Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup cans on a shelf

Using Automated Vision Systems to Prevent Post-Process Contamination in Canned Goods

By Ellie Gabel
No Comments
Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup cans on a shelf

There is a heightened post-process contamination risk for canned goods, especially after sterilization, when mismanagement, equipment breakdowns and flawed packaging compromise product integrity by introducing pathogens and foreign materials. The most minor sanitation defects can cause food spoilage, foodborne illnesses and significant recall liability.

Canned goods manufacturers must uphold stringent protocols to comply with regulatory requirements and preserve consumer safety and trust. With more diverse inventory and packaging designs on the horizon, integrating automated vision systems is critical to ensure consistent quality.

What Are Automated Vision Systems? 

Automated vision systems use high-resolution cameras, sensor technology and artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor and assess products in real time. Traditionally, post-process contamination inspections relied on fatigued human operators, which resulted in inconsistencies and errors.

Also known as machine vision, these systems perform product analyses for long hours at a low expenditure. They deliver outcomes rapidly, detecting nuanced defects and contaminants that the human eye might miss, guaranteeing maximum efficiency and accuracy. Their adaptability is ideal for handling various container and packaging line formats.

Key Drivers for Adoption in the Food Industry

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and critical Food and Drug Administration guidelines are key drivers for adopting automated vision systems in canned goods manufacturing. The FSMA, especially, is a prevention-focused approach to food safety regulation throughout the supply chain. An emphasis on hazard analysis leaves facilities responsible for minimizing risks through proper identification and preventive control.

The food production industry has also endured labor shortages for several years, further incentivizing new technologies to fill in the gaps and alleviate supply chain pressures. Consumer demand for transparency and higher food quality standards is equally essential for automated visual system integration.

A recent National Sanitation Foundation Institute white paper found that 83% of American consumers read food labels, while 82% want more in-depth processing information. Utilizing this new technology can deliver on this expectation.

How Automated Vision Systems Prevent Post-Process Contamination

Automated vision systems prevent post-process contamination by looking for foreign objects — such as metals and biological materials — broken seals and incorrect labeling. The advanced cameras and machine learning algorithms capture images and insights about the product size, shape and characteristics, ensuring the precision of all information and packaging. In one study, the system’s detection capabilities achieved 97.88% and 88.75% efficiency and accuracy, respectively.

It also automates inspection data, enhances traceability and promotes regulatory compliance. The system’s exactness dramatically reduces human error for optimal quality assurance.

Implementation Considerations for Food Manufacturers

 

Canned goods manufacturing machinery must have flexible engineering, capable of rapid self-adjustment with minimal oversight, as it increasingly manages a mix of plastic, glass and aluminum containers. Lacking the proper equipment could result in product damage and reduced performance, hindering operations and customer satisfaction.

Implementing automated vision technology accommodates inspection parameters for various packaging types without manual recalibration. Their user-friendly interfaces streamline changeovers and support high-quality analysis, even with evolving packaging and stock-keeping units.

Comprehensive training is essential for deployment, so teams feel empowered to adapt to the new technology.  Ongoing maintenance is also necessary to avoid operational disruptions. Predictive maintenance uses advanced sensors with embedded algorithms to detect problems before they occur or worsen, enabling technicians to gain control of the situation and avoid lost labor and revenue.

ROI and Measurable Benefits

Canned goods manufacturers benefit from a strong return on investment through reduced food waste and avoided product recalls. Research shows that recalls cost between $3 million and $72.7 million per organization, depending on firm size and type.

Contamination prevention also reduces the likelihood of foodborne illnesses and associated medical costs. In 2018, food-related pathogens posed an economic burden of $17.6 billion, up 13% from 2013.

Other direct and indirect financial impacts of unsafe food include reduced workplace productivity and absenteeism among those seeking medical treatment, increased liability insurance, legal proceedings and widespread reputational damage.

Future Trends for AI, IoT and Advanced Imaging 

AI, the Internet of Things and predictive analytics are transforming automated vision systems, improving functionality for post-process contamination inspection. Advanced algorithms detect the most minor anomalies while packaging lines and regulatory standards become increasingly complex.

Adding edge computing has delivered more impressive results, although integrating it with legacy systems is challenging. Edge computing speeds up data processing, reduces latency and improves the digital security of sensitive information. These solutions are adaptive and learn new information on a decentralized network.

Machine vision cameras are also growing clearer and more precise. Zoom functions enable imaging from far distances and under varying lighting conditions, from inspection to sorting and processing. Likewise, event-based cameras react to motion in microseconds, eliminating blurring and adapting to brightness fluctuations.

Paving the Way for Safer, Smarter Canned Goods

Applying automated vision systems in canned goods manufacturing transforms how the industry addresses contamination risks with maximum efficiency. Investing in these solutions and prioritizing staff training enables seamless adoption and positions food processing plants for long-term expansion and innovation.

In the Food Lab

Shared Science for Shared Safety: Strategies for Pet and Human Food Safety

By Caitlin Karolenko, PhD, Wendelyn Jones, PhD
No Comments

Most people don’t think twice about pouring kibble into a pet’s bowl or tearing open a packet of crackers. Dry foods feel safe. They sit on shelves for months without spoiling, don’t require refrigeration, and look and smell unchanged long after initial purchase.

But “dry” does not mean risk-free. Pathogens such as Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes can survive in low-moisture environments for months or even years, and when contamination happens, the effects can be widespread. Whether the end consumer is a child snacking on peanut butter crackers or a dog chewing jerky treats, the hazards—and many of the prevention strategies—overlap far more than most realize. Understanding these connections can strengthen food safety across sectors, protecting both people and pets.

The connection between pets and humans is well documented, with many pets now viewed as part of the family. As a result, pet food is no longer an afterthought but is considered just as important as the food of human members of the household. With know-how on working with brick and mortar retailers, on-line shopping platforms and opportunities for increased positive brand positioning, it is not surprising the number of acquisitions of pet food companies by human food companies in recent years. Additional parallels from a processing and manufacturing perspective also reinforce the business case for the expansion of human food companies into pet food. Of note (and certainly not an exhaustive list), General Mills purchased Blue Buffalo in 2018, and Post Holdings entered the pet food market by acquiring several brands from J.M. Smucker in 2023. Additionally, Mars and Nestlé have sold both human food and pet food for decades.

Shared Risk: Low-Moisture Foods

Pet diets often include dry kibble, jerky treats, and freeze-dried or dehydrated proteins which are considered low-moisture foods (LMFs). LMFs are defined as those with a water activity below 0.85. While this level of available water prevents microbial growth, it does not eliminate pathogens once present. Instead, microorganisms can persist in a dormant state, becoming more resistant to heat and other stressors.

