Bringing Food Safety to the Masses

By Food Safety Tech Staff

Food safety is set to gain national prominence with the release of “Poisoned: The Dirty Truth About Your Food.” The documentary from director Stephanie Soechtig was inspired by the book, Poisoned: The True Story of the Deadly E. Coli Outbreak That Changed the Way Americans Eat, by Jeff Benedict, which tells the story of the landmark 1993 Jack in the Box E. Coli outbreak.

The film premiered on June 9 at the Tribeca film festival and will launch on Netflix in Fall 2023. We spoke with Dr. Darin Detwiler, author, founder and CEO of Detwiler Consulting Group, and professor at Northeastern University, whose son Riley died as a result of the outbreak at just 16 months old, about his involvement in the documentary, who the film aims to reach, and changes that could be implemented to strengthen America’s food safety system.

How did the documentary come together and how did you get involved?

Tribeca Poisoned Premiere — Sarah Sorcher, Marion Nestle, Christine Haughney Dare-Bryan, Julie Marler, Bill Marler, Darin Detwiler

Dr. Detwiler: The film makers bought the rights to the book Poisoned by Jeff Benedict, But where Benedict’s book really looks at 1993 and the immediate aftermath of the Jack-in-the-Box E. coli outbreak, the filmmakers also wanted to look at the 30 years since the outbreak. We connected because I had written Food Safety: Past, Present and Predictions, and in that book I talk about 1993 and the immediate aftermath, but I also talk about the Peanut Corporation of America, the romaine lettuce outbreak and other landmark cases over the past three decades. I was a good resource for them in terms of my experience in 1993 with the death of my son, who was one of those four who died as a result of the E. Coli outbreak, and also in terms of my work with USDA and the FDA and my role as an academic who speaks on food safety and food safety policy.

Who is the intended audience in terms of who the filmmakers were hoping to speak to and in terms of who you hope to reach?

Dr. Detwiler: I love the fact that there are different audiences for the documentary. This is an opportunity for food safety professionals to understand the legacy of the E. Coli outbreak and the why behind the protocols, procedures, and expectations in regulatory compliance.

But what excites me is that this documentary was made for the general public, and it can hit the hearts and the stomachs of everyone. Everyone eats, and for more than 50% of people, their first job is somehow connected to food. Could this help someone who is working on a food production line better understand the history behind food handling and food safety requirements?

At the premiere there were so many questions from the audience and people were saying, “I had no idea you could get it E. coli without even eating a contaminated product. I had no idea this is still an issue.” This documentary could impact the decision making of several different categories of stakeholders who all have a role to play in terms of the bigger picture of food safety.

It must be painful to keep revisiting and telling the story of your son’s death.

Detwiler an Riley — Dr. Detwiler and son Riley.

Dr. Detwiler: It’s a way from me to pay respect to my son, and this might sound Pollyannaish, but it also helps to memorialize his story and extend the legacy of his life to new audiences.

If my son was alive, he’d be older than I am now—I was 24 in 1993 and Riley would be 31 today. For 30 years I have been sharing his story, and it has served two purposes. One is to help improve food safety at the core level and two is to keep my promise to myself. Right after my son died, I spoke with President Bill Clinton on the phone, and I said, “I feel like I need to help and be a part of this.” My thinking was, whatever I can do in terms of science or technology or laws and policy, we’re going to make it such that families in the future will not be dealing with these problems, but clearly they still are.

There was also a sense of, while I’m faced with losing my son, I don’t want to be faced with this notion that my son lost his father. When I do this work, in my mind it’s like I’m still spending time with him. I’m still there for him. And I do this not only for myself and my son but also for other people who have been affected by foodborne illness. To say “the CDC estimates that 48 million Americans become sick every year, that some 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die every year,” that’s usually the most lip service anyone gives to the idea of foodborne illness. When I tell the story of my son’s illness and other family’s experiences, that puts a face and an emotion to those numbers. My goal is to not only impact those with the ability to change the industry, but also serve those 3,000 families every year—that’s 90,000 families since my son died—that live with that chair forever empty at their family table. I saw this documentary as being very important because the true burden of foodborne illness is represented, and representation is an important part of the healing and recovery from such an event.

I was surprised to learn that back in 1993 E. coli in beef wasn’t a significant concern on the federal level, but was more stringently regulated among a small number of states. Are there food safety risks today where you feel we’re lacking in oversight or regulation?

Dr. Detwiler: There were very few states that were reporting E. coli at that time, but within a year that had quadrupled. Today, we have Pulsenet and Foodnet, which are federal collections of data related to foodborne illness incidents, and we have much better—when you’re looking at multi-state outbreaks—data being collected.

One area that’s of interest is the FDA Food Code in that it is updated regularly, but there are some states that use very old versions of it. When I was doing my doctorate research just a few years ago in 2015-2016, there were some states that were using versions of the Food Code there were over 20 years old, and clearly the science has changed.

On the federal level, there are 15 different federal agencies that play a role in food safety as well as many different state agencies, but you don’t just have 50 states. Within those 50 states you have either the State Department of Agriculture or the State Department of Health overseeing food safety—each of which have two different missions and two different sources of funding. On top of that there are more than 3,000 different jurisdictions for food safety in the U.S. when you start looking at military bases, tribal reservations, universities and colleges, etc. In some places it’s regulated by the state and in others it’s by county or even by city. So there are a lot of moving pieces and a lot of different players, resulting in this patchwork of regulatory agency oversight.

