identify hazards after they have occurred, organizations are increasingly investing in preventive measures designed to stop hazards from entering the process altogether. Enhanced supplier verification programs, sanitary equipment design, environmental monitoring, allergen management systems, predictive analytics, employee training, and advanced inspection technologies all serve as layers of protection that reduce risk before contamination occurs. The most effective food safety programs recognize that while detection remains essential, prevention delivers the greatest return by protecting consumers, preserving brand integrity, and avoiding the substantial costs associated with food safety failures.

Controls That Matter

Mitigating food safety risks and potential points of hazard intrusion throughout the manufacturing process requires the implementation of control measures designed to either prevent, eliminate, or reduce hazards to acceptable levels. Depending on the nature and severity of the hazard, these controls may be managed as preventive controls within a food safety plan or identified as Critical Control Points (CCPs). Regardless of the designation, each control must be supported by appropriate monitoring, verification, and corrective action procedures to ensure effectiveness. While every food manufacturing operation is unique, biological, chemical, and physical hazards each have distinct monitoring and control strategies.

Biological hazard controls are often centered around an Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP), which serves as an early warning system for potential pathogen harborage within the facility. Areas identified as higher risk for pathogen growth, particularly those located near food contact surfaces, are routinely swabbed on a predetermined frequency to verify sanitary conditions. These locations may include floor drains, equipment framework, conveyor supports, wheels, and, in some cases, food contact surfaces themselves. Depending on the product and associated risk profile, finished product pathogen testing may also be performed to further validate that products are free from contamination. However, biological hazard prevention extends beyond testing programs. Effective sanitation procedures, hygienically designed equipment, validated cleaning methods, sanitizer concentration monitoring, and ATP verification programs all play a critical role in reducing risk. As I often say, production starts with sanitation; without effective cleaning and sanitation practices, even the most advanced food safety programs can quickly become ineffective.

Chemical hazard controls focus primarily on preventing contamination from allergens, cleaning compounds, lubricants, and other chemical agents used throughout the facility. Verification that food contact surfaces are free from detergent and sanitizer residues prior to production is a critical component of any sanitation program. Equally important is the management of allergen cross-contact through proper cleaning validation, product scheduling, segregation practices, employee training, and label verification programs. The consequences of allergen contamination can be severe, particularly for sensitive consumers, with reactions ranging from mild discomfort to life-threatening anaphylaxis. As a result, undeclared allergens continue to be one of the leading causes of food recalls across the industry.

Physical hazard controls are designed to prevent or detect foreign materials before they reach the consumer. Common preventive measures include equipment inspections, preventive maintenance programs, sanitary equipment design, and foreign material control programs. Detection technologies such as metal detectors and X-ray systems are frequently implemented as CCPs or preventive controls to identify and remove contaminated product from the production stream. Depending on the manufacturing process, additional controls such as magnets, screens, filters, and sieves may be utilized to capture foreign materials before they enter finished products. While these systems are highly effective at detecting hazards, they should be viewed as one layer within a broader prevention strategy rather than the sole means of protection.

The most successful food safety programs recognize that no single control can eliminate all risk. Instead, they rely on multiple layers of preventive and monitoring activities working together to identify hazards early, prevent contamination events, and protect both consumers and the organization.

Creating a Culture of Prevention

Even the most robust food safety systems, advanced detection technologies, and comprehensive preventive controls can fail if the organization does not foster a culture that supports them. Food safety culture is the collective mindset, behaviors, and values that influence how employees approach food safety on a daily basis, especially when no one is watching. Building a culture of prevention requires more than annual training sessions or compliance audits; it requires visible leadership commitment, employee engagement, accountability, and continuous communication across all levels of the organization. From sanitation personnel and machine operators to supervisors and executive leadership, every individual plays a role in identifying risks, reporting concerns, and protecting consumers. When food safety becomes embedded into everyday decision-making rather than treated as a regulatory requirement, organizations move beyond simply reacting to hazards and begin proactively preventing them. Ultimately, the strongest defense against biological, chemical, and physical hazards is not a piece of equipment or a written procedure, but a workforce that understands the importance of food safety and is empowered to uphold it every day.