The most concerning hazards in LMFs are Salmonella, Cronobacter and Escherichia coli. (while less common Listeria monocytogenes is still a risk.) These hazards emphasize the risks associated with seemingly benign dry foods. Numerous outbreaks have been tied to LMFs in humans including Salmonella contamination in peanut butter, E. coli and Salmonella contamination in flour and Salmonella and Cronobacter concerns in dried spices and powdered milk respectively.

Despite their dry appearance, pet food products can provide a long-term refuge for pathogens. With both human and animal foods, contamination can occur at multiple stages: at the raw ingredient procurement steps, within processing environments, and after packaging during storage, distribution, or even in the household through improper handling. The microbial risks are not confined to one step but are woven into the very nature of LMFs themselves.

Regardless of whether discussing human food or pet food, pathogen contamination events can result from a variety of circumstances, such as the introduction of a pathogen:

  • Through a contaminated ingredient (e.g., at the beginning of the line or at an intermediate step when an ingredient is added)
  • Along the processing line where the product or its ingredients are exposed to the environment
  • Introduction of an environmental pathogen by personnel in the plant
  • Onto dry processing equipment through introduction of water (e.g., through condensation or a leaking roof).

The above list is a modification of FDA draft guidance for “Establishing Sanitation Programs for Low-Moisture Ready-to-Eat Human Foods…”– but it clearly applies to pet food (Link to source https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/draft-guidance-industry-establishing-sanitation-programs-low-moisture-ready-eat-human-foods-and).

In pet food, these contamination risks are not hypothetical.. In 2012, Salmonella contamination in dry dog food was linked to human illnesses in multiple states. More recently in 2021, several brands of pet food were recalled after more than 130 pet deaths and 220 illnesses were reported. And in August 2025, there was another recall of dog and cat food due to Salmonella and L. monocytogenes contamination. (https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/viva-raw-issues-voluntary-recall-two-lots-dog-cat-foods-due-salmonella-and-listeria-monocytogenes)

The risks extend beyond the pet’s health. A dog fed contaminated kibble may appear healthy yet shed Salmonella in its feces. Humans can then be exposed by touching pet food, handling bowls, or cleaning up after the pet. Children, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals are particularly at risk. Pet food contamination is not just a veterinary issue. It is a household food safety issue.

Overlap in Preventative Strategies

While human food and pet food are marketed and regulated differently, the science of prevention is strikingly similar. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) requires risk-based preventive controls for both human and animal foods. This alignment reflects an important reality: hazards in dry foods are not consumer-specific—they are science-specific. Whether the end user is a toddler eating cereal or a dog chewing on kibble, the microbial risks and the tools to mitigate them are shared.

Preventative strategies originally developed for human LMFs often have direct application in pet food. These include environmental monitoring programs to detect pathogens, dry sanitation practices to reduce the introduction of water which can inadvertently create microbial harborage sites, and kill-step validation to ensure that processes achieve the necessary lethality against resistant pathogens in low-moisture conditions.

Lessons learned in one sector often migrate to the other. Extrusion validation in pet food manufacturing now closely mirrors approaches in human snack and cereal production where thermal processing under low-moisture conditions must be validated for microbial control. Zone-based environmental monitoring is a long used best practice in human food facilities, and is increasingly standard in pet food plants to reduce cross-contamination between raw and finished product zones. Air handling strategies pioneered in dry dairy product facilities are also being adopted by pet treat producers, particularly those making freeze-dried or dehydrated products.

These parallels are not accidental. They reflect the simple fact that pathogens do not distinguish between crackers and kibble, peanut butter and pet treats. What matters is the environment in which the food is made and the rigor of the controls applied. The convergence of regulatory expectations, scientific insights, and industry practices highlights an important opportunity: when we strengthen safety systems for one type of dry food, we raise the standard for all.

A Connected Responsibility and Shared Interests

The overlap between microbial food safety in human low-moisture foods and pet food is more than a coincidence—it’s a call for shared learning and investment. To reduce risk, manufacturers of both commodities must:

  • Recognize the shared science that underpins safety
  • Invest in preventative controls and environmental monitoring to keep all products safe for the end user- human or pet
  • Continue innovating in science and technology, like dry sanitation or other mitigation techniques to prevent contamination.

Ultimately, food safety does not stop at the dinner plate. It extends to the pet bowl, treat jar and the surfaces where food for every member of the household is prepared and consumed.

The kitchen and the kibble bag are more connected than we think. By treating them as part of the same food safety continuum, we can better protect the health of both people and our pets.

Photo credit and copyright: Beth Biros

Editors Note: One of the authors, Caitlin Karolenko, PhD will be presenting at the 2025 Food Safety Consortium in the session titled: Dry Doesn’t Mean Safe: Pathogens in Low Moisture Foods. For more information go to FoodSafetyConsortium.org and click on Agenda.

 

Listeria
Ask The Expert

Communications – The “Choice to Chase” Listeria

No Comments
Listeria

The “choice to chase” Listeria should not and cannot be made lightly. This is not a task to be given solely to the Food Safety & Quality Assurance (FSQA) department. Senior management across the organization needs to understand what this means, be educated on the actions and consequences, share the risk, and share the accolades. In a very real sense, all of this relates to the food safety culture of the company and its business success. Dr. Lone Jespersen addresses these factors in her paper on economic gain and a mature food safety culture.

No company is going to say publicly they would not make a choice to chase. It’s unethical, and bad business practice. However, it’s their actions which are telling. How they chase is what matters. The hierarchy of the chase:

  1. Close your eyes and hope nothing happens.
  2. Put the FSQA organization on the front line to handle any audits and inspections which relate to the microbiological cleanliness of the plant. They are on their own.
  3. Form a FSQA + Sanitation Team that is charged with plant cleanliness. They are on their own.
  4. Provide the FSQA + Sanitation Team whatever it needs to assess Listeria risks in the plant–people, equipment, training, and budget.
  5. Expand the “choice to chase” team to include the HACCP team, and representatives from senior management.
  6. Charge the team with finding Listeria species wherever they may be, and communicating those results to management.
  7. Charge the team with finding Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) wherever it may be, getting DNA results for Lm, and comparing those results with the CDC’s database, PulseNet.

