Ainsley Lawrence
Allergen Alley

Food Allergen Management in Manufacturing: Best Practices and Regulatory Compliance

By Ainsley Lawrence
No Comments
Ainsley Lawrence

Minimizing the risk of contamination is a must if you work in food manufacturing. Accidentally including allergens in your products can cause harm to consumers, undermine your brand image, and lead to hefty lawsuits.

Even major food industry brands like McDonald’s fall foul of food safety laws from time to time. Recently, a man with a dairy allergy was allegedly served cheese in his Big Mac1, resulting in anaphylactic shock. This caused a large lawsuit and could damage the global food giant’s reputation.

You can take steps to stay in line with regulations and best practices by training your staff and implementing proper procedures. This will reduce the risk of human error and help you produce food that is both tasty and safe for consumers.

Food Safety Modernization Act

Most people think of food contamination as a thing of the past. However, 1 in 6 Americans2 fell ill due to foodborne diseases last year. This led to 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths. The FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) seeks to end this issue by bringing food manufacturing standards into the modern age. This means you may need to revise your approach to manufacturing to stay on the right side of changing guidelines. At its core, the FSMA includes:

  • Preventive Controls for Human Foods: Since 2015, food manufacturers have been required to produce a food safety plan. This plan should include key details like potential hazards and risk-mitigation strategies that are currently in place.
  • Third-Party Accreditation: Receiving a third-party authentication can keep you up to date with changing guidelines. Similarly, only working with suppliers who have been verified via third parties who work to ISO/IEC standards ensures that allergens don’t enter your facility from suppliers.
  • Preventing Intentional Adulteration: No employer wants to believe that their employees would intentionally harm consumers — but it does happen. The FSMA ruling against intentional adulteration means that you can seek support from the intelligence community if you suspect that a stakeholder is intentionally contaminating your supply.

These FSMA regulations aren’t exhaustive and should be seen as the bare minimum. You’ll still need to take proactive steps to improve communication on the food plant floor3 and should implement policies like proper labeling to keep contaminants and allergens separated.

Proper Labeling

If you’re producing food for public consumption, you must properly label your food. Failing to declare that allergens may enter a certain product will land you in legal trouble and will put consumers at risk. Rather than risking an allergic reaction, follow FDA labeling guidelines4 which include:

  • Clearly labeling the eight major allergens (milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans).
  • Including the source name of foods (for example, the source name of whey is milk, meaning your label should include “whey (milk)”).
  • Provide advisory statements like “may contain [allergen]” and “produced in a facility that also uses [allergen].”
  • Conduct regular testing and monitoring of products and processes to ensure that allergens have not entered the batch.

Taking these steps minimizes the risk of labeling errors and protects consumers. This is particularly important if you want to produce a product that is specifically allergen-free (for example, gluten-free or dairy-free). Failing to declare ingredients properly puts consumers at risk and will land you in hot legal water.

Segregating Allergens

Managing potential allergens is crucial if you work in a food manufacturing plant that produces multiple products. Failing to properly segregate allergens undermines your labeling system and increases the risk of cross-contamination between workstations.

You can minimize the risk of allergens entering the system by using simulations to improve business processes5. Virtual simulations are capable of generating scenarios that you may not have thought of but are likely to occur. You can also use constructive simulations to visualize what might happen should an allergen make its way into the supply. This is particularly important when onboarding new employees who may not understand the risk that allergens present to the food production process.

You can also use emerging technology to improve production6 and reduce the risk of contamination. For example, as your firm grows, you may want to invest in AI and advanced robotics. Robotics can react quickly to changing demand and are less likely to inadvertently spread allergens throughout your supply. This is particularly important when carrying out repetitive tasks, like filling pre-packaged sandwiches or seasoning foods. Automated robots can take care of these mundane tasks, leaving human workers to focus on more creative tasks.

Some food manufacturers, like Walmart, are also using blockchain technology to trace and track contamination. This can improve your crisis management plan7 and bolster operational resilience. Your crisis management team leader can tap into tech to improve communications and simulate potential breaches. This will help you practice your crisis management plan and will ensure that you’re able to pinpoint errors to learn from in the future.

Sanitary food handling

Sanitation Procedures

Regularly sanitizing your workspace is crucial if you want to produce clean, allergen-free goods. This applies to your people, too, who may inadvertently bring allergens in with them when they arrive at work or move between stations.

However, you can’t expect regular handwashing to be enough. Instead, embrace the digital revolution and use data8 to clean up your production line. This will improve reporting and ensure that compliance guidelines are followed at all times. For example, if you suspect that your employees are not washing their hands thoroughly enough, you can use digital products to track employee handwashing and time folks while they apply hot, soapy water.

Digital tracking can also alert you to potentially unclean workstations. For example, if you work in a bakery and typically produce most of your dough before dawn, a digital program can track the contaminants that have entered the workspace in order to produce your bread or baked goods. This will alert you to potential allergen risks and ensure that any workstation that has used an ingredient like gluten is properly sanitized in a timely fashion.

Staff Training

Properly training your employees is key to minimizing contamination risk and staying on the right side of regulatory compliance laws. A proper approach to training will empower employees and help them understand the potential risks involved with food manufacturing.

However, proper training doesn’t mean that you should force your workers to sit through hours of PowerPoint. Instead, train smarter, not harder9 by conducting training that is:

  • Legitimate. Before asking folks to engage in further training, ask yourself whether or not you are qualified to speak on the subject. If not, consider bringing in a speaker who is well-respected in the food safety industry.
  • Authentic. Build a culture of trust and engagement at your workplace by working with speakers and programs that are accredited and up to date with compliance law. This will convince folks that your speakers are worth listening to and that your training programs are worth completing.
  • Engaging. Don’t force your employees to sit through lengthy seminars without an opportunity to engage. Instead, encourage participation by creating engaging training programs that help folks learn skills as they go.
  • Simplistic. Food safety can be complex. Cut through this complexity by giving folks simple, actionable steps to take. This will minimize the risk of folks forgetting your policies and will empower employees who want to improve safety at work.

These training principles are well-established in the food production and safety world. Even simple changes, like including a quiz or mock preparation test, will pique people’s interest and ensure that employees are engaged when receiving training. If you fail to run engaging, intelligent training, you put yourself at greater risk of contamination during production.

Conclusion

Following FDA guidelines should keep your consumers safe by minimizing the risk of an allergen entering your workspace. However, you’ll need to go above and beyond minimum requirements if you want to completely eliminate the risk of contamination. Get the ball rolling by embracing the digital revolution and using automation or robotics to handle more mundane tasks. This empowers employees and reduces the risk of human errors during production.