What the Future Holds for Food Safety Hazard Prevention

The food industry has made tremendous advancements in technology, automation, and operational efficiency, yet the fundamental responsibility remains unchanged: producing safe food for consumers. While detection systems such as metal detectors, X-ray units, environmental monitoring programs, allergen testing, and pathogen analyses remain critical components of a food safety program, the future of food safety lies in prevention. The most successful organizations recognize that hazard control is not achieved through a single piece of equipment, a laboratory result, or a regulatory requirement, but through a comprehensive system of preventive controls working together to reduce risk before contamination occurs.

Building an effective food safety defense system requires a multi-layered approach that incorporates supplier oversight, hygienic design, sanitation, environmental monitoring, allergen management, foreign material controls, employee engagement, and emerging technologies. Equally important is fostering a culture where every employee understands their role in protecting the consumer and where food safety is viewed as a shared responsibility rather than the sole responsibility of the Quality department. When food safety programs evolve alongside operational growth, organizations can achieve both production excellence and consumer protection without sacrificing one for the other.

At the end of the day, keeping the belts running is important, but ensuring that every product leaving the facility is safe is what sustains consumer trust, protects brand integrity, and ultimately keeps those belts running for years to come. The strongest food safety programs are not those that simply detect hazards—they are the ones that prevent them.

July 1, 2026

Ask The Expert

Food Processing Pest Management: Where Pests Are Hiding in Your Facility — And How an IPM Program Helps Stop Them

By Patricia Hottel

No Comments

A strong food processing pest management program starts with looking at the facility the way pests do. That means combining sanitation, maintenance, exclusion, monitoring, documentation and staff training into a proactive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach.

Key Takeaways for Food Processing Facilities

Pests often hide in ordinary operational areas that provide the moisture, food sources and shelter they need to survive and reproduce.
Drains, spaces under equipment and tight equipment layouts can make sanitation and exclusion efforts more difficult and provide food, moisture and shelter for pests.
Loading docks, delivery trucks and pallets can bring pests into a facility from other locations on the supply chain.
One of the first steps to food processing pest management is a comprehensive facility inspection that identifies pests and pest-conducive conditions like access, attractants and harborage.
IPM supports audit readiness by bringing together inspection, prevention, corrective action and documentation.

Where do pests hide in a food processing facility?

Pests most often hide in loading docks, floor drains, equipment voids, ingredient storage areas, employee breakrooms and waste handling zones. These locations provide the food, moisture, shelter and access that pests need to survive and reproduce in food processing facilities.

Food and beverage processors face a tougher pest challenge than many commercial businesses: their facilities can create the food, moisture, shelter and access pests seek, while strict food safety regulations leave little room for error. Under FDA’s preventive controls rule, food processing facilities must follow Current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements, as well as hazard analysis and risk-based preventive control requirements, under 21 CFR Part 117.¹

Pest activity can also affect food safety, sanitation, compliance and audit readiness. Orkin’s Food Safety Precision Protection™ integrates pest prevention into FSMA Food Safety Plan readiness, with a focus on reducing contamination risk and supporting audit-ready operations.²

What pest-conducive conditions are in food processing facilities?

The most common pest-conducive conditions in food processing facilities include food residue, standing water, organic buildup, damaged packaging, open waste containers and structural gaps that allow pests to enter.

Common attractants include spilled ingredients, organic buildup in drains or on equipment, standing water or leaks, open waste containers, damaged packaging or exterior vegetation. Different types of pests are attracted to different conditions. For example, flies may be attracted to clogged drains, while birds may create a sanitation risk around open loading docks or rooflines. Stored product pests can hitchhike in ingredients or packaging and turn storage areas into high-risk zones.²

IPM programs help teams move from reactive response to prevention. Orkin’s guidance emphasizes that IPM should prioritize facility inspections and maintenance, exclusion and sanitation first, with facility teams serving as active partners in prevention.³

What are the most overlooked pest hiding spots?

Pests can be found throughout a facility, but some spots are more likely than others to harbor pests because they provide the right conditions for survival.