Shortly after the 1993 outbreak, the USDA declared that E. coli was an illegal adulterant in meat, and today we rarely see cases of food safety failure related to E. coli and meat. However, there were no significant changes in FDA policy until FSMA was passed in 2010, and the rules didn’t start to be implemented until 2016.

Imagine if we had a single food safety agency. Imagine if there had been a single agency 30 years ago and if the change in policy hadn’t just impact food regulated by the USDA but instead impacted all foods.

Does this mean you support the potential move to create a single Human Foods program at the federal level?

Dr. Detwiler: I do support it and believe it would solve some of these gaps. When you look at other nations you don’t have the division among the states like we have here. Just the sheer number of agencies at the federal level, economically it doesn’t make sense. Look at what happened after 9/11. Suddenly you have the Department of Homeland Security that says we can cut through some of these problems by creating a federal agency that brings together all the different agencies involved in national security. Imagine if something like that was done in terms of food safety.

There are a lot of factors to consider, and this is a complicated issue. I don’t think this documentary will answer all the questions, but I hope that it will compel consumers to start asking these questions. That is where we can potentially see the greatest change and improvement in food safety.

You mentioned that in the documentary the film makers wanted to focus on the legacy of 1993, what in your words is the legacy of 1993?

Dr. Detwiler: In terms of the positive, it gained the media’s attention. We have a food safety culture and industry today that has radically grown when you look at magazines and websites and conferences and things like that. What I do find unfortunate is that it is focused on industry. Imagine if all the messaging about driver safety was kept within the automobile industry and not actually getting to drivers. This documentary fills a big gap by focusing on the consumer. We also have seen the positive impact of the USDA declaring E. Coli an illegal adulterant in meat.

Some of the things the documentary highlights, however, is the issue of antibiotic resistance and salmonella still being legal in poultry. When you look at some of the things that haven’t changed—for example, we see cattle feed lots that are next to where romaine lettuce is grown, the idea that Hepatitis A could be prevented in the food industry and in restaurants if employees simply got the vaccine to prevent it, and the lack of consequences for food safety failures—there are still areas that are lacking.

Most people don’t realize that with Jack in the Box back in 1993, there were no state or federal charges filed even though the CEO acknowledged—in front of news cameras—that they violated state law on the minimum cooking temperature, resulting in hundreds of illnesses and hospitalizations and the death of four people.

For families who’ve lost a child or their child has been left disabled, these cases have all been settled out of court and out of the public eye. This documentary bypasses all of that and puts this information in a very public package.

June 20, 2023

Food Protection: Challenges and Opportunities

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

The recent ransomware attacks on U.S. Government agencies and hundreds of private U.S. companies is a reminder that cybersecurity remains one of the most significant challenges facing the food and agriculture (Ag) industries today. It was a concern that took center stage at a recent OSPA (Outstanding Security Performance Awards) webinar entitled “Food Protection: The Ultimate Security Challenge?”

Presenters Megan Francies, Food Protection Manager at LambWeston, Mark Wittrock, Assistant Director of Health, Food and Agriculture Resilience, Office of Health Security, U.S. Dept of Homeland Security, David Goldenberg, Chief of InfraGard National Sector Security and Resilience Program (NSSRP), Food and Agriculture Sector at UC Davis, Andy Griffiths, European Regional Security Director at Firmenich, Jason Bashura, MPH, RS, Sr. Manager of Global Food Defense at PepsiCo, and moderator Professor Martin Gill, Director of Perpetuity Research & Consultancy International (PRCI), addressed key questions, including:

How well protected is our food supply?
What are the risks and are we sure we are preparing and responding effectively?
How can increased information sharing between and amongst the public and private sectors help to reduce these risks?

Growing Risk for Food and Ag

Griffiths noted that due to hostile actors and regional conflicts, supply chains are seeing increased vulnerability making the implementation of effective transportation security and cargo theft mitigation more important—and more challenging—than ever.

In the U.S. there is a national response framework, but as Wittrock highlighted both public and private entities need to think broadly and holistically to prepare for and coordinate a response to attacks when they occur.

The need for strategic alliances and information sharing and analysis centers (ISACs) that allow organizations to share adverse events and strategies are important, but when there are many stakeholders with different—and often competing—interests, it is difficult to communicate in a language and in a timeline that meets the ideal requirements, added Wittrock. When living in an increasingly global world, we also must remember that “your friends today are not necessarily your friends tomorrow,” he said.

The risk of copycat attacks when an event occurs is also a concern, said Goldenberg.

The Need for Communication and Information Sharing

Francies championed the benefits of transparent and effective communication between government and the private sector. Her view was echoed by several panelists who encouraged more opportunities for organizations to share security breaches in a non-attributable manner to help others prepare for and reduce commonly experienced risks.

When asked, what is the biggest barrier to communication and information-sharing, Wittrock pointed to siloed discussion among key stakeholder groups. “When looking across the entirety of the food and Ag enterprise, it includes many different parts, pieces and stakeholders,” he said. “The communication happens largely in the vacuum of one particular discipline or stakeholder group. What’s lacking first and foremost is that strategic dialogue across communities.”