References:

  1. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-dairy-allergy-sues-mcdonalds-alleging-cheese-big-mac-caused-anaphy-rcna137252
  2. https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma
  3. https://foodsafetytech.com/column/improving-communication-on-the-food-plant-floor/
  4. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/food-allergies
  5. https://www.lucidchart.com/blog/business-process-simulation
  6. https://foodsafetytech.com/column/four-influential-technologies-changing-food-manufacturing/
  7. https://riskonnect.com/business-continuity-resilience/crisis-management-plan-create/
  8. https://foodsafetytech.com/column/managing-food-safety-testing-and-sanitation-data-should-be-easier/
  9. https://foodsafetytech.com/feature_article/train-smarter-not-harder-utilizing-effective-training-to-empower-employees/
Sayed M Naim Khalid

Understanding the Costs of Unsafe Food

By Sayed M Naim Khalid
No Comments
Sayed M Naim Khalid

Food is essential for human life, but ironically, it can also be a source of harm. Unsafe food, contaminated with pathogens or chemical hazards, is estimated to cause millions of illnesses and thousands of deaths globally each year. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 1 in 10 people get sick because of contaminated food and 420,000 people die due to foodborne illnesses every year around the world (WHO, Food Safety, 2022). However, the impact of unsafe food extends far beyond individual health, creating a significant financial burden on individuals, healthcare systems, and national economies.

Food safety is a critical issue that impacts both public health and the economy, especially in areas where there is not enough food, no clean water, open defecation, poor hygiene, lack of electricity and lack of cooling system, weak food safety education and loose regulatory systems. In addition to its impact on public health, food safety also affects economies, resulting in the cost of recalls, lost businesses, damaged reputations, lost lives, and lost working hours. Here, we explore the challenges that countries face in ensuring safe food and its economic impacts and the potential solutions to these challenges.

Financial Impact of Unsafe Food

The financial cost of unsafe food encompasses various direct and indirect expenses. These costs arise from both the immediate impacts of foodborne illnesses and the long-term consequences on public health, productivity, and economic well-being. Here are some key components of the financial cost of unsafe food:

Healthcare Costs:

    • Treatment Expenses: Individuals affected by foodborne illnesses often require medical attention, leading to costs associated with hospitalization, medication, doctor visits, and diagnostic tests.
    • Emergency Response: Public health agencies and emergency services may incur significant expenses in responding to outbreaks, conducting investigations, and implementing control measures.

Product Recalls and Market Loss:

    • Recall Costs: When contaminated or unsafe food products are identified, manufacturers may have to recall the products from the market. The costs associated with the retrieval, disposal, and destruction of the affected products can be substantial.
    • Market Loss: Companies may suffer financial losses due to the damage to their reputation and the decline in consumer trust, leading to reduced sales and market share.

Workforce Productivity Loss:

    • Absenteeism: Foodborne illnesses can lead to increased absenteeism in the workforce as employees may need time off to recover or seek medical treatment.
    • Reduced Productivity: Even employees who are present at work may experience reduced productivity due to illness-related fatigue and discomfort.

Government and Regulatory Costs:

    • Inspection and Enforcement: Governments invest resources in inspecting food production facilities, enforcing regulations, and monitoring compliance with food safety standards.
    • Legal Proceedings: Legal actions, such as lawsuits against companies responsible for unsafe food, can result in additional costs for both businesses and the legal system.

Insurance Costs:

    • Liability Insurance: Businesses in the food industry may face increased premiums for liability insurance to cover potential legal claims resulting from foodborne illnesses.
    • Product Recall Insurance: Companies may also invest in product recall insurance to mitigate the financial impact of recalling unsafe products.

Loss of Trade and Tourism:

    • International Trade: Countries exporting food products may face trade restrictions and bans if their products are associated with safety concerns, resulting in economic losses.
    • Tourism: Foodborne illness outbreaks can negatively impact the tourism industry if destinations are perceived as unsafe.

Long-term Health Costs:

    • Chronic Health Conditions: Some foodborne illnesses can lead to chronic health conditions, imposing ongoing healthcare costs and reducing individuals’ long-term productivity.

Nurse with syringe

The most immediate financial impact of unsafe food is incurred through direct medical expenses associated with treating foodborne illnesses. These costs encompass doctor visits, hospital stays, medications, and laboratory tests. A 2018 World Bank study estimated that foodborne illnesses cost low- and middle-income countries around $110 billion annually in medical expenses alone. In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates the annual cost of foodborne illnesses at $78 billion, with hospitalizations accounting for a significant portion.

Recalls can result in significant financial losses for food producers and retailers. For example, in 2006, a spinach contaminated with E. coli recall cost the industry $350 million (Kudashkina, Corradini, Thirunathan, Yada, & Fraser, 2022). In developing countries, where food safety regulations may be weak or nonexistent, the cost of recalls can be even higher, as the risk of contamination and outbreaks is greater.

Indirect costs include lost business and damaged reputations. In 2017, a listeria outbreak in South Africa linked to processed meat products resulted in the closure of several food processing plants, leading to job losses and economic damage to the industry and the deaths of 216 people (Tchatchouang, et al., 2020). Similarly, in 2011, an E. coli outbreak linked to sprouts in Germany led to a significant decline in demand for sprouts across Europe, resulting in lost revenue for farmers and producers (Buchholz, Bernard, Werber, Böhmer, & Remschmidt, 2011).

Beyond direct medical expenses, unsafe food leads to significant indirect costs for the consumer through lost productivity. Individuals suffering from foodborne illnesses miss work or school, leading to lost wages and reduced economic output. Additionally, families may incur childcare costs or lost productivity due to caring for sick individuals. The CDC estimates that lost productivity due to foodborne illnesses costs the U.S. economy around $55 billion annually.

Disproportionate Burden on Vulnerable Populations

It is crucial to recognize that the financial burden of unsafe food is not evenly distributed. Low- and middle-income countries are disproportionately affected due to limited access to clean water, sanitation, and robust food safety regulations. Children, pregnant women, and the elderly are also more vulnerable to foodborne illnesses due to weaker immune systems. This unequal impact exacerbates existing inequalities and hinders economic development in vulnerable communities.

Challenges for Developing Countries

One of the most significant challenges in developing countries is the lack of access to clean water. According to WHO, in 2020 only 74% the global population had safe water (Bhagwat, 2019; WHO, Drinking Water, 2022), which is essential for maintaining proper hygiene and preventing the spread of foodborne illnesses (Marino, 2007). In many countries, access to clean water is limited and this accounts for around 282 million people, and around 368 million people may be forced to rely on contaminated or unprotected water sources, such as rivers or wells (WHO, Drinking Water, 2022). This can lead to the contamination of food products, as people may use contaminated water to irrigate crops, wash fruits and vegetables, or clean utensils.

Water faucets

Another challenge is the lack of access to electricity and cooling systems (Vipham, Chaves, & Trinetta, 2018), which makes it difficult to store and preserve food products. In many developing countries, electricity is not available in rural areas, and people may not have access to refrigeration or other cooling systems. This can lead to the spoilage of food products, which can cause foodborne illnesses (CDC, 2022) and result in economic losses for consumers, farmers and producers because food that requires refrigeration or freezing has to be thrown away after four hours if not kept at the recommended temperature (USDA, 2021).

Poor food safety education and regulatory systems are also significant challenges in various countries (Medeiros, Hillers, Kendall, & Mason, 2001). Many people in these countries may not be aware of the risks associated with consuming contaminated food or how to prevent foodborne illnesses. Additionally, regulatory systems may be weak or nonexistent, and food products may not be adequately monitored or tested for contaminants or pathogens. In addition, regulatory system costs cannot be prioritized over other pressing issues in many countries. The cost of food safety regulation can be between 4% and 20% per half kg of food (Ollinger & Moore, 2009).