Loading Docks, Receiving Doors and Deliveries

With frequently opened bay doors, loading docks create frequent opportunities for pests to enter a facility. Pests don’t need a bay door to enter a facility, though — they can also sneak through tiny gaps under doors with damaged sweeps, broken window seals, cracks in exterior walls or through shipments.

Teams should inspect a facility’s exteriors for potential pest entrances and carefully inspect incoming shipments to avoid bringing pests inside. In every incoming shipment, look for gnaw marks, droppings, rub marks, damaged packaging, visible pests or other signs of pest activity.

Orkin Pros can recommend exclusion tools tailored to your facility’s needs, such as door sweeps to help close gaps and dock leveler seals or air curtains to help reduce flying pest entry at high-traffic openings. These are practical tools, but they must be maintained to remain effective. Orkin Pros can help identify which tools need to be replaced or repaired.

Drains and Wet Processing Areas

Drains, wet processing areas, leaks, gaps in equipment and other areas with standing water can collect organic buildup that provide food sources and breeding locations for pests like flies.⁴

Sanitation teams and pest management professionals should inspect drains, cracked flooring, standing water and hard-to-reach spaces under mixers, blenders and other equipment. These areas should be cleaned regularly to avoid organic debris from occurring.

Actizyme® Floor and Drain Cleaner uses enzymes to help break down organic material in drains, floors, pipes and crevices that can contribute to odors and fly activity. Orkin’s Small Fly Foam Service may also help address small fly pressure in drains and production-adjacent areas.

While not a standalone fly control solution, LED Insect Light Traps (ILTs) can provide valuable monitoring data and visibility into fly activity trends when placed appropriately.

Mixers, Blenders and Other Equipment

Equipment is often full of hard-to-reach, warm, food-adjacent spaces that can become a magnet for pest activity if not properly maintained.

Organic matter can collect around mixers, blenders, batching units and other equipment. Tight equipment placement may improve floor efficiency, but it can also make cleaning harder and lead to moisture and food buildup. With specialized training and deep industry expertise, Orkin Pros can collaborate with facility managers to identify potential pest hotspots in and around the facility.⁴

Teams should inspect beneath equipment legs, behind panels, around floor mounts and inside openings in equipment. Sanitation plans should define cleaning frequency, responsible roles and verification steps.

Ingredient Storage

Dry storage areas can feel lower risk because they are not wet or messy, but stored product pests can affect ingredients, packaging, supplies, audit outcomes and brand reputation.² Watch for webbing, larvae, adult insects, damaged packaging, residue and expired inventory.

Good storage habits matter. Rotate stock, maintain spacing for inspection, keep items off the floor and address damaged packaging quickly. Orkin’s Stored Product Pest Control service can support ingredient and grain-related pest concerns through inspection, monitoring tools such as pheromone traps and ongoing program adjustments.

Breakrooms and Employee Areas

A forgotten snack in a locker can support pest activity that eventually intersects with production. Employee areas can attract ants, cockroaches, rodents and flies when food storage, spills, trash or moisture get overlooked. Inspect lockers, vending areas, breakroom cabinets, trash containers, floor edges and gaps around plumbing or utility lines.

Staff training is essential. Employees should know how to report pest sightings, where to store food, why sanitation matters and what small signs are cues that a pest issue is emerging. Orkin Pros can provide staff training to help employees identify pest signs and understand their role in prevention.

Waste Areas

Waste areas offer food sources, moisture and odors. That makes them a high-priority inspection zone for flies, rodents, birds and other occasional invaders.

Check compactors, dumpsters, recycling bins, floor drains and other waste areas for signs of pest activity. Keep lids closed, clean spills quickly and power-wash dumpsters and the concrete pad beneath them to help keep buildup and odors under control.

How does IPM support audit readiness?

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) supports audit readiness by combining inspection, monitoring, corrective actions, documentation and trend analysis into a structured pest prevention program.

Audit-ready facilities maintain clear, thorough records of proactive IPM programs, pest activity, corrective actions and verification of effectiveness.

Orkin’s Food Safety Precision Protection is designed to support audit-ready documentation as part of a facility’s IPM program. Orkin InSite® gives customers 24/7 access to digital service records, monitoring data and trend reports in a convenient online dashboard.²

FAQs

Where do pests most often hide in food processing facilities?