Efforts to improve communication are often challenged by lack of clear channels through which stakeholders can share information, said Francies. “A lot of times the communication goes out in a way that is not accessible to everybody, and it’s often last minute so people aren’t prepared to provide the insights that we need,” she said. “We need a defined way or area to communicate that is well known and publicly accessible to industry.”

In addition to clear channels, trust needs to be established among organizations and government agencies as well. “Industry has to have trust that the information they are sharing is going to be handled appropriately and that they are getting information that’s trustworthy from other sources,” said Goldenberg. “Unless there is trust across all the sectors and agencies among food and Ag, there is never going to be good communication.”

The need to protect brand reputation is often at the heart of unreported security incidents, said Griffiths. “But I do think there is a willingness to share certainly within industry and there is a need within law enforcement to obtain that information to determine how big the problem or issue is,” he added. “The problem is, there is no mechanism by which this information can be exchanged in a safe and confidential way that maintains the integrity of both the source and also the information that’s being shared. Yet, unless everyone shares across the board through collaboration or cooperation, we’re forever on the run.”

In light of the significant challenges raised related to communication and information sharing, Bashura shared successes that are taking place, including the ASIAS Aero Portal, which was developed by the FFA and Mitre to ensure security of the aviation industry, Operation Opson, a joint operation between Europol and INTERPOL developed to target fake and substandard food and beverages, the Food Industry Intelligence Network, and resources available through the Food Defense Resource Center. In terms of the importance of building trust among industry, Bashura encouraged leaders to reach out to each other. “Pick up the phone. Make a call, send an email, or shoot a text,” he said.

June 6, 2023

FDA Sets 10 ppb Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Apple Juice

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

The FDA has issued a final guidance “Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Apple Juice,” which identifies for industry the action level of 10 parts per billion (ppb) for inorganic arsenic in apple juice. The guidance supports the FDA’s goal to reduce exposure to environmental contaminants from foods commonly consumed by babies and young children.

The FDA noted that its testing results reflect a trend in reductions in the amount of inorganic arsenic in apple juice on the market, with an increasing percentage of samples testing below 3 ppb and 5 ppb. However, since the release of the draft guidance in 2013, the agency has identified some apple juice samples with inorganic arsenic levels above 10 ppb—the level the agency considers achievable with the use of good manufacturing practices.

Though non-binding, the FDA expects that the 10 ppb action level will help to encourage manufacturers to reduce levels of inorganic arsenic in apple juice. The agency said that it will continue its current practice of monitoring arsenic in apple juice samples and if testing identifies inorganic arsenic in apple juice above 10 ppb, the FDA will consider this action level, in addition to other factors, to determine whether to take enforcement action.

June 6, 2023

Standards and Trends for Protective Apparel in the Food Industry

By Nick Warrick

No Comments

Employees who work in the food manufacturing and processing industries need proper personal protective equipment (PPE). As with other industries, PPE is used to protect employees against injuries, but for the food industry, it is also designed and used to reduce the risk of food contamination.

When selecting PPE for your workers, you need to consider specific contamination and safety risks, such as risk of abrasions, punctures, cuts, flash fires, and cryogenic hazards, based on the employee’s specific roles and duties.

The proximity to food requires prioritization of high standards of hygiene for all employees, as well as protection against individual risks based on setting. For instance, those working in commercial kitchens with high temperatures need loose and light apparel. On the other hand, those working in cold rooms need heavier outfits.

Factors to Consider When Selecting PPE in the Food Industry

Following are key factors to consider as you investigate apparel to keep your company’s employees safe and comfortable.

Effectiveness and Cost. Consider the quality standards you need to meet and the tear resistance of the material. Choosing one-time use or disposable apparel might seem expensive, but laundering of reusable gear can make the material more prone to wear and tear, thus lowering its effectiveness. Going for the lowest quality items to minimize costs can end up being more expensive. Therefore, you need to set your quality standards first to ensure the effectiveness of the PPEs.

Fit and Comfort. One of the factors that employers tend to overlook when shopping for their employees’ PPE is fit and comfort. Food industry workers operate several machines and stand for many hours. Inappropriate sizing makes the employee uncomfortable, resulting in less productivity. In addition, baggy or oversized gear may get caught in machinery or pose a fire risk if used near ovens or other high-heat areas.

Types of PPE for Food Safety

Several types of PPE are required in the food industry. Including gloves to prevent contamination, work shoes, facemasks, and aprons.

While face masks might not fully prevent inhalation of particles, they do prevent large respiratory drops from worker’s mouths and noses from coming into contact with food, thus preventing food contamination. Workers exposed to dangerous inhalants may require respirators to prevent illness.

The food industry involves a lot of movement. It also involves working with sharp objects such as knives. Good quality work shoes are required to protect your employee’s feet against cuts and other injuries. In addition, in a RTE environment, captive footwear programs reduce the risk of cross contamination. Employees also need anti-slip shoes to protect you against slips and falls.

The first step in determining your PPE needs is to conduct a hazards assessment of your work environment, and then match the needed PPE for each environment.

Latest Fashion Trends for Protective Apparel in the Food Industry

Fashion trends change in the clothing industry, and PPEs are no exception. Some of the recent trends in the food industry protective apparel include:

Lightweight apparel. At one time, it was believed that protective apparel should be heavy. But as textiles evolve and employee comfort and need for agility became greater concerns, apparel manufacturers and designers have learned how to combine thinner and lighter materials that provide the same protection as their older, heavier counterparts.