In addition to the financial costs, food safety issues in developing countries can also result in lost lives and lost working hours. Based on WHO’s estimate globally there is $110 billion losses due in lost working hours and medical cost. Foodborne illnesses can cause severe illness and death, especially in vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly. Children carry 40% of the death burden from unsafe food (WHO, Food Safety, 2022).

Overcoming The Challenges

To address these challenges, a comprehensive integrated approach is needed that involves government, industry, and consumers. One potential solution is to improve access to clean water in rural areas. Governments can invest in water treatment facilities, establish regulations for the use of water sources in agriculture, and provide education and awareness campaigns on the importance of clean water for food safety.

Another potential solution is to promote the use of alternative cooling systems in areas where electricity is not available. This can include the use of solar-powered refrigerators or evaporative coolers, which can help to preserve food products and prevent spoilage. Governments and NGOs can also provide education and training on proper food storage and preservation techniques, such as canning or drying, to reduce food waste and improve food safety.

Solar panels

Another potential solution is to invest in food safety education and awareness campaigns. Governments, industry, and NGOs can work together to develop and implement educational programs on food safety such as proper handwashing, cooking, and storage techniques, and avoiding cross-contamination. These programs can be targeted at schools, community groups, and the general public to promote safe food practices and raise awareness of the risks associated with consuming contaminated food, and the importance of reporting illnesses to health authorities.

Another potential solution is to strengthen food safety regulations and monitoring systems in developing countries. Governments can establish and enforce regulations for food safety, including requirements for testing and monitoring of food products. They can also establish regulatory bodies responsible for overseeing the safety of the food supply, and provide training and resources to ensure that food producers and retailers comply with safety standards.

Finally, the promotion of sustainable agriculture practices can also contribute to food safety in developing countries. The use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture can contaminate food products and harm human health. Governments can promote the use of sustainable agriculture practices, such as organic farming, which reduces the use of harmful chemicals and promotes the use of natural fertilizers and pest control methods.

This review provides a broad overview of the financial cost of unsafe food. Further research is needed to:

  • Refine cost estimates to better understand the true economic burden of unsafe food in different regions and demographics.
  • Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different prevention and intervention strategies.
  • Develop innovative financing mechanisms to support improved food safety measures in low- and middle-income countries.
  • Investigate the link between unsafe food and malnutrition, considering the broader economic and social costs.

Unsafe food poses a significant and multifaceted financial burden on individuals, healthcare systems, and national economies. While the direct costs associated with medical treatment are substantial, the indirect costs of lost productivity and broader economic consequences create an even greater financial strain. By recognizing the disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations, continuing research and implementing proactive measures, we can build a safer, more sustainable, and economically sound food system for everyone.

References:

Bhagwat, V. (2019). Safety of Water Used in Food Production. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-816333-7.00009-6

Buchholz, U., Bernard, H., Werber, D., Böhmer, M., & Remschmidt, C. (2011). German Outbreak of Escherichia coli O104:H4 Associated with Sprouts. New England Journal of Medicine, 365, 1763-1770.

CDC. (2022, October 27). Food Safety for Power Outages. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/food-safety-during-a-power-outage.html#:~:text=Never%20taste%20food%20to%20determine,odor%2C%20color%2C%20or%20texture.

Kudashkina, K., Corradini, M., Thirunathan, P., Yada, R., & Fraser, E. (2022). Artificial Intelligence technology in food safety: A behavioral approach. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 123, 376-381.

Marino, D. (2007). Water and Food Safety in the Developing World: Global Implications for Health and Nutrition of Infants and Young Children. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietitics, 107(11), 1930-1934.

Medeiros, L., Hillers, V., Kendall, P., & Mason, A. (2001). Food safety education: what should we be teaching to consumers? Journal of Nutrition Education, 33(2), 108-103. doi:10.1016/s1499-4046(06)60174-7

Ollinger, M., & Moore, D. (2009). The Direct and Indirect Costs of Food-Safety Regulation. Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(2), 247-265.

Tchatchouang, C.-D., Fri, J., Santi, M., Brandi, G., Schiavano, G., Amagliani, G., & Ateba, C. (2020). Listeriosis Outbreak in South Africa: A Comparative Analysis with Previously Reported Cases Worldwide. Microorganisms, 8(1), 18.

USDA. (2021, August 18). Avoid Foodborne Illness During Temporary Power Outages. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2021/08/18/avoid-foodborne-illness-during-temporary-power-outages

Vipham, J., Chaves, B., & Trinetta, V. (2018). Mind the gaps: how can food safety gaps be addressed in developing nations? Animal Frontiers, 8(4), 16–25.

WHO. (2022, March 21). Drinking Water. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drinking-water

WHO. (2022). Food Safety. Geneva: World Health Organization.

 

Ainsley Lawrence

Implementing Traceability Systems in Restaurants

By Ainsley Lawrence
1 Comment
Ainsley Lawrence

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one in six Americans fall ill after consuming contaminated food or beverages, resulting in approximately 3,000 fatalities from foodborne illnesses per year. This highlights the critical need for restaurant traceability systems to ensure food safety and maintain quality standards. Without proper transparency, it becomes difficult to identify the source of contamination and take necessary actions to prevent the spread of foodborne illness.

The Benefits of Traceability Systems

The primary reason restaurants implement traceability systems is to prevent the spread of foodborne illnesses. Traceability enables swift identification and removal of contaminated products from the supply chain.

Through detailed tracking of food production processes, including sourcing, processing, and distribution, traceability allows for targeted recalls, preventing the spread of harmful pathogens and ensuring consumer protection. Additionally, this system facilitates accountability among food producers, encourages adherence to stringent safety standards, and fosters trust and confidence in the food industry.

By tracking the origin of every ingredient and monitoring its handling and storage conditions, restaurants can ensure that all their products meet set quality criteria. This can include freshness, nutritional value, and sensory characteristics.

Effective Internal Communication

Traceability systems also allow for more effective communication within a restaurant’s internal organization. Using digital communication tools such as electronic logging devices (ELDS) and connected cameras, employees and managers can coordinate tasks efficiently and oversee global teams. These tools also offer real-time footage of food production processes, serving as visual records for audits. Efficient communication ensures all employees are adequately trained in technical processes, reducing the risk of errors, and boosting confidence in the system. Consequently, the establishment is better equipped to provide exceptional customer service, as they can pinpoint where ingredients or foods are in the distribution and production process.

Promoting Transparency

With the rise of food allergies and dietary restrictions, people want to know what ingredients are in their food and where they come from. Traceability enables precise identification of allergens by tracing the journey of ingredients from their source to the final product, allowing for accurate labeling and risk assessment.

For instance, a bakery can use traceability to track the origin of nuts used in its products, ensuring thorough allergen labeling and preventing cross-contamination for customers with nut allergies. This attention to detail helps to build trust and transparency with customers, who can then make informed decisions about what they consume.

These benefits make traceability systems an essential tool for restaurants looking to maintain food safety and quality standards while meeting consumer demands for accountability in the food industry.