Pests can hide in nearly all parts of a facility, but they’re especially likely to be found in areas with food sources, moisture, warmth and openings for pest entry and harborage.

Why are drains a common site of pest issues in food plants?

Drains can collect moist organic material . These conditions can attract and support small flies and other pests, especially in wet processing areas or under equipment where cleaning is more difficult.

How can loading docks increase pest pressure?

Loading dock doors and receiving doors are opened and closed often, giving pests an opportunity to enter a facility. Regular dock inspections and exclusion measures like air curtains and vinyl strip doors help reduce entry opportunities.

How can equipment sanitation affect pest activity?

Equipment sanitation affects pest activity because food residue and moisture can collect around, beneath and behind equipment such as mixers and blenders. Cleaning beyond visible surfaces helps reduce organic buildup and potential food sources or pest harborage.

What documentation do auditors expect from a pest management program?

Auditors commonly review service records, monitoring logs, device maps, corrective actions, trend reports, product usage records, training documentation and evidence that deficiencies were addressed.

Orkin InSite® provides a comprehensive view of your pest management program through a convenient online dashboard, giving customers a streamlined way to manage reporting, notifications and team connectivity across one or multiple locations. With one-time setup, you can customize preferences, adjust them at any time and have reports delivered straight to your inbox.

What are the most common pests in food processing facilities?
The most common pests in food processing facilities include flies, cockroaches, rodents and stored product pests, all of which can create food safety, sanitation and compliance risks.

How do stored product pests enter a facility?
Stored product pests often enter food processing facilities through incoming ingredients, packaging, pallets or shipments, then spread when products are stored without proper inspection and rotation.

How often should food processing facility staff and pest management professionals inspect for pests?
Food processing facilities should inspect for pests routinely, with frequency based on risk factors such as seasonality, facility conditions, pest history and audit or regulatory requirements.

How does pest management support FSMA compliance?

Pest management supports FSMA compliance by helping facilities identify, prevent and document pest risks that could compromise food safety or sanitation standards.

May 21, 2026

Allergen Alley

How conveyor design can reduce allergen cross-contact in multi-product food facilities

By Rich Lunden

No Comments

Allergen cross-contact remains one of the most urgent safety challenges in food manufacturing. Food allergies can cause severe reactions, including life-threatening anaphylaxis, and even small amounts of an undeclared allergen can be enough to trigger a serious event in a sensitive consumer.¹ ³ Precision stainless steel belts offer a practical answer because their flat, nonporous surface helps prevent allergen residues from being trapped or transferred between product runs. For processors, the consequences reach far beyond one production error. Undeclared allergen incidents can lead to recalls, regulatory action, lost production time and lasting damage to consumer trust.² ³

The urgency is increasing because many processors are managing broader product portfolios, shorter production runs and more frequent changeovers on shared equipment. In a multi-product facility, the risk is straightforward: Residue from one product run can remain on equipment and move into the next product if the system is not designed and cleaned effectively. FDA has specifically identified shared food-processing equipment as a source of allergen cross-contact, and it requires manufacturers to implement controls that significantly minimize or prevent that hazard.³ ⁴

That makes conveyor design a food safety issue, not just a mechanical decision. Conveyors are present at nearly every stage of production. They move ingredients, intermediate product and finished goods through processing, cooling, inspection and packaging. When the belt surface traps residue, requires lubrication or sheds particles, the conveyor can become a persistent source of allergen carryover. When the system is designed for cleanability and stable operation, it can help processors reduce that risk while maintaining efficiency.

Why allergen control deserves more attention now

Food manufacturers have always had to manage allergens carefully, but the current operating environment raises the stakes. Product variety has expanded across many categories. More facilities are running allergen-containing and allergen-free products on the same lines. Changeovers are happening more often, and every changeover creates another opportunity for allergen residue to remain behind.

That matters because the people affected by these failures are not dealing with a minor quality issue. They are dealing with a potential life-safety event. FDA notes that exposure to food allergens poses a risk for potentially severe and life-threatening reactions, and that undeclared food allergens remain a leading cause of food product recalls.³ For processors, that means allergen control has to be treated as a core part of operational design, verification and daily execution.