Need for higher level protection. The COVID-19 pandemic created a greater awareness of the importance of proper PPE, which led companies to seek PPE that that offers higher than the standard protection to protect their employees and food products.

Online presence. The growth of the Internet and e-commerce means many PPE users are increasingly relying on digital/e-commerce sites to evaluate and purchase PPE.

The food industry depends on multiple types of PPE to protect its workers as well as the products they make. When investigating PPE for employees, companies need to consider not only employee safety and comfort, but also food safety and protection. This can make it more challenging to make the right decision. Nevertheless, there are federal regulations as well as industry-set standards to help you find the best quality apparel for maximum user protection as well as hygiene and comfort.

May 29, 2023

bioMérieux Expands xPRO and Predictive Diagnostics Innovation Programs

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

In vitro diagnostics provider bioMérieux recently announced its plans to open a new, 32,000 sq. ft. state-of-the-art molecular innovation center at the Navy Yard in Philadelphia. The new site will house the company’s xPRO Program, as well as the company’s Predictive Diagnostics Innovation Center.

The xPRO Program was created to speed development of advanced molecular diagnostics for food quality and safety departments in the food and beverage, nutraceutical and cannabis indsutries.

We spoke with Ben Pascal, head of xPRO at bioMérieux, about the program as well as the challenges and recent advances in the development of molecular assays and predictive diagnostics.

What is the xPro program?

Pascal: xPRO is an entrepreneurial engine for bioMérieux. We have had tremendous success with the molecular assays we’ve built over the years here, and we want to continue to invest in that innovation both in terms of the way we develop these assays, the speed with which we bring them to market, and we want to expand the partnerships that we’ve built with industry. All of these efforts are bolstered through the xPRO program and team.

What are some of the challenges in developing the molecular assays?

Pascal: In the clinical micro sector, you’ve got blood, saliva, and urine, and they are pretty uniform between everyone. When you come to the industrial micro sector, where you’re working with lettuce one day, ground beef the next and then nutraceuticals or spices, it is far more challenging to build a diagnostic that can work across all those matrices.

The challenge is how to create something that is compatible in multiple sectors, is faster and will deliver value over and over in a routine quality testing lab. Experience is crucial. Our team in Philadelphia has built and commercialized more than 30 molecular diagnostics, so we had the opportunity to put together a toolkit, if you will, to help us get through challenging matrices and speed things along with regards to recovery of target organisms.

When you talk about predictive diagnostics, is this related to gaining a better understanding of which pathogens are most likely to cause illness and at what levels?

Pascal: You do have these pathogens, but there’s a whole other concern related to spoilage. Day to day in the food and beverage sector, it’s spoilage that’s affecting quality and your brand reputation and causing recalls.

When it comes to pathogens that can cause foodborne illnesses, one cell is typically the law of the land. But when we say predictive diagnostics, we are isolating unique genes that are 100% predictive of spoilage. We know there are certain organisms that cause spoilage, but not all organisms that spoil are created equal. So what we try to tease out through our genomic and predictive diagnostic center is which unique genes allow one bug within the same species to cause spoilage, while another does not.

Traditionally, a quality director on the floor will say, I have this organism. It might spoil it might not. We’re taking the risk out of the equation. If you have a potential spoilage organism and you know that it has the specific genes that create spoilage, you can make more informed decisions on what you’re going to do with your product in terms of releasing it or remediating it.

For example, in brewing there is a yeast called saccharomyces cerevisiae that is often used. And there is a variant of saccharomyces cerevisiae that has some genes that allow it to use up residual starches in the product to produce gas, which causes the cans to swell and burst.

The problem is, you can’t tell from a culture plate whether your saccharomyces cerevisiae has this variant diastaticus or not—and not all diastaticus will go on to chew up those residual starches as an energy source and produce gas. We’ve identified a unique set of genes, and every time those genes are there, that diastaticus will go on to produce gas and create quality issues. That’s what we refer to as predictive diagnostics.

When you talk about rapid diagnostic testing, can these tests be performed in the food or beverage facility?

Pascal: Yes, they take our equipment and utilize it at their site, whether that be a third party laboratory, the production site of a brewery, a food processing facility or a nutraceutical manufacturer. We manufacture the equipment and the reagents that we’ve developed, and we put that into a test kit that customers can purchase after we’ve installed the equipment at their production site.

Are there any specific food areas that you’re focusing on now?

Pascal: Some of our key focuses relate to beverages, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic. We do quite a lot in nutraceuticals. We do quite a bit of work in cannabis, and in food safety, we’re focused on changing the game with regards to environmental monitoring. With environmental monitoring you’re looking for specific pathogens with the theory being, if you can control your environment, you can control what gets into your food products.

You’re typically looking for one of two pathogens: salmonella or listeria. We said, why not do them both together? And we created a universal medium. By providing specific data points for both pathogens within a single test, it can detect and enrich both salmonella and listeria from the environmental swab.

In all the work we do, our partnerships with industry are very important. The way that we build our pipeline is directly through partnerships with industry, which informs us on their key challenges as well as better ways to make tools. So, when we come out with a new tool, our goal is to not only meet the needs of our partner but meet or exceed the needs of their peers in the industry as well.