Challenges in Implementing Traceability Systems

While applying traceability systems can significantly benefit restaurants, there are some hurdles that the food industry faces in maintaining them. This is why food industries need to implement food management systems to overcome challenges such as:

  • Cost: Implementing traceability systems can be costly, especially for small businesses. Audits, preparations, and maintenance require financial resources that may not always be readily available.
  • Keeping up with standards: The food industry must comply with various standards and regulations, which can be challenging for restaurants. Some standard guidelines include the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), which have strict requirements for record-keeping, documentation, and reporting.
  • Resistance to change: Many restaurants still rely on traditional manual processes for tracking and record-keeping, making it difficult to transition to automated systems. This may be due to a lack of awareness or reluctance to change ingrained practices that have existed for a long time.
  • Technical challenges: Some individuals may be intimidated by new technology, making implementation and training complex. Lack of technical support can cause confusion in understanding new systems, and resistance to digital tools.

Despite these obstacles, the benefits of traceability systems make it essential for foodservice businesses to address these challenges and ensure they meet current standards and regulatory requirements. Following are some of the key technologies to investigate as you work to a more effective traceability system.

Tools To Enhance Traceability

Smart Labeling Solutions. Smart labeling systems use data matrix codes or RFID technology to monitor products throughout the supply chain. The codes can be scanned at various checkpoints, providing real-time data on the product’s location and condition. This improves data collection, reduces human error, and enhances security by ensuring only authorized personnel handle the products.

Smart labels also enable restaurants to provide customers with detailed information about their food, such as allergens and nutritional content, promoting transparency and trust. Product tracing can also lessen restaurant product recall costs, as the affected products can be quickly identified and contained.

IoT Asset Tracking. The Internet of Things (IoT) technology can aid in safe distribution, visibility, and reliability in restaurants. Through vendor compliance monitoring, damage detection, theft reduction, and spoilage detection, IoT can enhance data collection and help prevent food safety issues. This technology also enables real-time monitoring of products’ temperature and conditions during transportation, reducing the risk of spoilage or contamination. Moreover, close monitoring of these conditions makes it easier to identify and address any guidelines or compliance violations.

With advanced technology, effective processes, and a focus on disclosing accurate information, restaurants can implement more effective traceability systems to meet consumer demands and encourage confidence in the food industry.

Thomas Moore

Increase Food Production Efficiency Through Predictive Maintenance

By Thomas Moore
No Comments
Thomas Moore

In the food production industry, being efficient is not just a goal, it is essential for success. Operations that produce top-quality products at the lowest costs come out on top. One key to staying efficient is cross training production workers and making sure they’re skilled in operating various machines. This way, anyone can step in to keep things running smoothly, avoiding costly delays. Another important strategy is using predictive maintenance to keep equipment in good shape and prevent unexpected breakdowns. This approach helps avoid interruptions and keeps production lines moving efficiently. This article will explore how predictive maintenance can enhance efficiency across food production operations.

Reactive, Preventive & Predictive Maintenance Practices

Predictive maintenance represents a significant leap beyond traditional reactive and preventive maintenance practices. Instead of waiting for something to break down (reactive maintenance) or just checking machines on a regular maintenance schedule (preventive maintenance), predictive maintenance uses data to predict equipment failures before they happen. For example, ultrasonic monitoring can detect changes in bearing conditions; oil analysis evaluates lubricants to monitor the condition of gear systems, compressors, bearings, and other components; thermal infrared scanning can identify overheating electrical components; and vibration analysis can predict mechanical failures. These asset condition-monitoring diagnostics, when combined, provide a comprehensive view of equipment health.

Imagine if you could do a blood test that not only tells you what’s currently wrong but also predicts potential health issues before they become serious. Predictive maintenance in the factory setting works much like this advanced blood analysis, but for machinery. Just as a blood test can reveal hidden health issues by looking at various markers and indicators, predictive maintenance tools act as the diagnostics for machinery health. Ultrasonic testing, oil analysis, thermal infrared scans, and vibration analysis provide a detailed insight into the equipment’s condition, catching the smallest signs of wear and potential risks of malfunction. This allows maintenance teams to intervene early, ensuring that the machinery keeps operating smoothly without unexpected and costly downtimes.

Starting a Predictive Maintenance Program in Food Production

To effectively launch a predictive maintenance program within food production, consider this tailored approach:

  • Assess Current Maintenance Practices: Review existing maintenance activities, focusing on their effectiveness and areas where predictive insights could reduce failures and inefficiencies.
  • Set Clear Objectives: Establish goals specifically for predictive maintenance, such as minimizing unplanned downtime, predicting and preventing equipment failures, and optimizing maintenance costs. Ensure these goals align with overall business objectives.
  • Gather and Analyze Equipment Data: Collect detailed data on equipment performance, including historical maintenance records and operational data. This information will serve as the foundation for developing predictive models.
  • Implement Condition-Based Monitoring: Deploy appropriate monitoring technologies (like ultrasonic and thermal infrared scanning) that align with your equipment’s specific needs. Use these tools to continuously monitor equipment health and predict potential failures.
  • Develop a Predictive Maintenance Schedule: Utilize data and insights obtained from condition-based monitoring to schedule maintenance activities proactively, before failures are likely to occur.
  • Train Your Team: Provide specialized training for both maintenance and production teams on predictive maintenance techniques and the interpretation of data insights. This ensures they can effectively respond to predictive alerts and maintain equipment reliability.
  • Monitor, Evaluate, and Adjust: Regularly assess the effectiveness of the predictive maintenance program, comparing actual outcomes against your objectives. Adjust strategies and techniques as needed to continuously improve maintenance efficiency and equipment performance.

Maximizing Efficiency and Reliability Through Predictive Maintenance

The success of a predictive maintenance program relies on the expertise and skills of the maintenance team. Essential training in predictive maintenance techniques and the proficient use of diagnostic tools equip maintenance personnel to preemptively identify and address equipment issues. Cross-training further empowers the team, enabling them to manage a wide range of equipment challenges, significantly enhancing the program’s overall effectiveness.

Shifting our focus to predictive maintenance in food production operations marks a significant step towards enhancing asset reliability and extending the life of machinery. This approach steers clear of the risks associated with running equipment to failure, promoting a more sustainable and efficient operational model. The financial advantages of adopting predictive maintenance are plentiful and include:

  • Reduced downtime costs: Keeping production lines running smoothly ensures steady revenue.
  • Decreased maintenance expenses: Early identification and rectification of issues prevent costly repairs and replacements.
  • Longer equipment life: Routine, data-driven maintenance prolongs machinery usability, delaying expensive capital investments.
  • Enhanced energy efficiency: Equipment in optimal condition operates more efficiently, lowering energy consumption and costs.
  • Improved order fulfillment: Predictive maintenance minimizes unexpected downtime, ensuring smoother production flow and timely delivery of orders to meet demand.

Implementing predictive maintenance practices ensures continuous, high-quality production while cultivating a maintenance culture focused on reliability, cost savings, and operational excellence. This approach allows businesses to optimize the value and longevity of their equipment assets and enhance efficiency across food production operations.

Matthew Taylor

Are You Ready? Preparing for FSMA 204

By Matthew Taylor
No Comments
Matthew Taylor

With millions of people in the U.S. getting sick each year from foodborne illness, the FDA is continuing to transform the nation’s food safety system with more stringent rules and regulations. In 2011, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law, and consequently, several rules have been finalized to implement the act and ensure food safety across different points in the global supply chain.