The challenge (and opportunity) with the latter two approaches is that the company will end up with data demonstrating that Listeria exists in the plant. If Listeria is in the plant, it could get in the food. Hence, many senior managers do not want to know these kinds of results, and they enable an organizational culture that does the same. See point #1, above.

Looking for Lm and finding it in non-product zones can be truly enlightening and empowering. Confirming that its DNA is not in the CDC database can be comforting–no one else has found “your” Listeria in their plants or in listeriosis cases. This gives you the freedom to contain your own problem.

In all cases except #1 above, sanitation and microbiological results must be shared properly with senior management. This requires ongoing education, and a competent team that can address contamination (this requires senior management to hire the right people). Why is this important? Of course it’s to make sure everyone is on the same proverbial page regarding the data. But far more importantly, it’s to raise everyone’s awareness of food safety risk to the company’s products.

Sharing data, sharing ideas to solve contamination problems, and sharing effectiveness of corrective actions serve the purpose of sharing the risk across the company, i.e., the senior management team. Said another way, senior management needs to be aware of all the data, at all times.

If leadership listens and provides resources (and stops shipping product when appropriate), then the FSQA team is well supported and can feel empowered to work even harder to make the choice to chase Listeria. This is the kind of culture and support which matters most to making sure Listeria is managed well. It is also the kind of environment FSQA professionals can be proud of, knowing they are making a very positive impact on public health.

This is the 6th in a series of 6 Listeria in Food Plants articles. See the Related Articles below to read the series.

To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Tech’s weekly Newsletter, click here

Connected Factory, manufacturing

Predictive, Preventive, Powerful: The Future of Data-Driven Food Safety

By Wiggs Civitillo
No Comments
Connected Factory, manufacturing

Food safety is at an inflection point. Regulations are shifting, deadlines are moving, and technology is advancing faster than most organizations can keep up. The FDA’s FSMA 204 Traceability Rule is a clear signal: data is now central to compliance, consumer trust, and competitive resilience. But here’s the hard truth — extending compliance dates doesn’t extend the shelf life of risk. Outbreaks won’t wait until 2028. Consumer expectations won’t wait either.

The challenge before us is simple but daunting: can the food industry shift from a reactive mindset — responding after the fact — to a predictive and preventive one, powered by data?

From Reactive to Predictive

For decades, food safety has been a compliance exercise. Check the box, pass the audit, and move on. That model doesn’t work anymore. The industry has too much complexity, too many blind spots, and too much at stake.

The next era of food safety will be defined by predictive tools — artificial intelligence, machine learning, anomaly detection, and real-time visibility platforms that allow us to see risk before it becomes crisis. Imagine spotting a deviation in cold chain patterns before it leads to spoilage, or detecting unusual movement in supply chains that hints at fraud. These tools exist today, but they can only succeed if the data feeding them is complete, consistent, and trusted.

What’s Holding Us Back

So why aren’t we there yet? The barrier isn’t the lack of technology. The tools exist. The real problem is data fragmentation and trust.

  • Fragmentation: Every player in the food chain speaks a slightly different “data language.” A grower might record harvest time in one format, while a processor logs it differently, and a retailer doesn’t capture it at all. Even when companies are technically compliant, the data sets don’t align. What should be a continuous record ends up a patchwork that’s hard to stitch together in real time.
  • Manual Workarounds: In too many cases, people are still rekeying data from one system into another, or relying on email, PDFs, or even phone calls to close gaps. These workarounds introduce errors and slow response times. In a recall, hours matter — and a manual process can be the difference between containment and escalation.
  • Trust & Control: Many companies hesitate to share data because they fear it will be used against them — to negotiate harder, cut margins, or reveal competitive strategies. This lack of trust creates bottlenecks. Without a neutral space, every data exchange feels like a negotiation rather than a collaboration.
  • Short-Term Compliance Thinking: Too often, data-sharing investments are framed only in terms of passing an audit or meeting FSMA 204 requirements. That keeps the focus narrow: “What’s the minimum we need to do?” rather than, “How do we build a system that gives us real-time visibility, predictive insight, and long-term resilience?”

The result is that AI and machine learning don’t have clean, connected data to work with. Instead of unlocking predictive power, they reinforce the fragmentation — analyzing partial views that miss the bigger picture. In other words, bad or siloed data doesn’t just limit progress; it actively undermines the promise of next-gen tools.

What Needs to Change

If we want predictive, preventive, and truly powerful food safety systems, we need to rethink how we share data. That means moving from a “winner take all” mentality to an ecosystem mindset — where data isn’t a competitive advantage but a shared asset.

The key isn’t ripping and replacing existing systems. The food industry has invested heavily in ERP, WMS, quality, and compliance platforms — and those systems aren’t going anywhere. What we need is a neutral connectivity layer: a translator that lets each system keep doing what it does best, while still moving data securely and consistently across trading partners.

Neutrality matters. If one player owns the data exchange, others will always hesitate. But when no one company controls the pipes, collaboration becomes possible. That’s when we can unleash the full potential of AI, machine learning, and real-time analytics — because the data finally flows freely.

With connected, high-quality data, predictive models can detect anomalies earlier. Preventive actions become possible before outbreaks spread. And companies can move beyond compliance to true resilience — strengthening trust with consumers and trading partners alike.

The Call to Leadership

This isn’t about compliance dates or government mandates. It’s about leadership. The companies that lean into collaboration, prioritize interoperability, and invest in data quality will define the future of food safety. They will turn regulation into trust, compliance into resilience, and risk into competitive advantage.

The future of food safety is predictive. It’s preventive. It’s powerful. But only if we decide, as an industry, to break down silos and build systems that can truly talk to each other.

We don’t have 30 months to wait. The opportunity — and the responsibility — is right in front of us.

Listeria
Ask The Expert

How to Get Rid of Listeria in your Food Facility

By Bob Lijana
No Comments
Listeria

Keeping the pathogen out of the plant is essentially what sanitarians preach. Sanitarians focus on minimizing the use of sanitizing chemicals. This strategy reduces costs and exposure to toxic chemicals, and by definition focuses attention on control strategies. These include identifying and studying hygienic zones, personnel hygiene, traffic patterns in the plant, and the array of sanitation steps taken over all shifts. An article by Dr. Bob Powitz describes this approach.

Eradicating Listeria when it is found is usually the result of a find it and kill it approach–often called “seek out and destroy”, an aphorism coined over a decade ago by  Dr. John Butts. The principles and techniques outlined in these mini-articles are very much aligned with this kind of approach. They are also the ones employed by most food companies in their management of Listeria risk. And that is mainly because Listeria can still find a way into a plant, in spite of best efforts to the contrary.