May 23, 2023

Detection, Remediation and Control of Biofilms

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

Biofilms, those slimy films of bacteria that cling to surfaces, can wreak havoc on your equipment and harbor dangerous pathogens that contaminate your products. And they are not easy to detect or remove. Charles Giambrone, Food Safety Manager, Rochester Midland, shared strategies for the detection, remediation, and control of biofilms at the Food Safety Tech Hazards Conference in April.

“Biofilms are how microbes look to survive in nature and within your food plant,” said Giambrone, “and they can form quickly—within 13 hours.”

Biofilms form on any equipment with a large surface area and, in addition to contaminating food, they can damage equipment. “Once you get biofilms on the conveyor belts, you have slippage,” said Giambrone. “Just as biofilm plague will rot your teeth, biofilms form acid that corrode equipment. Eliminating biofilms can increase performance and prolong the lifespan of equipment.”

Detection of Biofilms

If you are seeing any of the following, it is a sign that you have a biofilm(s) in your facility:

Sporadic out of spec environmental test results
Rainbow appearance on stainless steel
Decreased shelf life of product
Increased bacterial count in finished product
Spike in bacterial counts that disappear and reappear

“When you get these spikes, where the bacterial count goes down and then whips up, that is a biofilm,” said Giambrone.

Where Biofilms Like to Lurk

The most common areas for biofilm formation include dead legs, slow-moving water lines, conveyors, floors, drains, pipeline or filler gaskets, and pump valves and gasket junctions. “You must do periodic tear downs to clean gasket junctions because the CIP (clean in place system) cannot reach these areas,” he said.

Control and Remediation

Removal of biofilms requires mechanical action as well as the application of strong chemicals applied for a lengthy contact time. “You need to detach the biofilm from its surface with mechanical action,” said Giambrone. “The irreversible adhesion of biofilm prevents a CIP system’s shear flow rate forces from properly stripping biofilm from a surface.”

High water temperatures (based on the specific cleaner you are using) are necessary for removal, but Giambrone cautioned against use of the FDA-approved temperature of 180 degrees F. “You want hot water—about 130 degrees F—not scalding (180 degrees F), because scalding water fixes the protein to the surface making it harder to clean, and it’s also a safety hazard,” he said, noting that contact time is also important. “Increased contact time of cleansers/sanitizers will yield better results.”

The goal of your biofilm removal process is to detach biofilms from the surface, break down the community into small components via detergents, surfactants, and mechanical action, and then completely destroy the detached subsections via true oxidative sanitizers: PAA, chlorine or ozone.

Additional risk factors for biofilm formation include:

Extended run operations
Dry cleaning only during the week
Equipment cleaned daily but not with a stringent regimen to remove biofilms
Walls and drains not cleaned every 24 hours

The agents Giambrone recommended for biofilm remediation include: Chlorinated alkaline cleaners, acidic cleaners, EDTA (chelating agents), which remove minerals from biofilm matrix—“These are very effective in removing the biofilm from the surface,” he said—and enzymatic cleansers.

May 16, 2023

Technology and ISO Compliance: Work Smarter, Not Harder

By Paul Damaren

No Comments

ISO compliance is essential to maintaining high levels of food safety and quality. Trying to manage the ISO compliance process manually—with paper files or Excel spreadsheets—is an expensive, time-consuming, error-prone process. Manual systems make it difficult to spot noncompliance issues, track certification paperwork, and get real-time visibility across an enterprise. Technology can be a game-changer when it comes to achieving and maintaining ISO compliance.

SaaS-based quality and audit software can automate ISO compliance-related tasks, making it easier as well as more efficient and accurate to track quality metrics, document corrective actions, and generate reports. Additionally, this software can save time and costs, while reducing the risk of errors. It also provides real-time visibility into the compliance process, allowing organizations to quickly identify and address any issues that may arise, ensuring that they stay compliant.

Tech Trends to Watch

While technology has already elevated ISO compliance dramatically, there are some exciting trends we are watching that have the potential to significantly improve the process:

The rise of automation and the Internet of Things (IoT) are driving increased adoption of technology solutions for ISO compliance and quality management.
The use of data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) are becoming more prevalent in ISO compliance, as companies look for ways to improve the accuracy and efficiency of their compliance efforts.
Consumer demand for transparency and sustainability is driving increased attention to ISO compliance and quality management. This will continue to intensify in the coming months and years.

Recently, we have seen large companies adopting technology to improve their quality and safety initiatives. Some notable examples include consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble, who implemented a comprehensive quality management system that incorporates ISO standards. P&G has worked hard to achieve ISO certification across many of its global operations, vowing to operate responsibly, build and maintain public trust in their products, and meet (or exceed) all legislative and regulatory safety requirements.

Similarly, Swiss fragrance and flavor manufacturer Givaudan has implemented a digital quality management system to automate quality data collection and analysis, helping the organization achieve compliance with ISO standards and improve product quality. They have developed a structured system to identify, assess, respond to, and mitigate risks to protect the company’s products and assets. They also vow to improve compliance with proper corporate governance guidelines and to follow all applicable laws and regulations. Hopefully, we’ll see more organizations following their lead.