Sanitation programs remain essential, but sanitation alone is not enough if the equipment works against the process. Cleaning teams can only remove what they can access. Validation becomes more difficult when the product-contact surface contains pores, seams, cracks, worn areas or places where product dust can collect. Equipment design determines how difficult the cleaning task will be before a sanitation crew starts.

Why conveyor design matters in allergen prevention

FDA’s preventive controls framework makes clear that food allergen controls and sanitation controls are written procedures facilities must have and implement to control allergen cross-contact and maintain sanitary conditions that minimize food allergen hazards.⁴ In practical terms, that means processors need equipment that supports those procedures under real production conditions.

A conveyor belt sits directly in the product zone. Its surface condition affects how much residue remains after discharge, how easily cleaning crews can remove what remains and how consistently the line can be returned to a validated state for the next run. The conveyor’s surrounding design matters too. Transfer points, supports, return paths, pulley areas and frame geometry can all create places where small food particles, oils or sticky product films collect.

FDA’s draft food allergen program guidance tells manufacturers to consider how current good manufacturing practice measures prevent allergen cross-contact due to plant design, sanitary operations, equipment and utensils, ingredients and manufacturing operations. That guidance also recommends incorporating design features that minimize the potential for allergen cross-contact and facilitate cleaning of equipment.⁵

How residue remains on conventional conveying surfaces

Residue can remain after a product run in ways that are easy to underestimate. Powders settle in worn or irregular surfaces. Small food particles gather at edges and transfer points. Oily ingredients cling to rough contact areas. Sticky products leave thin films behind that are not always visible during routine inspection. In a shared-line environment, even a small amount of material left on the conveyor can become the source of an undeclared allergen in the next batch.

Surface stability matters as much as surface cleanability. A belt that degrades over time becomes harder to clean because use and sanitation change the condition of the material. Tiny defects can turn into retention points. Once that happens, the sanitation process becomes less repeatable, and allergen verification becomes more difficult.

Lubrication can add another concern. In food production, any substance introduced near the product zone deserves close scrutiny. Lubrication points can attract product dust and create more areas where allergen residue accumulates. They can also complicate cleaning and inspection.

Particle shedding is another issue that is often treated as a maintenance problem when it should also be viewed as a hygiene concern. If a conveying surface frays, flakes or sheds particles, those particles can introduce contaminants into the product zone and carry residue into adjacent areas.

Why precision stainless steel belts help reduce cross-contact

Precision stainless steel belts, including PureSteel® metal belts, provide a flat, nonporous product-contact surface. That surface does not absorb product residue and does not present the same types of harborage points created by more irregular or degradable materials. Powders, oils and small food particles are less likely to become embedded in the belt surface, which helps reduce carryover between product runs.

They also do not require lubrication. That simplifies sanitation and removes one more place where residue can accumulate. In facilities where changeovers are frequent, that can improve cleaning consistency and reduce the time needed to prepare the line for the next product.

Precision stainless steel belts will not fray and shed particles in the way some other belt materials can. Their resistance to corrosion is equally important. FDA guidance emphasizes cleaning procedures tailored to both residue type and food-contact surface.⁵ A corrosion-resistant stainless steel belt helps processors maintain a stable surface through repeated exposure to water, detergents and sanitation chemistry, supporting thorough, repeatable cleaning over time.

In addition, these belts provide high positional accuracy and consistent tracking. That precision reduces product movement variability, limiting spillover and buildup along conveyor edges or transfer points. Less residual material during production means less to remove during sanitation.

The role of wire mesh belts in hygienic conveyor design

Wire mesh conveyor belts are another proven option for food processors focused on sanitation and contamination control. Constructed from stainless steel, they provide a nonporous surface that resists bacterial growth and maintains structural integrity under demanding conditions such as high-temperature baking or freezing operations.

One of the defining advantages of wire mesh belts is their open design. The mesh allows for airflow and drainage, which is critical in processes that involve cooling, drying or washing. This openness helps prevent debris accumulation and supports more effective cleaning, particularly when using clean-in-place systems.