The FDA’s Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods, also known as the Food Traceability Final Rule or FSMA 204, establishes additional recordkeeping requirements for entities that manufacture, process, pack or hold foods on the Food Traceability List. The list includes specific foods, such as specific cheeses, eggs, cucumbers, herbs, leafy greens and more, for which extra recordkeeping requirements are reasonable and necessary to protect public health.

The rule was finalized by the FDA on November 15, 2022. It will be enforced beginning January 20, 2026, with routine inspections anticipated to start in 2027, meaning businesses must prepare now to comply with the new requirements.

The goals are to identify and remove potentially contaminated food from the market more quickly, and as a result, prevent the spread of foodborne illnesses and/or fatalities.

Understanding the Food Traceability List

The FDA’s identified foods can be found on the Food Traceability List (FTL). FSMA 204 uses an established set of metrics known as Key Data Elements (KDEs) that relate to various supply chain occurrences known as Critical Tracking Occurrences (CTEs). The CTEs are:

  • Harvesting
  • Cooling
  • Initial Packing (applies to Raw Agricultural Commodities not obtained from a fishing vessel)
  • First Land-Based Receiver (applies only to seafood)
  • Shipping
  • Receiving
  • Transformation

If an entity uses any of the above CTEs for any food on the FTL, as well as food that uses an ingredient that remains in the same form (e.g. fresh) on the list, it must comply with the additional recordkeeping requirements.

Preparing for FSMA 204

FSMA 204 became operative in January 2023, 60 days after the publication of the final rule in November 2022. While businesses have three years to become fully compliant (until January 20, 2026), starting the process early is highly recommended as several of the requirements, such as having an established food traceability system, take both time and effort. Meeting the deadline can be extremely challenging if preparations are put off until just before the compliance date.

To prepare for FSMA 204, first, take the time to thoroughly review and understand the rule. Carefully read through the FTL and its overview of ingredients and finished products. Then, make sure that you understand any exemptions that apply to your business.

The next step should be to consult the FDA’s reference guide on CTEs and KDEs to determine which KDEs you must record. Various sets of KDEs may need to be recorded depending on your specific business activities. For example, a food processor could fall under the categories of receiver, transformer, and shipper since it physically acquires products from a supplier, then combines, repackages, relabels, or otherwise transforms the food before shipping it to clients.

In addition to capturing the KDEs, businesses should:

  • Create and maintain a traceability plan.
  • Maintain records in the form of either the original printed records, electronic records, or true copies. (Records must be legible and stored to prevent loss or deterioration.)
  • Ensure traceability records are sent to the FDA within 24 hours of their request (or within a reasonable time to which the FDA has agreed), including any information required to comprehend the data or records. When required to assist during an outbreak, recall or other public health danger, you must deliver an electronic sortable spreadsheet containing pertinent traceability data to the FDA within 24 hours of a request (or within a reasonable timeframe to which the FDA has consented).

Traceability Plan Must-Haves

The food traceability plan should include all procedures used to maintain traceability records, including detailing the format and location of these records in the business. It should also include procedures used to identify foods on the FTL and the subsequent CTEs.

Other key items to include are a process on how traceability lot codes are assigned, points of contact for questions on the traceability system and its records, and supporting documents such as a farm map that indicates the location of the growers or raisers of the food on the FTL (other than eggs). The map must include the position and name of each field or growing area, as well as other details required to pinpoint the sites. 

Next Steps

Preparing for FSMA 204 and meeting the requirements can be overwhelming. Several third-party organizations are offering support services. Additionally, the FDA has several resources located on its website, including Frequently Asked Questions, a webinar recording and more.

For businesses unsure about how the rule applies to them and their products, NSF offers an Initial Scoping Workshop that includes a virtual session, which involves reviewing the ingredients and finished products compared to the FTL, a document check (e.g. of the traceability plan), confirmation that all relevant stakeholders have been captured, and access to a video recording explaining the principles of FSMA 204’s traceability requirements. A recommendation will also be made if a FSMA 204 Readiness Assessment is needed.

Businesses who already know their products fall under the FTL can opt to start with a full FSMA 204 Readiness Assessment, which ensures you have taken all the steps necessary and helps you identify any corrective actions/controls needed to ensure compliance with the rule.

Effectively communicating the food traceability plan and coaching supply chain partners on new processes is a critical component to meeting compliance. Label harmonization must be completed to properly track and secure the required information from suppliers.

Though paper records are permitted under the rule, businesses should consider leveraging technology to assist them with complying with the requirements. Consider investing in a platform that can automate data gathering and securely save information so it can be easily retrieved if needed. On-demand traceback and trace forward features are especially important, as in the event of an investigation or recall, immediate product tracing capabilities are essential.

While FSMA 204 will require entities across the food industry to comply with the new requirements, it will contribute to a stronger and more resilient global food supply chain.

David Hatch

Food Safety Risk Assessments are “Data Hungry”

By David Hatch
No Comments
David Hatch

This past year, I was invited to participate in a risk assessment workshop led by a third-party consultant at a food safety event. During my 30+ year career, I have been through many different types of risk assessments across several industry segments. I have been a participant seeking to define and address risk at my own organization, as well as a consultant helping my clients perform their own risk assessments. Each time I experienced a risk assessment exercise, I learned something new, and this time was no different. The key learning for me in this case is encapsulated in the title of this blog: Food Safety Risk Assessments are “Data Hungry.”

What Does This Mean?

As we went through the workshop exercise, we explored the elements of risk. Specifically, risk is defined as a combination of three factors: Is something POSSIBLE, how PROBABLE is it to occur, and what is the potential SEVERITY if it were to occur?

  • The first element is a yes or no question. Anything that can possibly happen should be included in the assessment.
  • The second element, probability, is measured on a scale. In our exercise, we assigned probability to a scale of 1–5 (least to most probable). A subset of probability is the expected frequency. This is a tricky one. If something has been occurring over time, then the frequency is known and can be easily factored into the probability scale. If it is a newly discovered issue, then “expected frequency” becomes an exercise in guesswork — one that must be refined over time. In our exercise, frequency was measured on a scale of 1–5 (least to most frequent).
  • For the third element, severity, we also used a 1–5 scale (least to most severe).

The room then proceeded to use these elements and measurement techniques to assess risk across 10 different scenarios. These included descriptions of foodborne illness, food safety testing outcomes, discovery of allergens, labelling mishaps, chemical contamination, food fraud, supply chain disruptions, and other risks.

The risk assessment included a worksheet laid out as a table, where each scenario could be prioritized and scored according to the risk measurement elements (Figure 1).

Example Risk Scoring Table]
Figure 1: Example Risk Scoring Table

The room was divided into three teams, and each was asked to prioritize the various scenarios in order of highest to lowest risk. Each group completed this task, and here is where things got interesting — each team had different results!

As shown in the example table, a lower priority may yield a risk score above that of something that was originally considered a higher priority. Each team’s tables looked significantly different from the others. To be clear, these were not strangers performing the exercise with no knowledge of each other’s priorities. In fact, the three teams comprised the global food safety leadership of one company — yet each team seemed to have very different ideas on risk prioritization. This unexpected result caused some lively discussion; meanwhile, the consultant leading the exercise was the only one in the room who was not surprised at all by the results. Here’s why:

There was one more factor to consider — one that was on the minds of each team, but not openly expressed as a factor for prioritizing risk: The TYPE of risk.