It is beyond the scope of this mini-article to go into all of the different chemicals that can be used to attack Listeria. Common chemicals include peroxyacetic acid, often used in plants for which an organic sanitizer must be used. Chlorine dioxide gas is used when companies want to introduce a sanitizing chemical across the entire plant, essentially as a “fumigation” technique. This can be useful since the gas can reach areas in which liquid sanitization techniques are ineffective.

The most common chemicals used against Listeria are the “quats”, mixtures of quaternary ammonium compounds. Not only are these compounds effective sanitizers, but it is generally believed that quats have a substantive property which allows them to remain on surfaces for a time. Thus they can have an ongoing effect against Listeria.

Highly experienced food plant chemical companies are well versed in sanitation chemicals and procedures. They are the best source for determining which chemicals are the most effective for your situation, at what concentrations (e.g., to achieve a no-rinse level on equipment), and with best-practice standard sanitation procedures. Highly reputable chemical companies understand sanitation, sanitization, and disinfection–and they can teach these concepts, and solve contamination issues.

FDA (“draft guidance for industry”) and USDA (“compliance guideline”) provide guidance on what corrective actions (e.g., sanitization) are required when Listeria is found. Regardless of which actions are decided upon, their effectiveness must be verified and validated. This requires well thought out statistical sampling and risk assessment, and continued testing.

Constant vigilance is very important. Use checklists that are centered on GMPs (Good Manufacturing Practices) as a start, using these to ensure that areas are sampled appropriately. But make sure that you are not solely relying on checklists (see this article on checklists that can be traps). Too often, companies find Listeria, throw some sanitizer on the area in question, sample, get a negative (the pathogen is no longer found in that location)–and then move on, convinced that they have solved the problem.

This is rarely the real outcome unless you have determined definitively that the root source has been eliminated. In addition, you have to be convinced that the transfer points around the root source are no longer in play. They have to be eliminated or highly controlled.

Said another way, you are rarely done. As frustrating as this might seem, constant microbiological vigilance is what keeps your products safe. Not doing so can end up being very costly to the company in insurance costs, recall costs, and legal costs, and in brand image to customers and consumers. All are avoidable.

It is much better to maintain and improve your environmental monitoring programs to constantly protect public health. So keep sampling and testing!

This is the 5th in a series of 6 Listeria in Food Plants articles. See the Related Articles below to read the series.

To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Tech’s weekly Newsletter, click here

 

Traceability Unwrapped: How Packaging Protects Every Bite

By Emily Newton
No Comments

Food traceability captures key data by following a product’s journey through every production stage, processing and distribution. It safeguards public health by enabling rapid identification and removal of contaminated goods, upholds quality through continuous monitoring, and ensures compliance with stringent industry regulations.

At the center of this system is packaging, which is the physical container and the digital gateway for traceability information. From printed barcodes to embedded smart labels, it carries the data that links each item to its origin, safety record and handling history. For food manufacturers, this makes packaging essential for transparency and safety.

The Intersection of Packaging and Traceability

Packaging is the food supply chain’s first and most persistent touch point, accompanying a product from when it leaves the production line until it reaches the consumer’s hands. A well-designed label protects and presents the product and is pivotal in this process. It reduces the information gap between producer and consumer by making key data accessible and easily understood.

When packaging design is aligned with tracking systems — whether through barcodes or digital watermarks — vital information flows seamlessly across every stage of the supply chain. Formats such as tamper-evident seals, smart labels with embedded chips and multi-layer labels for multilingual compliance enable better tracking and transparency.

Technologies Driving Food Traceability

Barcodes and quick-response (QR) codes remain the most accessible tools for traceability. They offer quick scanning for internal inventory control and consumer-facing transparency. Radio frequency identification (RFID) and near-field communication (NFC) tags enable real-time tracking and seamless data transfer across the supply chain. In fact, 93% of U.S. retailers have already adopted RFID technology to improve inventory management.

Blockchain integration adds another layer of security by creating immutable records that verify product safety, authenticity and compliance. Meanwhile, digital watermarks provide invisible yet scannable identifiers embedded directly into packaging, which offers discreet but powerful traceability without altering the visual design.

Ensuring Food Safety Through Packaging

Food traceability is a frontline defense in safety that enables manufacturers to identify and remove affected products before they reach consumers. Accurate tracking reduces the risk of foodborne illnesses and large-scale recalls, while building trust by showing customers that safety is a top priority. Traceable packaging can also stop unsafe products — like batches with allergen contamination or temperature breaches — from ever hitting store shelves.

This rapid response protects public health and minimizes financial losses and reputational damage. Beyond immediate safety benefits, robust systems help brands comply with global food safety regulations and demonstrate compliance, reinforcing credibility and market access.

Protecting Brand Reputation and Consumer Confidence

Transparent packaging information gives buyers and regulators a clear window into a product’s journey, from sourcing and production to quality checks and delivery. By openly sharing details, brands position themselves as honest and accountable, which can be a decisive factor in earning long-term loyalty.

Research shows that packaging has an average of seven seconds to make a favorable impression before a customer moves on to the next option. Clear and credible cues — like QR codes linking to origin stories or sustainability data — can turn that fleeting moment into a lasting connection.

Brands highlighting these details in marketing campaigns can transform food traceability from a compliance necessity into a positive public relations tool. It reinforces their commitment to safety, ethics and quality. Educating consumers on reading and using this information further strengthens this edge, making packaging a competitive differentiator in crowded marketplaces.

Operational Benefits for Food Manufacturers

Traceable packaging allows food manufacturers to see exactly where products are, how they move and when they need replenishment. It creates a more streamlined approach to inventory and production control. This visibility allows operations to match output with demand, which reduces waste and avoids costly overproduction. It also enables more accurate demand forecasting, helping teams plan smarter and respond faster to market shifts.

Beyond internal efficiency, food traceability holds suppliers to higher standards by making every step of the supply chain transparent, from raw material sourcing to final delivery. With cleaner, more accurate data, manufacturers can meet compliance requirements and maintain consistency while building stronger trust with customers and partners.

Future Trends in Food Traceability

AI-powered defect detection allows manufacturers to spot issues quickly before products leave the facility. These systems can automatically identify packaged products during industrial inspections, flagging defects such as misprints, seal breaks or labeling errors using deep learning techniques. Predictive recall capabilities take it further, analyzing patterns to anticipate potential safety risks before they escalate.