Wire mesh belts are also highly durable and resistant to corrosion from moisture and cleaning agents. Their design allows for efficient washdowns with reduced water and chemical usage, supporting both sanitation goals and operational efficiency. Many designs also allow for straightforward repair through splicing, which can extend service life without compromising hygienic performance.

From a compliance standpoint, stainless steel wire mesh belts can meet FDA and USDA requirements for direct food contact when properly specified and maintained. Their ability to withstand aggressive sanitation protocols without degradation makes them a practical solution in facilities with strict hygiene requirements.

Choosing between solid stainless steel and wire mesh belts

While both precision stainless steel belts and wire mesh belts support hygienic conveying, their strengths align with different application requirements.

Solid stainless steel belts are best suited for applications that demand maximum surface control. Their flat, continuous surface eliminates openings where product particles could fall through or become trapped. This makes them particularly effective in allergen-sensitive environments where preventing any residue carryover is critical. They also deliver superior positional accuracy, making them ideal for indexing, inspection and automated processes where precision matters.

Wire mesh belts, by contrast, are defined by their openness. That design allows air, liquids and heat to pass through the belt, making them well suited for baking, frying, freezing and drying processes. The open structure reduces contact area and promotes faster cooling or drainage, which can be essential for certain food products.

There are also practical considerations related to system design. Wire mesh belts can be produced in very wide formats, which is beneficial for large-scale processing lines. Solid stainless steel belts are typically selected when precision and surface integrity outweigh the need for openness.

In allergen control specifically, the choice often depends on how residue behaves in the process. If the priority is preventing any product from becoming lodged or retained, a solid stainless steel belt provides a clear advantage. If the process benefits from airflow and wash-through cleaning, a wire mesh belt may offer better performance.

Cleanability and efficiency are connected

In a multi-product facility, allergen control and line efficiency are closely linked. Equipment that is difficult to clean extends downtime, increases labor demands and adds uncertainty during verification. Equipment designed for cleanability helps teams complete sanitation more thoroughly and restart production with greater confidence.

Conveyor performance during production also affects what sanitation teams face afterward. A belt that runs flat and tracks accurately is less likely to create unnecessary spillover, edge buildup or product agitation. Less residue around the conveyor path means less material to remove during changeover.

This is where equipment choice becomes part of a broader allergen management strategy. A processor still needs training, production scheduling, sanitation validation and verification. But the conveyor system should support those controls, not make them harder to execute.

What processors should look for

When evaluating conveyors for allergen-sensitive production, processors should ask direct questions:

Is the product-contact surface flat, nonporous and easy to sanitize?
Does the system avoid lubrication in the product zone?
Will the belt maintain its surface integrity after repeated sanitation cycles?
Are transfer points and surrounding components accessible for inspection and cleaning?
Does the conveyor design minimize places where small food particles can collect during normal production?
Does the belt type align with process needs such as airflow, drainage or precision handling?

These questions shift the discussion from simple equipment selection to risk reduction.

Conclusion

Allergen cross-contact is not just a compliance issue. It is a consumer safety issue with potentially severe consequences. Conveyor design plays a direct role in controlling that risk.

Precision stainless steel belts such as PureSteel® provide a flat, stable, nonporous surface that supports consistent sanitation and minimizes residue carryover. Wire mesh belts offer complementary advantages through their open design, enabling airflow, drainage and efficient cleaning in the right applications.

For multi-product food facilities, selecting the appropriate conveyor system is a practical step toward stronger allergen control and more reliable operations. The right choice depends on process requirements, but in all cases, the goal remains the same: reduce contamination risk while maintaining efficient, repeatable production.

References

S. Food and Drug Administration. Food Allergies: What You Need to Know. Aug. 16, 2024.
S. Food and Drug Administration. Food Allergies. Updated March 11, 2026.
S. Food and Drug Administration. The Current Food Allergen Landscape. May 5, 2021.
S. Food and Drug Administration. FSMA Final Rule for Preventive Controls for Human Food. Jan. 6, 2025.
S. Food and Drug Administration. Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food: Draft Guidance for Industry, Chapter 11: Food Allergen Program. Draft guidance.