The consultant then asked the room to describe what type of risk they were thinking about from the following four categories:

  • Public Health
  • Reputation
  • Regulatory
  • Business Operations

The room concluded that the type of risk had a significant impact on how the risk was originally prioritized. Each team had set out their prioritization criteria based on a preconceived risk category, and it turned out that each team’s selected category was different. Depending on which of the four risk types or objectives was dominant, a different prioritization and risk scoring resulted.

This is where the “data hungry” concept factors in. The final analysis revealed that a risk scoring exercise conducted in this manner is capable of yielding only a “perceived risk” score. While perception is a good start, an actionable risk assessment should be based on actual outcomes and experiences. The availability of real-world data, collected over time, has a dramatic impact on validating perceptions.

For example, the availability of pathogen testing diagnostic data, along with the probability, frequency, and likeliness of occurrences, would allow a risk assessment score to be based on a historical trend, rather than a perceived level of frequency and probability. A risk assessment exercise would be informed by the data, and a score of 1–5 could be applied with far more confidence.

Data, in the words of one of the participants, “removes the guesswork and assumptions” within a risk assessment. I learned that data is the necessary element to transform risk perception into risk knowledge. While it is useful to perform a risk assessment based on perceived scoring and prioritization, it is essential that a risk assessment be validated with real data.

Emily Newton, Revolutionized Magazine

5 Ways to Harness IoT for Next-Gen Cold Storage Monitoring

No Comments
Emily Newton, Revolutionized Magazine

Inefficiencies and lack of oversight in cold storage monitoring of food can lead to product spoilage, high repair costs, and contamination concerns. The solution to many of these issues is to gain more visibility and control over these processes, and this is precisely what the Internet of Things (IoT) provides. Following are five ways food businesses can use IoT technology to improve their cold storage monitoring.

1. Accelerate Emergency Response

One of the best ways to use the IoT in the cold chain is to monitor refrigerated shipments in real time. IoT sensors can track a product’s condition, location, and temperature as it travels and alert relevant stakeholders when any of these factors deviate from expected or required levels. These notifications enable faster responses to mitigate unexpected disruptions.

Broken refrigeration units are an excellent example. IoT sensors can alert drivers and other supply chain partners when a shipment’s temperature has risen too much. Drivers can then adjust their route to temporarily store the items somewhere nearby while they address the issue, preventing spoilage in transit.

Immediate responses like this could help reduce the 30% to 40% of food that goes to waste in the U.S. Over time, data from this real-time monitoring may also reveal larger trends indicating the need to upgrade some equipment or reorganize supply chains.

2. Improve Long-Term Equipment Maintenance

Equipment maintenance is another ideal use case for IoT in cold storage monitoring. Refrigeration units in vehicles or warehouses benefit from real time alerts as well as long-term data analysis.

IoT sensors can analyze repeated repair issues to diagnose refrigeration equipment with larger underlying issues, informing more effective fixes. They can also alert organizations when it’s time to inspect or upgrade equipment. That is particularly important for refrigerated buildings built before 2010, which likely use the now-banned R22 and require replacement.

Predictive maintenance is another popular application under this umbrella. This practice uses IoT sensors to predict future repair needs based on past trends and current data. By forming repair schedules around these predictions, businesses prevent breakdowns while minimizing maintenance-related downtime.

Cold storage manufacturing

3. Enhance Inventory Visibility

Food and beverage companies can use IoT systems to improve their inventory visibility. Up to 40% of food loss occurs between production and store shelves, often because of inefficient storage practices. More transparency is the solution.

IoT tracking solutions provide real-time data on the locations of products within a warehouse. They can also alert workers when items are nearing their expiration dates. With these insights, it becomes easier for companies to organize inventories and shipping schedules to prevent spoilage and product loss.

Storage facilities can use IoT monitoring to track temperatures throughout the warehouse as well. This data reveals if any spots are experiencing greater fluctuations in temperature or tend to be warmer than other areas. Brands can then address their refrigeration and storage practices to ensure everything stays at ideal temperatures.

4. Streamline Shipment Routes

Businesses can use IoT to refine their in-transit operations. The same cold storage monitoring systems that track shipments can reveal larger logistics trends to spur supply chain optimization.

For example, refrigerated shipments are often delicate and/or have short life spans, making inefficient routes risky. Over time, IoT data will help by revealing where the most stops or slowdowns occur. Organizations can analyze this information to uncover new, more efficient or less disruption-prone routes for more timely deliveries.

These insights are particularly valuable for food and beverage companies with international supply chains. Cross-border routes with multiple charge offs will have more opportunities for optimization, making them ideal IoT use cases.

5. Minimize Energy Costs

IoT sensors in cold storage can also reduce power consumption. By responding to current data, smart devices provide more precise, adaptable controls over energy-consuming processes, letting them operate on as little energy as possible.

Smart HVAC systems are the most familiar example. IoT-connected AC units stop or trigger cooling systems in response to temperature fluctuations, preventing unnecessary energy expenditures. Consequently, consumer versions can save $50 a year in cooling costs and industrial-scale equipment could see even more significant savings.

IoT tracking solutions also reduce supply chain energy consumption through more efficient routing practices. Vehicles traveling for less time consume less fuel, leading to lower diesel costs and related emissions.

Refrigerated transportation and storage can be difficult to get right. Food and beverage companies must ensure this equipment is reliable, but doing so often involves high operational costs. IoT technologies can improve cold storage processes and uncover opportunities to enhance related workflows.

Implementing IoT technologies in cold storage monitoring will involve some initial disruption and upfront costs. However, the long-term savings can compensate for these upfront expenses. Businesses that take this challenge head-on today can secure a far more efficient future.

Prasant Prusty and Arundhathy Shabu

Foreign Material Contamination: Challenges and Management of Risks

By Arundhathy Shabu, Prasant Prusty
No Comments
Prasant Prusty and Arundhathy Shabu

Do you recollect the recall of nearly 250,000 pounds of a frozen chicken strips entree product due to a consumer discovering a piece of plastic in one of the chicken pieces, as announced by the USDA FSIS on September 2nd, 2023? Although food manufacturing facilities often implement diligent foreign material contaminant detection and control protocols, recalls due to foreign materials continue to happen. Therefore, it is critical for food businesses to understand the potential routes for foreign material contamination, analyze the challenges they bring, and employ a comprehensive approach to foreign material control and management, utilizing efficient methods to ensure consumer safety.

Origins of Foreign Material Contamination

The extraneous materials found in the food supply are defined by the FDA’s Food Defect Levels Handbook as “any foreign matter in a product associated with objectionable conditions or practices in production, storage, or distribution, including objectionable matter contributed by insects, rodents, and birds; decomposed material; and miscellaneous matter such as sand, soil, glass, rust, or other foreign substances.”

The origins of foreign substances found in food are commonly classified into five categories:

  • Unintentional introduction from the field (stones, metal, insects, unwanted plant material like thorns or wood, soil, or small animals).
  • Accidental inception during processing and handling (bone, glass, metal, wood, nuts, bolts, screening, cloth, grease, paint chips, rust, and similar items).
  • Substances that enter the food during distribution (insects, metals, soil, or stones).
  • Deliberate inclusion of materials in food (employee sabotage).
  • Miscellaneous materials, such as struvite and other similar substances.