Alongside these advancements, eco-friendly materials with built-in tracking technologies make traceability more sustainable. This innovation reduces environmental impact without sacrificing performance. Consumers also now enjoy greater access to product journey data through mobile apps, empowering them to scan packaging and instantly see sourcing details, safety records and sustainability credentials. These factors turn transparency into a tangible part of the customer experience.

Making Traceability a Strategic Asset

Food traceability safeguards product safety and streamlines operations across the supply chain. Proactively adopting traceable packaging is a long-term investment that strengthens compliance and builds lasting consumer trust. Manufacturers should audit their current systems and make strategic upgrades to stay ahead of regulations and market expectations.

Listeria
Ask The Expert

How to Find Listeria in a Food Facility

By Bob Lijana
No Comments
Listeria

Before you go looking for Listeria, you need to make sure that senior management across all functions is supportive of this task–especially when Listeria is found. Will someone (or some function such as QA) get blamed? Will enough resources be given? Will outward communications (e.g., to customers or FDA) be actively managed?

Or is the collective opinion “we do not need to know, because Listeria is surely not here”?

Most food companies make the correct strategic and ethical decision to test for Listeria. To that end, they typically test for the genus of Listeria species (L. spp.), and not specifically for Listeria monocytogenes (Lm). Thus, they do not end up with confirmation that Lm is present and therefore do not butt up against a regulatory zero-tolerance policy. But they get a strong indication that conditions are favorable to Listeria growth, so they can choose to assume that Lm is present and act accordingly. If corrective actions are taken to eliminate all Listeria, then one can justify that if Lm were present, it would be eradicated by these corrective actions.

Some companies test for a “marker organism” such as Listeria innocua. The thinking is the same as that above. This includes making the assumption that if Listeria innocua is found, then Lm may indeed also be present.

If your company has decided to look for Listeria, how do you go about doing so? The overall objective is to establish, validate, and execute an “environmental monitoring program” (EMP). Good starting points are the “Environmental Monitoring Handbook” published by 3M and Cornell University and a publication by the Institute of Food Technologists, “Design Elements of Listeria Environmental Monitoring Programs in Food Processing Facilities.” For seafood, the National Fisheries Institute has a publication on ready to eat seafood pathogen control.

Key to an effective EMP is sampling. Sampling is complicated to plan since the choices affect time and money. How many samples, where, and what are you sampling for (e.g., Lm, Listeria innocua, or L. spp.) ? These choices affect costs and how soon, or not, microbiological results are received. Random sampling never carries the day. Rather, sampling needs to be strategic—based on sound statistical principles, science, and  your own assessment of what might really be going on.

Building a useful EMP is hard work, and requires a lot of patience and a lot of data. Listeria does not sit still–plant conditions change all the time. Hence, a positive sample today does not guarantee that there will be a positive sample tomorrow (especially when microbiology results take days to obtain). A good EMP finds growth niches and transfer points, and helps determine the overall risk for nearby food becoming contaminated.

In addition, actual as-made equipment design is incredibly important. Equipment not made hygienically, or that has been changed over time (“to make it work better”), may end up being a root-source of Lm. A good review of proper hygienic design can be found in “Food Safety Equipment Design Principles” by the Foundation for Meat & Poultry Research & Education.

Here are some effective approaches used in the food industry:

  1. Bring in an expert third-party consultant or company to do the work for you.
  2. Utilize the services of a certified and vetted microbiology lab, and partner with them.
  3. Purchase best-practice software which models an EMP, and directs sampling for you.
  4. Review the FDA and USDA guidance documents for direction–and then speak with your local regulators. (Yes, this is not without some risk.)
  5. Conduct multiple “swab-a-thons” in your plant, sampling anywhere and everywhere to gather microbiological data. As mentioned above, it can be notoriously difficult to establish patterns of harborage and movement–but having hundreds of data points can at least give you a snapshot for the microbiological cleanliness of the plant. Note that this is time-consuming and costly, but could pay dividends if this is one of your only options.
  6. Study, study, study. Map and analyze traffic patterns in the plant, evaluate water use and water flows (e.g., to and from drains), sample equipment around product zones, look at data from pre-operational activities, look at past microbiological sampling data, and talk with the sanitation team about what they see.

Note that it is generally not recommended to sample actual product given the regulatory consequences if Lm is found!

Regardless of the tactics chosen, Lm is typically hard to find in a “clean” plant. And determining where it comes from (i.e., the root source) is even harder. Microbial testing is still the best way to do this. Techniques such as ATP testing, total plate count or Enterobacter testing, and PCR-assay Listeria test kits can help guide you. But those results are only as good as the level of technical thinking that is brought to the them. One must truly evaluate where Listeria growth niches might be, regardless of how easy or hard it is to access those locations.

See the Related Articles below to read the series.

To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety Tech’s weekly Newsletter, click here

Hands Globe

Global Sustainability Regulations Impacting the Food Industry

By Harold Chase, MPH
No Comments
Hands Globe

In recent years, sustainability has emerged as a pivotal concern within the food industry, driven by growing consumer awareness and demand for environmentally responsible practices. As businesses strive to meet these expectations, global regulations play a crucial role in shaping sustainable practices across the sector.

Notably, the EU Green Claims Directive has introduced new guidelines that impact how food products in the region and imported are labeled and marketed, ensuring that claims about sustainability are credible and transparent. This directive not only aims to combat misleading marketing but also encourages companies to adopt genuine sustainable practices, ultimately promoting a more transparent and accountable food system. Food industry professionals must be knowledgeable and agile when it comes to global regulations in the EU, North America and beyond as they work to improve sustainability and remain competitive.

Legislative Status and Recent Developments

The Green Claims Directive proposal has not yet been adopted. During the legislative process, it underwent significant amendments and changes by the two EU co-legislators, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Negotiations among them and the European Commission have been ongoing since the beginning of the year in the “trialogue” format.

Under industry pressure, they have agreed that third-party verification should take place within 30 days and may be extended, in duly justified cases, by an additional 30 days. In response to this industry concern, the Testing, Inspection and Certification (TIC) industry is developing solutions to efficiently address industry concerns.

The European Commission announced plans to withdraw the legislative proposal on environmental claims before the last trilogue, scheduled for June 23, 2025, citing pressure from several political groups that criticized the Directive for imposing an administrative burden on manufacturers.

Following the Commission’s announcement, negotiations were suspended. The Commission later indicated that it might proceed with the Directive if micro-enterprises were excluded from its scope, as per its initial proposal, which, however, contradicts the EU Council’s mandate.