May 20, 2026

Preventing Container Damage and Contamination in High Production Environments

By Emily Newton

No Comments

At high speed and in hygienic conditions, empty aluminum cans, PET bottles and glass containers have to be carried from pallet storage to areas for rinsing, filling and packaging. This must be done without deformation, tumbling or contamination. An automatic depalletizing machine may be the answer.

Due to higher throughput requirements, the first step of the packaging line often determines if the container arrives at the filling equipment intact. Depalletizing systems remove containers from pallet loads and move them via conveyor systems to a system that rinses and fills them. If integrated properly with the rest of the line, they stabilize container movement and reduce the risk of contamination before production.

Best Manufacturing Practices

Current good manufacturing practices covered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include sanitary operations, plant equipment and production controls to prevent contamination during food processing. Machinery design and operations provide two key elements of contamination control practices in beverage manufacturing environments.

Why Container Damage Often Starts at the Pallet

Many problems start before the container reaches the filler. When palletized loads are moved, any damaged or displaced pallets can lead to unstable layers. Differences in the lift levels can cause denting or tipping. According to the Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute, container damage can be caused by:

Pallet misalignment or shifted container layers.
Debris from slip sheets or pallet materials.
Uneven transfer from pallets to conveyors.
Pressure differences between aluminum, PET and glass containers.

As depalletizing is typically the first mechanical transfer in a packaging line, careful equipment design can reduce these issues.

Layer Handling Improves Container Stability

The best way to prevent damage at high speeds is to handle the containers layer-wise rather than individually. That way, the pressure distribution stabilizes and reduces the friction between them.

According to Ska Fabricating, a depalletizer is used in beverage and consumer packaged goods manufacturing to remove products or containers from pallets and place them on conveyors or production lines. This eases rinsing and filling, while maintaining consistent container orientation.

Layer transfer systems are commonly used in beverage plants, often in conjunction with conveyor and rinser systems when depalletizing aluminum cans, PET bottles and glass bottles. This machinery must manage high throughput rates with minimal stress on the containers early in the packaging process.

Stable Container Transfer Prevents Downstream Disruptions

Containers are aligned and oriented as they are moved from layers of pallets into conveyors feeding rinsers and fillers.

To solve misalignment problems, A-B-C Packaging Machine Corp. recommends equipment designed to maintain a controlled flow of containers. It states that the Model 108 depalletizer provides an uninterrupted flow of containers to the processing line, maintaining a steady flow during high-speed packaging operations.

Keeping containers moving in consistent flows reduces dented cans, tipped bottles and production loss.

Sanitation and Equipment Design Work Together

Preventing contamination is about more than cleaning. Equipment design can directly affect the ability to clean and sanitize.

The FDA stresses that cleaning and sanitizing food-contact surfaces is critical in controlling contamination. A dirty or poorly maintained surface promotes impurities. Proper equipment layouts and the ability to remove built-up debris determine sanitation effectiveness.

Depalletizers, when combined with a slip-sheet removal and pallet centering system, may help reduce debris from entering production. The Ferrum Group designs its beverage depalletizing machines for high-speed production systems, supporting container handling and separating palletized materials from receptacles before they are fed into the fill line.

These systems also help keep production areas clean and protect containers during transportation.

Automation Tools Offer High Throughput While Retaining Control

Modern beverage facilities require an optimal trade-off between protecting containers from mechanical damage and production speed, which is greatly helped by automation.

According to BW Integrated Systems, conventional depalletizers remove containers one layer at a time and carefully push them onto conveyor belts, leading to the next step in the packaging process. They also hold containers in place during high-speed operations.

Automated depalletizing lines may include conveyors, inspection systems, rinsers and other ancillary equipment to maintain container flow while protecting the packaging.

Depalletizing Considerations for Beverage Co-Packers

Beverage co-packers often will co-pack for more than one container type within the same plant, such as beer in aluminum cans, tea and juice in PET bottles, and specialty drinks in glass.

Because there are so many kinds, flexible depalletizing systems are common now. One type of depalletizer may only work with one type of container. Others can work with glass, plastic and metal containers, switching between formats without sacrificing throughput.

Since co-packers may produce multiple brands, this allows for streamlined production schedules and minimizes container damage during changeovers.