Not all foreign materials make a food item unsafe, but they all can have a profound effect on consumer satisfaction, which can result in negative publicity and decreased sales and regulatory compliance.

Foreign Object Contamination Risks and Challenges

Foreign material contamination in the food supply chain presents significant risks including:

Consumer Health Risks. Consuming contaminated food can lead to injuries such as broken teeth, choking, internal injuries, or illness if the foreign material carries pathogens. These incidents can result in severe health consequences, including hospitalization or even death, depending on the nature of the contaminant and the sensitivity of the consumer.

Regulatory Compliance. Regulations enforced by governmental agencies require strict adherence to food safety standards, including contamination prevention measures. Failure to comply with these regulations can lead to fines, legal penalties, product recalls, and even business closure.

Supply Chain Disruption. Contamination incidents can disrupt the flow of products through the supply chain, leading to delays, shortages, and increased operational costs. These disruptions can ripple through the entire industry, affecting a multitude of stakeholders.

Damage to Brand Value. Foreign material contamination incidents can tarnish a company’s reputation and erode consumer trust. News of contaminated products spreads rapidly through traditional and social media channels, leading to negative publicity and brand damage.

Financial Losses. The costs associated with product recalls, legal settlements, and loss of sales revenue can be significant and have long-term implications for profitability and sustainability.

Despite understanding the significant risks associated with foreign object contamination, these events continue to occur. That is because there are significant challenges in preventing and detecting foreign materials in food products, such as:

Supply Chain Complexity. The modern food supply chain is highly interconnected, involving numerous stakeholders, including farmers, processors, distributors, retailers, and consumers. Each step in the supply chain opens doors for contamination, making it challenging to trace the source of foreign materials accurately.

Implementation of Preventive Measures. Establishing effective preventive measures to mitigate the risk of foreign material contamination requires collaboration, investment, and ongoing vigilance. Verification of the efficacy of the employed preventive actions is often overlooked, which may lead to recurring foreign material presence.

Addressing these challenges requires a coordinated effort across the entire supply chain, with a focus on proactive risk management, quality assurance, and continuous improvement. The fundamental point remains that foreign substances should not be present in food items and hence, processors must create, record, execute, and sustain foreign material control programs to tackle these challenges and guarantee the exclusion of such materials from both their products and procedures.

Prevention Strategies

A foreign material management program is a protocol established to avert, identify, and investigate occurrences of foreign impurities within any food processing or manufacturing facility. An effective foreign material control program should adopt a holistic framework, integrating components that assess potential risks throughout the supply chain and establish appropriate preventive and corrective measures against foreign contamination. Following are the three key components to an effective program.

  1. Risk Assessment & Management in Farming

Food manufacturers and ingredient producers, including farmers and agronomists, must understand the specific risks and proper handling procedures of their ingredients to ensure food safety. Risk assessment in agriculture involves identifying hazards and vulnerabilities that could introduce foreign materials throughout the farming process, from planting to post-harvest handling.

Examples of hazards include contaminated water or soil, improper pesticide handling, inadequate pest control, and poor sanitation practices. Risk management involves scrutinizing farming operations to eliminate points of entry for foreign materials. Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) are crucial for controlling food safety hazards and are categorized into eleven segments, covering various aspects of farming practices. Compliance with GAP standards helps minimize the risk of contamination throughout the production process.

  1. Risk Assessment & Management in Receiving, Storage, and Transportation

In the context of receiving, storage, and transportation, the identification of potential sources of contamination is essential, with bulk shipments presenting significant challenges due to their susceptibility to foreign material introduction. Hazards during these stages can arise from various factors, including handling and environmental conditions.

Supplier approval programs serve to both ensure product safety and mitigate foreign material contamination risks. These programs primarily involve assessing suppliers’ food safety measures, including protocols for food handling and foreign object detection. Buyers can enforce measures such as sieving, screening, or employing metal detectors or X-ray machines before packaging, which should be specified in purchasing agreements. Effective risk management strategies involve thorough supplier verification and monitoring processes to ensure adherence to quality standards and practices. Intervention strategies, such as specific protocols for bulk deliveries, and communication with suppliers are required to prevent and address contamination issues promptly.

  1. Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)

Good Manufacturing Processes are defined by regulatory agencies and developed to ensure that products are consistently produced following set quality standards. They cover multiple aspects of company operations that may allow for the introduction of foreign materials including:

Personnel. GMP dictates policies regarding attire and personal items for personnel involved in food processing, emphasizing the importance of verification programs to ensure the detectability of items within the processing environment.

Premises. Ensuring the proper condition and maintenance of the physical facility minimizes the risk of foreign material contamination. This includes regular upkeep and designated areas of operation to minimize the risk of cross-contamination. Effective waste management systems are also necessary to eliminate potential breeding grounds for contaminants.

Equipment Designing and Utensils. Equipment and utensils must be designed with materials resistant to shattering or splintering that feature smooth, non-porous surfaces for easy cleaning. Regular inspection and maintenance protocols are required to ensure equipment integrity and minimize the risk of foreign material contamination.

Preventive Maintenance. Preventive maintenance programs address equipment malfunctions before they pose a risk of contamination, with scheduled tasks tailored to the usage lifespan of different components. Timely replacement of parts is important to prevent failures that could compromise product safety.

Wood Control. Implementing a pallet management program helps prevent contamination from wooden pallets.

Glass and Brittle Plastic Controls. Food manufacturers are required to have a dedicated program for managing glass and brittle plastic as part of their GMP. This begins with establishing a policy prohibiting the presence or use of glass or ceramic objects in food processing areas or warehouses. A comprehensive inventory of all glass and brittle plastic items in food storage or handling areas, including their locations and protective measures, must be maintained.

Sanitation and Validation. Thorough cleaning and disinfection procedures are integral to maintaining sanitation standards, with validation processes to ensure the effectiveness of cleaning protocols. Comprehensive testing and verification are necessary and required to confirm the absence of contaminants.

Detection and Removal with Ongoing Surveillance. Various detection and removal methods, including sieves, electronic sorting, and centrifugation, can be employed to identify and eliminate foreign materials during processing. Collaboration with suppliers is key to optimizing detection equipment configurations and calibration, ensuring the removal of contaminants throughout the production process.

Innovative Approaches for Foreign Material Control

With technological advancements, innovative approaches have emerged to enhance foreign material detection and prevention processes. One such approach involves the use of advanced imaging technologies, such as X-ray inspection systems and metal detectors, which can identify foreign objects within food products. These systems utilize sophisticated algorithms to distinguish between desired food components and foreign materials, enabling manufacturers to detect contaminants with high precision. For example, X-ray inspection systems can detect metal, glass, plastic, and other dense foreign materials, while metal detectors are effective in identifying metallic contaminants.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithms has revolutionized foreign material control in the food industry. AI-powered systems can analyze vast amounts of data in real time to identify patterns and anomalies associated with foreign material contamination. This enables proactive detection and prevention measures, reducing the risk of foreign material incidents and product recalls.