The incoming Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU is expected to take over discussions on this issue after consultation with the three involved EU institutions. In the event of an agreement this year, the application of the directive cannot be expected to occur before 2028.

The EU Green Claims Directive

In line with the European Green Deal’s commitment to combat false environmental claims and reduce ‘greenwashing’, the legislative proposal aims to introduce minimum requirements for substantiating and communicating environmental claims in business-to-consumer practices. These claims must undergo accredited third-party verification before being used in commercial communications.

The proposed directive sets detailed rules for substantiating and communicating explicit environmental claims about products. These requirements would take precedence over Directive 2005/29/EC in the event of a conflict. The directive applies to voluntary, explicit environmental claims and environmental labeling schemes not regulated by other EU acts, such as the EU Ecolabel, the Organic Products Regulation, the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) or the carbon removals certification framework.

Food safety professionals should be familiar with the main elements of the initial proposal for requirements for Substantiating Claims, Comparative Environmental Claims and Communication of Environmental Claims:

  • Substantiating Claims: Includes specifying the product or company activity claims, taking a life-cycle perspective and considering all environmental impacts, and ensuring that positive achievements don’t have harmful impacts on climate change.
  • Comparative Environmental Claims: Requirements include using equivalent information and data for assessment, generating and sourcing data in an equivalent manner, and covering the same stages along the value chain.
  • Communication of Environmental Claims: Covers only substantiated claims and ensures that the provided product information is among the most relevant life-cycle stages.

The Commission would be empowered to adopt delegated acts to specify the information that can be communicated. The requirements do not apply to microenterprises (those with fewer than 10 employees and an annual turnover/balance sheet total of under €2 million) unless they request verification.

The proposed directive also sets requirements for environmental labeling schemes, certifying that a product, process, or company complies with environmental label requirements.

US Food Waste Reduction Laws

In the US, new laws have been developed, aiming to minimize food waste and its impact on supply chain management. With that, state legislators have been increasingly active and concerned about food waste. NSF is currently tracking 68 bills in the current state legislative sessions that address food waste, four of which have been signed into law.

One new law that impacts the food industry in Maine is set to take effect in 2030. The law defines a “designated food waste generator” and establishes a hierarchy of actions to be taken with the intention of reducing food waste, emphasizing three key points: reduction, donation and diversion for agricultural use or composting.

Colorado also implemented a new law that creates a voluntary program to assist small businesses in implementing food waste prevention and reduction strategies. The law requires the Department of Public Health and Environment to:

  • Provide annual training that includes strategies for preventing and reducing food waste.
  • Develop a food waste reduction guidance document.
  • Place the document on the department’s public website.
  • Update the document at least once a year.

The law also encourages grocery stores to clearly display the ingredients of prepared food items and use “best if used or frozen by” dates instead of “sell by” dates on prepared foods. Finally, the law extends existing civil and criminal immunity from liability for injury or death resulting from donated foods to include faith-based organizations that donate food and food donations to such organizations.

Another new law in Colorado encourages schools to adopt policies to reduce food waste in school cafeterias and food preparation facilities. The law also requires existing grant programs to consider providing funding to schools to develop and implement effective composting, excess food donation, or shared table programs.

The last of the four signed bills is in New York, which recently implemented a law that provides an additional year for the implementation of a program requiring entities that generate large amounts of food scraps to separate and donate food for human consumption to the extent possible and when donation is not possible, to engage with organic recyclers.

Food industry professionals must be knowledgeable about the various laws that take effect, so that they can comply with the requirements necessary to operate in different states.

Packaging Regulations

Packaging plays a critical role in the food industry’s environmental impact. It is no surprise that many states have enacted Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws. California, Colorado, Maine, Oregon, New Jersey, Minnesota and Washington have all passed such laws, and many other states are considering EPR legislation. CA SB 54 was passed in 2022 and is perhaps the most comprehensive law of its kind in the United States. The law, which began phasing into effect this year, sets a goal of reducing plastic packaging by 25% by 2032.

The US FDA regulates food contact materials, including food packaging, as covered in 21 CFR. The CFR includes a list of substances that are prohibited from being used as food contact substances. With some limited exceptions, the FDA reviews all food contact materials, typically through the Food Contact Substance Notification process. This applies to packaging made from recycled materials, as the FDA requires manufacturers to demonstrate that these materials are safe for use in food contact applications.

Specifically, food industry professionals should be aware of relevant global food safety standards. ISO 18604:2013 is a mainstay in the industry, as it is an ISO standard that specifies the requirements for packaging to be recyclable. ISO 18604:2013 supports the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12, Responsible Consumption and Production. In particular, this SDG sets a goal of halving food waste among businesses and consumers by 2030.

Sustainability for the Food Industry

Transparency in carbon emissions and reporting is crucial for food manufacturers to remain competitive in the industry. In fact, there are three different laws just in the state of California related to climate disclosure:

  • SB 253, the Climate Corporate Accountability Act: Applies to companies with total annual revenues exceeding $1 billion doing business in California, requiring disclosure of scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions.
  • CA SB 261, the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act: Takes effect in 2026, requiring businesses that exceed $500 million in annual revenue to report on climate-related risks.
  • CA AB 1305, the Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures Act: Requires entities making claims regarding net-zero emissions, carbon neutrality or significant reduction. In emissions to make specified website disclosures.

Beyond reporting, the nexus of food, water, and energy is crucial to maintaining our food supply and cannot go unstated. Water management is crucial in sustainable food production, as agriculture is the largest consumer of freshwater worldwide. Water is also intensively used in energy production. As we battle climate change, we may face challenges, as a shortage of water will not only impact our water sources but also strain our food production.

Adapting to Changing Global Regulations

As the global food industry continues to evolve, the imperative for sustainability has never been clearer. Increasing consumer awareness and regulatory pressures are driving businesses to adopt sustainable practices, making it essential for companies to reevaluate their operations and supply chains.

In this context, regulations play a pivotal role in fostering these changes, with the EU Green Claims Directive standing out as a significant force in shaping food labeling and marketing strategies. The EU Green Claims Directive not only aims to combat greenwashing but also sets a standard for transparency, compelling businesses to substantiate their sustainability claims.

As we delve into the current regulations impacting the food industry, including US states implementing laws that impact packaging and carbon emission transparency, it becomes evident that addressing challenges such as food waste, carbon footprints, packaging and water usage is not just a matter of compliance but a pathway to a more sustainable future.