Features of Modern High-Speed Depalletizers

Manufacturers considering an automatic depalletizer machine consider various operational factors:

Layer handling capability: Allow container transfer with little mechanical impact
Material suitability: Suitable for aluminum, polyethylene terephthalate and glass
Order of operations: Prevents pallet pieces from contaminating product after removal of the slip-sheet
Changeover flexibility: Enables faster conversion to a different container format
System integration: Eases the flow of containers from filler to packer

These and other features allow beverage facilities to package products at high speeds while also protecting containers.

Frequently Asked Questions

Here are some common questions manufacturers have about using depalletizers to help prevent damage and contamination.

What is the function of a beverage depalletizer in production?

A depalletizer removes containers from the product layer on the pallet, placing them on a conveyor for rinsing, filling and packaging.

Why is container protection important before filling?

Dented or misaligned containers can cause problems downstream in the filling and sealing processes. Damage prevention during depalletizing can eliminate these problems and improve packaging efficiency.

How do depalletizers help?

Some depalletizing systems also remove slip sheets and other pallet debris before the containers are rinsed, preventing foreign material from entering the production line.

When should beverage facilities update their depalletizing equipment?

Facilities will typically update depalletizers when production speeds increase or when new container styles or sanitation regulations are introduced.

Protecting Containers in High-Speed Beverage Production

Preventive measures to prevent damage and contamination are taken at the beginning of the packaging process. Depalletizing systems stabilize container handling by consistently removing debris-free pallets for downstream processing.

Modern, high-volume beverage manufacturers can employ depalletizer equipment with conveyors and sanitation systems, which can achieve high throughput and maintain container integrity in harsh environments.

The Top Audit Failure Patterns

Why More Training Won’t Fix This

Embedding Safety Into Daily Work

Measuring What Actually Matters

Compliance as Competitive Advantage

References

The Blind Spot in How We Measure Culture

Behavior Is Harder to Fake Than a Survey Answer

What This Looked Like in Practice

From Lagging to Leading: Making the Shift

Culture Shows Up in the Data You Already Have

References

The Regulatory Shift Driving the Need for Better Data

Defining Data Integrity in Food Manufacturing

What Are the Main Advantages of Using Software for Food Safety Data?

1. Streamlined Compliance and Audit Readiness

2. Enhanced Traceability for Faster Recall Management

3. Proactive Insights Through Trend Analysis

The Future of a Data-Driven Food Safety Culture

Frequently Asked Questions

How does automated data management integrate with existing ERP systems?

What is the first step to transitioning from manual to automated data collection?

Building a Resilient, Proactive Food Safety Ecosystem

Can Your System Absorb Growth Without Losing Control?

What the rule actually asks for

Why a certificate isn’t proof

Building verification that fits the hazard

The shift worth making

Geography

Impact of Climate Change

Detection

Health Impacts

Regulations and Impact on International Trade

Intervention Strategies

References

So, what is a hazard?

Following the Process Flow

Shifting to Prevention

Controls That Matter

Creating a Culture of Prevention

What the Future Holds for Food Safety Hazard Prevention

Where do pests hide in a food processing facility?

What pest-conducive conditions are in food processing facilities?

What are the most overlooked pest hiding spots?

Why allergen control deserves more attention now

Why conveyor design matters in allergen prevention

How residue remains on conventional conveying surfaces

Why precision stainless steel belts help reduce cross-contact

The role of wire mesh belts in hygienic conveyor design

Choosing between solid stainless steel and wire mesh belts

Cleanability and efficiency are connected

What processors should look for

Conclusion

Best Manufacturing Practices

Why Container Damage Often Starts at the Pallet

Layer Handling Improves Container Stability

Stable Container Transfer Prevents Downstream Disruptions

Sanitation and Equipment Design Work Together

Automation Tools Offer High Throughput While Retaining Control

Depalletizing Considerations for Beverage Co-Packers

Features of Modern High-Speed Depalletizers

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is container protection important before filling?

How do depalletizers help?

When should beverage facilities update their depalletizing equipment?

Protecting Containers in High-Speed Beverage Production

How We Use Cookies