For instance, AI algorithms can continuously monitor production lines for deviations from normal operating conditions and trigger alerts when potential contaminants are detected. Additionally, advancements in sensor technology, such as hyperspectral imaging and laser-based systems, offer enhanced sensitivity and specificity in detecting foreign materials, further improving food safety standards. Overall, these innovative approaches underscore the importance of leveraging technology to enhance foreign material control and uphold the highest standards of food safety in the industry.

By building and maintaining competent foreign material contamination management systems and incorporating new technologies, companies can safeguard product quality, protect consumers, and preserve brand reputation.

Collaboration Graphic

Proposed Collaborative for FSMA 204 Compliance Seeks Industry Support

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Collaboration Graphic

On Tuesday, January 20, 2026, the food industry will need to be compliant with FDA’s FSMA 204: Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods (aka, Food Traceability Final Rule). Compliance with the final rule will require adoption of new technologies and streamlined communication and record-keeping throughout the supply chain. To help ensure compliance and success in meeting the intent of the rule, Leavitt Partners and Acheson Group are working with FDA to create a public-private governing body for food traceability, based on the medical industry’s Partnership for DSCSA Governance (PDG).

Eric Marshall, Leavitt Partners
Eric Marshall

Founded in 2019, the PDG is a collaborative of pharmacy industry members working together to help the industry implement the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) and develop a sustainable, effective and efficient model for interoperable tracing and verification of prescription pharmaceuticals in the U.S.

“DSCSA and FSMA do have significant differences. For example, there are unique requirements for bar codes, serialization and electronic interoperability in the medical industry,” said Eric Marshall, Principal at Leavitt Partners and Executive Director of PDG. “But at the core, they have a lot of similarities and they both have the same goal from the government’s viewpoint: modernizing industry’s data and recordkeeping practices to create supply chain traceability that helps industry and government together react faster and more effectively to risks in our food and drug supply chains.”

Last month, Erik Mettler of FDA joined Marshall and Laura Brown of Leavitt Partners and Ben Miller and Eric Edmunds of the Acheson Group for an informational webinar on the proposed project.

Eric Edmunds, Acheson Group
Eric Edmunds

The goal of the public-private partnership is to:

  • Help industry decide how to meet the core issues of FSMA 204, so stakeholders are not wasting money on different technologies that others are not using or accepting
  • Bring together divergent industry groups working on disparate plans for getting to compliance and bring this work together into one cohesive vision
  • Ensure all sectors of the industry have a voice in the process
  • Provide a decision-making mechanism for those key components of compliance that require a shared view throughout the industry
  • Develop a coordinated plan and timeline to get from today to the compliance date
  • Develop core requirements to which commercial solution/software providers can build
  • Hold collaborative interactions with FDA
  • Create a shared IP (i.e. industry lookup directory) needed to achieve compliance

The vision for the collaborative is to create “an independent, sector-neutral forum for the industry to come together to jointly define a shared vision for enhancement of traceability,” said Edmunds.

Recognizing that the deadline for compliance is fast approaching, Leavitt Partners and Acheson Group are currently seeking industry members to act as part of a working group to finalize the operating structure of the organization, which they envision as encompassing a general membership tier with elected officers and board members, and multiple committees. Their goal is to organize the working group and define key organizational aspects of the collaborative by end of June; secure 35 members, form the legal entity and hold Board elections by end of July; and by the end of 2024 begin awareness and education campaigns, committee work and blueprint development, and establish the 2025 budget.

Learn more about Proposed Collaborative for FSMA 204 at the Food Safety Consortium Conference, October 20-22 in Washington DC. Join us in this panel discussion which will provide an update on the status of the governing body, why there is a need for an overarching blueprint to drive food traceability processes and standards, the value in identifying a shared industry infrastructure for food traceability – and how you can become involved. Both Eric Edmunds and Eric Marshall are the presenters.

2024 FSC animated banner

Felicity Kelly

Advances in Food Packaging Are Elevating Safety and Environmental Responsibility

By Felicity Kelly
No Comments
Felicity Kelly

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the field of packaging technology. New materials are changing the way the industry ensures food safety while also addressing environmental concerns surrounding start-of-life and end-of-life sustainability. From using innovative recyclable or compostable materials to ensuring sustainable packaging practices, these developments are reshaping the future of packaging.

Balancing Food Safety with Environmental Responsibility

Industry standards for food safety are vital to safeguard public health, but these standards should also consider environmental impact. Sustainable packaging practices, such as using renewable or recyclable packaging, help to minimize the industry’s carbon footprint and contribute to a healthier planet. Additionally, adopting sustainable packaging can enhance brand perception.

Traditional single-use food packaging materials have a significant impact on the environment. Single-use plastic packaging materials that are petroleum-based, in particular, pose a threat to wildlife and contribute to the large amount of waste ending up in our landfills.

Sustainable Packaging Designs and Materials

The environmental challenges of traditional food packaging materials have led to the development of renewable, recyclable, or compostable packaging options that adhere to strong food safety standards. Materials derived from renewable resources such as plant-based plastics and materials that break down more easily such as paper, are leading the sustainable packaging pack by utilizing renewable resources and reducing the overall impact of packaging waste on the environment. Other sustainable packaging materials include:

Wood pulp paper used to create sustainable takeaway cups, containers, plates, and bowls. As a renewable material, wood pulp paper is a good option for takeaway food packaging, as it is sturdy and lightweight and can be used in its undyed kraft brown form.

Sugarcane (Bagasse) is a renewable resource found in sugarcane after it has been crushed during processing to extract the sugar. Bagasse is a durable material, that is water and oil resistant. It can also be safely microwaved. Bagasse is also compostable under certain conditions.

Bamboo is a fast-growing species of plant that can be harvested without disrupting the root system or killing the plant and does not require any chemical intervention to promote growth, making it a good option for food packaging. Disposable cups made of bamboo are compostable under certain conditions, and bamboo can be lined with bioplastics such as cornstarch (also naturally derived from organic materials) to safely hold liquids.

Birchwood is a light, fine grained product that offers a smooth alternative to plastic disposable cutlery. When sourced from forests that are controlled, these materials have a sustainable start-of-life and are also compostable in certain conditions.

Another creative solution is edible packaging, where the food packaging is safe for consumption and can be consumed after use. This packaging not only reduces single-use waste but also adds a novel touch to the customer experience, providing a simple way for an establishment to stand out.

In addition to sustainability of the products themselves, advances in smart packaging technologies can reduce the amount of food waste entering landfill sites by extending shelf life. These include:

Intelligent packaging that incorporates sensors and indicators to provide real-time information on the condition of the food and alert consumers if the product has been exposed to conditions that lead to spoilage or contamination of the product.

Smart labels featuring NFC (Near Field Communication) or RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) to track the food product from producers to consumers.

Modified Atmosphere Packaging, which can modify the atmosphere inside the food packaging to extend shelf life by adjusting the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels to slow down food deterioration.

Active packaging systems that interact with the food products they contain by using moisture absorbers, oxygen scavengers, and antimicrobial agents to extend shelf life while maintaining freshness and quality.

Businesses that invest in sustainable food packaging materials made from renewable and/or compostable materials not only help reduce the amount of waste directed to our landfills but also help meet the growing customer demand for more sustainable products. Addressing the potential risks associated with inadequate packaging and embracing cutting-edge technologies has shown that the industry can improve food safety and quality, while prioritizing sustainability and contributing to a more promising future.