Bug Bytes

Improving Audit Scores with Pest Management

By Nicole Keresztes James
No Comments

Pests of all varieties pose a significant hazard to the food industry, as they can facilitate the spread of foodborne illnesses by serving as carriers of microorganisms that are the causative agents of these illnesses. Common pests include rodents, insects and birds; depending on geography and climate, other critters can be of concern. Pests contribute to foreign material contamination and adulteration, as they can easily spread disease-causing microorganisms and parasites through their droppings, urine, saliva and body parts. Contamination of food left behind by pests is also a significant source of consumer complaints and negative social media interactions, which can severely erode consumer trust in a company and/or brand.

A common cause of many food recalls is contamination by pests. In 2022, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued a recall of food products contaminated by Salmonella due to a rodent infestation. This recall impacted a significant portion of the country, including the western and central provinces. That same year, 400 Family Dollar stores temporarily closed across the US due to a rodent infestation in just one warehouse. In 2023, grocery chain Trader Joe’s recalled more than 10,000 cases of broccoli cheddar soup in seven states due to the presence of insects in the frozen broccoli florets in the soup.

Pest contamination can severely damage both a business’s bottom line and reputation, leading to impacts that can be as significant as bankruptcy or closure. Given the reputational damage that pests can cause, it’s important to remember that a proactive integrated pest management program (IPM) is the cornerstone of any facility’s good manufacturing or good distribution practices program. Mitigating the risks posed by pests can reduce customer complaints and potential recalls.

Common Pests and Their Risks

The most common types of pests in food settings include rodents, insects, birds and other critters specific to the environment and geographic location.

  • Rodents: Rats and mice are often the creatures that first come to mind when thinking about pests. Both can carry diseases that pose significant health risks to humans. The CDC lists a wide variety of diseases caused by viruses, parasites, and bacteria that are directly or indirectly carried by rodents. For example, Salmonella bacteria transmitted through rodent droppings can contaminate food products. In addition to contamination that can lead to foodborne diseases, rodents can contribute to visible foreign material contamination of food products and raw materials (which generally causes an overwhelmingly negative reaction in consumers of the products). They can even be the causative agent of health and safety risks to humans, as they can chew through electrical wiring, which then becomes a fire hazard.
  • Insects: Whether flying or crawling, insects can be problematic in food handling environments. Flies can contaminate food by carrying foodborne pathogens and may also end up as foreign material contaminants in products. For example, studies have shown that the human pathogenic microorganism E. coli O157:H7 is carried by flies of several species from cattle production areas to leafy green crop fields (Berry et al, 2019). Due to their frequent contact with organic waste materials, flies also transmit other pathogens, such as Salmonella enterica, Listeria monocytogenes, Klebsiella spp., and Campylobacter spp. (Shahanaz et al., 2025). Stored product pests, such as beetles and moths, can be a scourge in dry ingredient facilities, including flour mills. Multiple generations of these types of insects can have a cumulative impact on products and facilities over time, resulting in a loss of quality and quantity of the stored food items. Hardy ants and cockroaches are notoriously difficult to eradicate, requiring multiple treatment cycles and, in many cases, structural reconstruction to eliminate them from the facility. The US Food and Drug Administration classifies four types of cockroaches and two types of ants within their “dirty 22” species list due to their ability to spread foodborne illnesses and act as indicators of unsanitary conditions in food processing and storage facilities.
  • Birds: Research shows that there are more than 80 diseases, including Salmonellosis, that can be carried by problem birds such as pigeons and starlings. Birds can carry disease-spreading insects, such as fleas and ticks, while their waste material can teem with bacteria. Bird feces, feathers and nesting materials can fall into food products or onto food contact surfaces, causing direct and indirect contamination. Like rodents, birds can also cause significant damage to the structural integrity of a food facility through their nests and corrosive droppings.
  • Other critters: Depending on the location and type of environment the facility is in, other pests can be just as adept at entering and establishing themselves in a facility. For example, in warmer climates, reptiles and invertebrates not already discussed above can be included on the list of pests that a facility can be vulnerable to. The changing climate globally is also impacting the spread of various pests to areas of the world that have not yet encountered these species. With that in mind, it is even more crucial for food processing and storage facilities to adopt a highly proactive approach to pest management.

Mistakes in Pest Management

The main error that facilities make in their pest management strategy is to take a “hands-off” approach, particularly when they contract the management of pests to a third-party organization. In addition, other common mistakes include failing to update pest management plans and train employees regularly, failing to maintain detailed and up-to-date records, and not fully addressing identified areas of noncompliance. All these mistakes can lead to failed audits and, worse still, negative impacts on food safety.

Implementing a comprehensive, proactive pest management program is crucial for mitigating the risks associated with pests in food operations. The organization must have a skilled and trained internal team of pest control professionals or contract a reputable third-party pest control operator (PCO). Even with a reputable PCO by their side, organizations must still take responsibility for maintaining an open dialogue and partnership with that PCO, recognizing that it is not the PCO who is ultimately responsible for the safety and quality of the products going out to the market. Regardless of who is responsible for the service, failure to continually update the program and train those involved in the pest management protocols is a recipe for failure. Audit standards look not only for inspection records, but also for trending and completed corrective actions that include preventive measures. Not having these aspects of the records available will likely result in points lost during audits.

At the forefront of any well-managed pest management program are controls that ensure that pests are excluded from the premises. Gaps under and around doors and windows are among the most frequently cited nonconformities during audit visits. Other common citations include the mismanagement of pest devices, such as interior rodent devices, insect light traps and bait stations. Ensuring that employees are empowered to report concerns they observe regarding the facility’s structure and the devices placed around the premises is a tremendous asset to the success of the pest program.

Easy, Implementable Fixes

Mistakes may be unavoidable; however, several fixes can quickly support an organization with better pest management. First, establish a close working relationship between the facility’s leadership team and the pest management team, as well as any third-party providers. Frequent discussions about pest pressures, incidents, concerns and trends can help ward off potential issues and develop more proactive solutions.

Second, conduct ongoing surveillance by both the pest management team and properly trained internal personnel, through the checking of pest devices and inspecting the facility for signs of pest activity, entry points and infestation. Concurrently, seek out and implement accessible solutions for adequate documentation. Many pest control providers offer electronic monitoring systems that allow for easily retrievable details during reviews and inspections.

Third, train the facility’s workforce on pests and management strategies as a whole. Work with your PCO to ensure that employees are as up to date as possible on the pest protocols and techniques being used in the facility. Train employees to be vigilant about excluding pests, including those that may enter the facility through employees’ items, and to report any concerns they observe.