The Benefits of Adopting Tech Solutions

There are many benefits to adopting new technologies to achieve ISO compliance. These include:

Automating essential tasks. Tech tools make it much easier to track metrics, document corrective actions, and generate reports, compared to manual methods. They also improve accuracy, allowing you to save time, money, and hassle. The more efficient, streamlined process lets you work smarter, not harder.
Reducing risk. Tech tools can help organizations increase their safety processes and protocols, achieve ISO compliance, and reduce the risk of food safety breaches that could cause major legal, financial, and reputational damage. Maximizing safety—and minimizing risks—can help boost key performance indicators (KPIs), including sales and profits, as well as customer loyalty, retention, and referrals.
Centralizing data. Many food businesses have overflowing file cabinets in their back offices, and they’d be hard-pressed to find a specific document quickly for an auditor. It’s far more effective and efficient to organize these documents through a tech solution that provides centralized, organized data and reports. This way, you’ll always have quick, easy access to information at your fingertips, allowing you to instantly track, manage, and find the various components of ISO standards—including certification documents, audit information, and operational records. This can save significant time (and frustration) over paper file systems.
Boosting visibility and transparency. Tech tools provide real-time visibility as well as a wider, deeper, more comprehensive view of your whole enterprise—or drill down by location. With access to real-time data, your organization can quickly identify (and fix) any noncompliance issues that may arise, allowing you to stay compliant. It also answers customers’ and investors’ calls for more transparent information about your business practices.
Boosting ROI. Companies may worry about the cost of purchasing tech tools—especially during our current economic uncertainty—but this is one of the smartest investments that your organization can make. Investing in modern technology solutions will save you money in the long run. Tech tools provide a huge ROI, by helping companies cut costs through energy efficiency, prevention of food safety breaches, and elevation of customer confidence, loyalty, and sales. Becoming ISP certified can also result in other lucrative benefits, such as attracting new investors, and helping to recruit and retain employees.
Reinforcing key messages to priority populations. Since ISO is widely considered the global gold standard, when you become ISO certified, you’re demonstrating that you prioritize safety, quality, consistency, and compliance, and that you’ve followed guidelines to provide consistently high-quality products and services. Being ISO certified demonstrates to key audiences, including your customers, investors, employees, and other stakeholders, that you’re investing the time, money, and energy into running as safely, effectively, and ethically as possible, and that protecting them remains your top priority.

Technology can make a dramatic difference in achieving ISO compliance, transforming the process from the manual methods that organizations have used for years. By automating the necessary tasks, you’ll save time, identify (and fix) areas of noncompliance, reduce errors and headaches, boost efficiency, increase visibility, and centralize data. Now is the time to ditch your paper certifications and overflowing file cabinets and embrace a smarter, easier, more efficient way of working.

May 2, 2023

Lessons Learned from Listeria Recalls

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

Listeria monocytogenes continues to be a key factor in food recalls. While it is not the most common pathogen behind foodborne illness, it does have a high mortality rate. Listeria is hearty. It thrives in cold, moist environments, can grow under refrigeration temperatures and is salt tolerant. The risk of listeria contamination can be reduced through stringent sanitation, and environmental monitoring and testing. But far too often, it takes an outbreak or recall for companies to truly understand the efforts needed to find and destroy it in their facilities.

At Food Safety Tech’s Hazards Conference in Columbus, Ohio, in April, Stacy Vernon, Food Safety Operations and Program Manager at CIFT, an Ohio Manufacturing Partner, shared lessons learned from food companies that have experienced Listeria in their facilities and resulting product recalls.

Lesson Learned: Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory requirements related control of listeria monocytogenes can be found at USDA 9 CFR Part 430.4 and FDA 21 CFR Part 117. Both agencies offer guidance documents that serve as valuable resources that food companies can use to build their food safety programs:

USDA FSIS: FSIS-GD-2014-0001 “Controlling Listeria monocytogenes in Post-lethality Exposed Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Products”

FDA: FDA-2008-D-0096 “Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-to-Eat Foods”

“The question is, are your people reading these? Are they aware they exist?” asked Vernon. “In speaking with companies who have gone through recalls, many were not even aware these guidance documents existed or were not utilizing them.”

Lesson Learned: Sanitation Program Shortcomings

“Sanitation is the No. 1 program that you need to have on point,” said Vernon. “Unfortunately, labor shortages and turnover have made this a big challenge in recent years.”

Issues that companies uncovered following recalls include:

A lack of understanding of the difference between cleaning and sanitizing
Sanitation teams not given enough time to properly sanitize equipment
Lack of easy access to the tools needed to sanitize properly
Lack of training on or understanding of the seven steps of sanitation
Lack of training on what biofilms are and how to detect them

“Sanitation teams tend to be small, and they need to be everywhere,” said Vernon. “Are you looking at their foot traffic? Your sanitation team should get, at least, general training on food safety and pathogens. Make sure this department is not overlooked because they do pose one of the highest risks of cross contamination.”

Lesson Learned: Poor Sanitary Design

Companies cited similar shortcomings in sanitary design. Vernon recommended that companies implement the following practices, if they are not currently following them:

Involve your food safety professionals in the purchase of new equipment
If purchasing used equipment, make sure that it has been maintained
Google “Sanitary Design Checklist.” These free downloads are available from the American Meat Institute, U.S. Dairy and other organizations and are great resources
Look for facility and equipment design flaws, such as cracks or separations in the floor, exposed threads, hallow pipes not sealed, bad welds, and water/product accumulation points

“Drain maintenance is also key. One company uses a snake to swab their drains, so they know if they have listeria before it works its way back up into the facility,” said Vernon.

Lesson Learned: Poor Environmental Monitoring Programs

The goals of an environmental monitoring program (EMP) is to aggressively seek and destroy pathogens. “You need to know where listeria is entering the facility, where it harbors and how it moves in your facility so you can effectively eradicate it,” said Vernon. “There is still a mentality that people are scared to find it, so they swab the safest areas. We need to change that mindset to ‘I want to find it and I want to eliminate it.’”

EMPs need to be tailored to your specific facility. Some of the issues companies found with their EMPs following recalls included a lack of internal knowledge to build a comprehensive and custom program and failure to swab properly. “Ask yourself, who is responsible for setting up our EMP and can they do it alone, or do we need outside expertise?” said Vernon.

When swabbing, you need to apply pressure and seek out hard to reach areas. When determining which zones to swab, consider the following:

Your risk assessment and hazard analysis
Previous environmental monitoring data collected
Visual appearance of surface
Products produced and intended users
Potential for growth after packaging

“Focus on areas where RTE products are exposed. Companies often do not want to swab Zone 1, but one company that went through a recall has implemented swabbing in Zone 1 while they are sampling their products,” said Vernon. “Their reasoning is, the products are already on hold and if they have to throw one shift of product away, it costs much less than a recall or outbreak.”

Lesson Learned: Lack of Employee Knowledge

Several of the companies Vernon spoke with found that they had inadequate food safety and pathogen training and knowledge at all levels; and that they did not have a good sense of employee traffic flow and habits. “When is the last time you stepped back to evaluate traffic flow in your facility?” asked Vernon. “Companies that took the time to evaluate traffic flow and employee practices were often surprised that they did not understand their employees’ movement within the facility or work habits.”

Key areas to investigate include:

How do employees and product move through your facility?
What is your footwear policy?
Are employees following appropriate GMPs for handwashing, PPE, product handling, etc.?
Are sanitation employees cleaning properly?

“Changing employee practices doesn’t take a lot of capital,” said Vernon. “It is one of the cheapest ways to mitigate risk.”

Lesson Learned: Not Reassessing Programs

EMP and sanitation programs should be reassessed when findings occur or changes happen in the facility, including anytime you bring in new equipment. “Start with a document review and then reassessment of your environmental monitoring program,” said Vernon.

April 18, 2023

Now is the Time to Reassess the Food Industry’s Approach to Managing Risk

By George Gansner

No Comments

The food industry is under intense scrutiny, with concerns about food safety and quality making headlines around the world. Today, the industry faces unprecedented challenges when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of the global food supply chain. Leaders need to manage known concerns such as foodborne pathogens, food fraud and contamination, as well as emerging challenges, including ingredient scarcity and changes in consumer preferences that have created the need to reformulate recipes quickly, source from new suppliers, and increase imports—all of which contribute to increased risks.

Due to climate change and shifting environmental factors we are seeing crop failures, and new bacteria and antimicrobial resistance to foodborne pathogens, which increase the cost of managing food safety. As consumers demand greater transparency and look to place more trust in the food chain, changing buyer habits further compound these challenges by putting a greater onus on food handling, production, manufacturing, and supply companies to provide more education to consumers about foodborne illnesses.

Recalls are the biggest threat to a brand’s profitability and reputation, and this threat is growing. According to FDA reports, recalls increased by 700% in 2022, with undeclared allergens being the leading cause for the last five years. The Food Safety Authority in the UK tells a similar story with undeclared allergens accounting for 84 of the 150 recalls last year, followed by salmonella, listeria, and foreign body contamination.

As food regulations become more complex to navigate, it is now essential to reassess the industry’s approach to managing risk. Protocols such as VACCP and TACCP are regularly used as part of a solid food defense program to identify risks. But the traditional approach of relying solely on regulations and compliance-based systems is no longer sufficient to ensure food safety in today’s complex, volatile and globalized food supply chains. Now is the time to implement a more holistic and dynamic risk-based approach to managing food safety more effectively.

What Is a Risk-Based Approach to Food Safety?

A risk-based approach allows the industry to proactively identify potential food safety risks and take appropriate measures to mitigate them, rather than simply responding to problems as they arise. For example, mature food businesses are building on food safety management systems with food safety audits to identify and manage risk to stay ahead of the curve. A risk-based approach helps underpin the continuous improvement process and, by doing so, demonstrates the ability of a company to be a trusted partner in the global food supply chain.

One of the key aspects of a risk-based approach to managing food safety is proactive intervention and control, using relevant data analysis stored in a cloud-based platform. All stakeholders need access to accurate and actionable data during risk assessment and management to make informed decisions. However, there are many barriers to accessing risk-related data for smaller operators, many of which are still working in a largely manual way.

Data must be collated from across the business, and multiple data sources need to be collected and appropriately analyzed to protect both the brand and public health. It is estimated that we are at least 10 years away from any type of interoperability of industry data, which will allow better transparency and visibility of risk across the supply chain.

Stay Ahead of Emerging Legislation

Visibility of the emerging legislation in source countries of ingredients and raw materials is critical, as are contingency sourcing plans and good risk analysis protocols. Food integrity needs to be a standing agenda point as part of internal meetings, and ESG policies need to be visibly delivered. The industry needs to ensure that it is aware of changes in regulations that could impact the safety and quality of its products through horizon scanning tools. There is also an onus on the industry to make its risk assessments more dynamic to incorporate change at a frequency that is appropriate for risk evaluation with effective crisis management plans in place.