Meeting Audit Requirements

Audit standards are rooted in food safety and typically have expectations regarding the establishment and full implementation of a pest management program, including the expertise required, the techniques used, the monitoring completed and the corrective actions implemented. Indeed, one of the best ways to get “audit-ready” is to engage with a competent, licensed PCO. However, regardless of whether working with a third-party PCO or sourcing that competency and knowledge from within the organization, all facilities must remember that pest management is the responsibility of every employee at the facility. It will be through the support of the management team in the implementation of a proactive pest management program that builds on the cooperation of all individuals within the organization (and without, in the case of a third-party PCO) that a positive culture around the elimination of pest-related hazards and, by extension, positive outcomes during audits can be realized.

References

Occurrence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Pest Flies Captured in Leafy Greens Plots Grown Near a Beef Cattle Feedlot

Elaine D. Berry, James E. Wells, Lisa M. Durso, Kristina M. Friesen, James L. Bono, Trevor V. Suslow

Journal of Food Protection, volume 82, issue 8, August 1, 2019

Flies as Vectors of Foodborne Pathogens Through Food Animal Production: Factors Affecting Pathogen and Antimicrobial Resistance Transmission

Eshita Shahanaz, KirstenM. Zwally, Cameron Powers, Brandon Lyons, Phillip Kaufman, Giridhar Athrey, Thomas M. Taylor

Journal of Food Protection, volume 88, issue 7, June 23, 2025

Integrate pest management
Bug Bytes

From Field to Facility: Integrated Pest Management Strategies in Sustainable Agriculture

By Ellie Gabel
No Comments
Integrate pest management

Integrated pest management (IPM) is often associated with the farming stages of food production. However, professional food manufacturers and food service providers must also adopt effective and budget-friendly sustainable pest management practices. Advancing technologies, an evolving regulatory framework and consumer expectations further underscore the importance of IPM, from farm to table.

The Evolution of Integrated Pest Management 

Pest control in agriculture has evolved from heavy chemical applications to a safer, more ecologically sound, holistic approach. The toxins in those substances decrease microorganism abundance and diversity, which degrades fertile land for continuous yields. Meanwhile, stormwater runoff containing pesticides also harms ecosystems.

Modern practices emphasize a holistic approach with targeted intervention and monitoring to prevent infestations. IPM aligns with stricter compliance regulations so food professionals from farms to factories provide safe, high-quality goods while adopting environmental stewardship.

Holistic pest control is critical in agriculture. Researchers have found that they and disease result in a 30% yearly loss in cereal crops, a 54% loss in vegetable crops and a 78% loss in fruit crops. As the population grows, ensuring food security is of the essence.

Core Components of Effective IPM Strategies  

Integrated pest management is not a single approach to controlling insects but the implementation of various insights, decisions, and actions to manage populations. These five components are critical to effective IPM.

Producers and facility professionals must identify which insects are present before developing an effective integrated pest management plan. Farmers in particular do not need to eradicate all living organisms. Some are beneficial to crops and even consume more damaging pests. Identification is necessary to make sound control decisions.

  • Monitoring

Today’s technologies — sensors, smart traps and data analytics — have improved how the sustainable agriculture and food industries monitor crops for pests. For instance, an electronic trap can detect insect bodies and wings, with one system achieving 98% and 86.7% accuracy for counting and classifying organisms, respectively. The devices can also collect and populate real-time data to help identify trends and hot spots.

  • Control

Professionals use various approaches to pest control, including biological, cultural, mechanical and chemical methods. Biological control relies on predators and pathogens to outcompete pests, while cultural techniques use special practices like reducing irrigation to reduce pest establishment. Mechanical controls entail trapping pests and rodents and directly blocking or removing them.

A final resort would be using chemicals, such as pesticides. However, because they are toxic, it is crucial to use them minimally to avoid harming humans, the environment and non-target specimens.

  • Prevention

Professionals should prevent pests through careful actions, such as avoiding ideal conditions for their establishment and survivability. This includes removing trash, stagnant water and overgrown vegetation. Growers should also rotate crops to promote better soil structure for healthier plants that can withstand damage.

  • Evaluation 

Continuous evaluation of the IPM strategy is crucial to preventing future infestations in sustainable agriculture. This includes scheduling and maintaining records of inspections, updating training, and adjusting the plan as necessary. Prioritizing non-chemical prevention is also critical to enhancing safety and sustainability within the sector.

Successful IPM Implementation Across the Supply Chain 

Integrated pest management is a cornerstone of sustainable agriculture that comprises rotating crops, planting pest-resistant varieties and boosting the presence of beneficial insects. These methods can reduce the amount of chemical pesticides necessary to control bugs.

However, farms are not the only places that need comprehensive IPM. The rest of the supply chain must also implement sound pest management to restrict and eliminate infestation. Professionals in food production facilities should protect the premises in the following ways:

  • Maintain the exteriors and avoid pest-attracting trees and shrubs.
  • Avoid mercury vapor and fluorescent lamp lighting that attracts flying insects.
  • Remove standing water and debris buildup around the premises.
  • Seal cracks, gaps, and other openings around the facility’s foundation, windows and doors.
  • Install screens over vents and exhaust ducts.
  • Clean spills and food droppings immediately.
  • Adhere to proper storage methods of products and equipment.
  • Regularly inspect the building and all incoming and outbound trailers.

Production facilities must also remain at the appropriate temperature to ward off insects. Workers should stay vigilant and look for bugs in refrigerated storage. Food service operators can partner with suppliers that follow stringent IPM measures to ensure pest-free, traceable ingredients.

Cleaning spills and food debris off of floors is crucial to avoid attracting pests in food processing plants

Regulatory and Certification Landscape 

Producers and food manufacturers must follow several food safety regulations and practices. For instance, good protocols guide employees in proper sanitation and hygiene to ensure quality assurance and public health, including isolating pests in facilities. Other compliance rules and certifications include the Safe Quality Food (SQF) standards, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), and GlobalG.A.P., which aim to reduce contamination risks.

For instance, the SQF defines vermin as rodents, insects, and birds that carry diseases and threaten food, feed, and packaging. It then lists processes professionals can implement to meet quality food benchmarks. Meanwhile, GlobalG.A.P. comprises voluntary standards farmers can implement for a safer, more sustainable food market, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s FSMA ensures accountability throughout the food supply chain.

The Business Value of Holistic, Sustainable Pest Management

IPM strategies are as effective for business success as they are for food safety. By ramping up robust pest control post-harvest, industry players can produce higher-value products for customers and secure their bottom line.