Supply Chain Management Is Critical

Sourcing raw materials and ingredients across supply chains requires best practices. You must ensure that your supply chain partners and suppliers know how to manage a crisis and that emerging risks are shared across the supply chain. Quality, food safety, and regulatory divisions must actively participate in risk assessments and receive relevant data and communication. ESG policies also need to include the supply chain; leaders in this space need to be able to verify that these policies are delivering.

Marketing claims must be vetted and aligned with regulations and markets where products are sold. Procurement, supply chain and communication, and external partners such as NGOs and consumer associations are important groups to involve in risk profiling and ongoing management. While managing emerging issues and horizon scanning is critical, it is also important to remain vigilant on the basics, as most food safety and allergen incidents are known risks.

Detecting Food Fraud

Opportunistic food fraud cases are rising in the high food inflation market, with recent examples including everything from adulterated honey to the mislabeling of beef. To deter food fraud, businesses need to focus on risk-based auditing and testing through sampling programs. Knowing your supply chain, shopping around safely, being vigilant about ingredients and specifications, utilizing training, and building awareness and readiness are imperative to deter food fraud and create a culture of confidence and greater food safety.

Think Differently About Managing Risk

Now is the time for the food industry to reassess its approach to managing risk. A risk-based approach focusing on prevention, continuous improvement, and stakeholder collaboration is necessary to ensure a safe and secure food supply chain in an increasingly complex and challenging environment. The industry must prioritize data accessibility and accuracy, have a crisis management plan, be aware of emerging legislation, and include ESG policies in its risk management strategies. By focusing on risk-based auditing and testing, the industry can deter food fraud and create a culture of confidence.

The probability of eliminating all risks is very low, so the food industry must pivot and be agile to challenge the traditional approaches to managing food safety. It is time to think differently about managing risk and adopt new practices that promote prevention and collaboration.

April 11, 2023

Highlights from Food Safety Tech’s Hazards Conference

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

The Food Safety Tech’s Hazards Conference + CFI Think Tank “Industry & Academia Advancing Food Safety Practices, Technology and Research” took place April 3-5 in Columbus, Ohio. The event offered two days of practical education on the detection, mitigation, control and regulation of key food hazards, followed by discussion geared toward identifying gaps for research and innovation.

Sandra Eskin, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA FSIS, opened the program to discuss the agency’s proposed Salmonella in poultry framework. She highlighted the need for a more comprehensive approach that includes incentives to bring down the Salmonella load in birds entering the slaughterhouse, enhanced monitoring of safety measures within the facility, and enforceable product standards for raw poultry products.

Day one continued with a focus on Salmonella and Listeria. Barb Masters, VP of Regulatory Policy at Tyson Foods presented “Salmonella: What We’ve Learned and Remaining Gaps in Detection and Mitigation.” Masters highlighted key gaps in Salmonella detection, mitigation and research including:

Correlating what comes from the farm to what is entering a plant
Potential benefits of quantification testing
A better understanding of products that have the highest levels of Salmonella
Identification of virulence factors of different serotypes
The need for rapid testing methods that can be used at the plant level

Sanja Ilic, Ph.D., presented findings on the risks and most effective mitigation methods for listeria in hydroponic systems, followed by a session from Stacy Vernon, Ph.D., on recent listeria outbreaks in RTE meats and ice cream.

Attorneys Bill Marler, founder of Marler Clark, and Shawn Stevens of the Food Industry Counsel opened day two with an overview of the legal and financial risks of food safety hazards. The program continued with a focus on detection and mitigation of pathogens and biofilms.

Session Highlights

Application of Ozone for Decontamination of Fresh Produce with Al Baroudi, Ph.D., VP of Quality Assurance and Food Safety, The Cheesecake Factory, and Ahmed Yousef, Ph.D., Professor and Researcher with the Department of Food Science & Technology, OSU

Estimating Mycotoxin Exposure in Guatemala and Nigeria with Ariel Garsow, Ph.D., Food Safety Technical Specialist at the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN)

Mitigating the Risks of Salmonella and Listeria in Your Facility & Products with Sanjay Gummalla of the American Frozen Food Institute, and Rashmi Rani, Senior Manager of Food Safety and Quality Assurance, Schwan’s Foods

How to Use Whole Genome Sequencing in Operations To Improve Food Safety and Root Cause Analysis with Fabien Robert, Head of Zone AMS, Nestlé

Biofilm Prevention and Control Practices with Charles Giambrone, Food Safety Manager, Rochester Midland

On April 5, attendees joined the Ohio State University Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention (CFI), founded and directed by Barbara Kowalcyk, for its annual “Think Tank.” The program featured student research presentations and an “Einstein Lunch” that brought members of industry together with graduate students and OSU researchers to identify gaps in research in the areas of pathogen detection and mitigation, handwashing and mycotoxins.

“We’re hoping this is the first of future collaborations with CFI and Food Safety Tech, where we have industry and academia presenting together,” said Rick Biros, founder of Food Safety Tech, the Food Safety Consortium and the Food Safety Tech Hazards Conference series. “This is something I feel both academia and industry benefit from, and I look forward to working with Barbara and CFI in the future.”

“I learned a lot myself, and it was great to see this program come together,” said Kowalcyk. “I want to thank the presenters, attendees and all the people who worked behind the scenes to make this event happen.”