Employees who work in the food manufacturing and processing industries need proper personal protective equipment (PPE). As with other industries, PPE is used to protect employees against injuries, but for the food industry, it is also designed and used to reduce the risk of food contamination.
When selecting PPE for your workers, you need to consider specific contamination and safety risks, such as risk of abrasions, punctures, cuts, flash fires, and cryogenic hazards, based on the employee’s specific roles and duties.
The proximity to food requires prioritization of high standards of hygiene for all employees, as well as protection against individual risks based on setting. For instance, those working in commercial kitchens with high temperatures need loose and light apparel. On the other hand, those working in cold rooms need heavier outfits.
Factors to Consider When Selecting PPE in the Food Industry
Following are key factors to consider as you investigate apparel to keep your company’s employees safe and comfortable.
Effectiveness and Cost. Consider the quality standards you need to meet and the tear resistance of the material. Choosing one-time use or disposable apparel might seem expensive, but laundering of reusable gear can make the material more prone to wear and tear, thus lowering its effectiveness. Going for the lowest quality items to minimize costs can end up being more expensive. Therefore, you need to set your quality standards first to ensure the effectiveness of the PPEs.
Fit and Comfort. One of the factors that employers tend to overlook when shopping for their employees’ PPE is fit and comfort. Food industry workers operate several machines and stand for many hours. Inappropriate sizing makes the employee uncomfortable, resulting in less productivity. In addition, baggy or oversized gear may get caught in machinery or pose a fire risk if used near ovens or other high-heat areas.
Types of PPE for Food Safety
Several types of PPE are required in the food industry. Including gloves to prevent contamination, work shoes, facemasks, and aprons.
While face masks might not fully prevent inhalation of particles, they do prevent large respiratory drops from worker’s mouths and noses from coming into contact with food, thus preventing food contamination. Workers exposed to dangerous inhalants may require respirators to prevent illness.
The food industry involves a lot of movement. It also involves working with sharp objects such as knives. Good quality work shoes are required to protect your employee’s feet against cuts and other injuries. In addition, in a RTE environment, captive footwear programs reduce the risk of cross contamination. Employees also need anti-slip shoes to protect you against slips and falls.
The first step in determining your PPE needs is to conduct a hazards assessment of your work environment, and then match the needed PPE for each environment.
Latest Fashion Trends for Protective Apparel in the Food Industry
Fashion trends change in the clothing industry, and PPEs are no exception. Some of the recent trends in the food industry protective apparel include:
Lightweight apparel. At one time, it was believed that protective apparel should be heavy. But as textiles evolve and employee comfort and need for agility became greater concerns, apparel manufacturers and designers have learned how to combine thinner and lighter materials that provide the same protection as their older, heavier counterparts.
Need for higher level protection. The COVID-19 pandemic created a greater awareness of the importance of proper PPE, which led companies to seek PPE that that offers higher than the standard protection to protect their employees and food products.
Online presence. The growth of the Internet and e-commerce means many PPE users are increasingly relying on digital/e-commerce sites to evaluate and purchase PPE.
The food industry depends on multiple types of PPE to protect its workers as well as the products they make. When investigating PPE for employees, companies need to consider not only employee safety and comfort, but also food safety and protection. This can make it more challenging to make the right decision. Nevertheless, there are federal regulations as well as industry-set standards to help you find the best quality apparel for maximum user protection as well as hygiene and comfort.
In vitro diagnostics provider bioMérieux recently announced its plans to open a new, 32,000 sq. ft. state-of-the-art molecular innovation center at the Navy Yard in Philadelphia. The new site will house the company’s xPRO Program, as well as the company’s Predictive Diagnostics Innovation Center.
The xPRO Program was created to speed development of advanced molecular diagnostics for food quality and safety departments in the food and beverage, nutraceutical and cannabis indsutries.
We spoke with Ben Pascal, head of xPRO at bioMérieux, about the program as well as the challenges and recent advances in the development of molecular assays and predictive diagnostics.
What is the xPro program?
Pascal: xPRO is an entrepreneurial engine for bioMérieux. We have had tremendous success with the molecular assays we’ve built over the years here, and we want to continue to invest in that innovation both in terms of the way we develop these assays, the speed with which we bring them to market, and we want to expand the partnerships that we’ve built with industry. All of these efforts are bolstered through the xPRO program and team.
What are some of the challenges in developing the molecular assays?
Pascal: In the clinical micro sector, you’ve got blood, saliva, and urine, and they are pretty uniform between everyone. When you come to the industrial micro sector, where you’re working with lettuce one day, ground beef the next and then nutraceuticals or spices, it is far more challenging to build a diagnostic that can work across all those matrices.
The challenge is how to create something that is compatible in multiple sectors, is faster and will deliver value over and over in a routine quality testing lab. Experience is crucial. Our team in Philadelphia has built and commercialized more than 30 molecular diagnostics, so we had the opportunity to put together a toolkit, if you will, to help us get through challenging matrices and speed things along with regards to recovery of target organisms.
When you talk about predictive diagnostics, is this related to gaining a better understanding of which pathogens are most likely to cause illness and at what levels?
Pascal: You do have these pathogens, but there’s a whole other concern related to spoilage. Day to day in the food and beverage sector, it’s spoilage that’s affecting quality and your brand reputation and causing recalls.
When it comes to pathogens that can cause foodborne illnesses, one cell is typically the law of the land. But when we say predictive diagnostics, we are isolating unique genes that are 100% predictive of spoilage. We know there are certain organisms that cause spoilage, but not all organisms that spoil are created equal. So what we try to tease out through our genomic and predictive diagnostic center is which unique genes allow one bug within the same species to cause spoilage, while another does not.
Traditionally, a quality director on the floor will say, I have this organism. It might spoil it might not. We’re taking the risk out of the equation. If you have a potential spoilage organism and you know that it has the specific genes that create spoilage, you can make more informed decisions on what you’re going to do with your product in terms of releasing it or remediating it.
For example, in brewing there is a yeast called saccharomyces cerevisiae that is often used. And there is a variant of saccharomyces cerevisiae that has some genes that allow it to use up residual starches in the product to produce gas, which causes the cans to swell and burst.
The problem is, you can’t tell from a culture plate whether your saccharomyces cerevisiae has this variant diastaticus or not—and not all diastaticus will go on to chew up those residual starches as an energy source and produce gas. We’ve identified a unique set of genes, and every time those genes are there, that diastaticus will go on to produce gas and create quality issues. That’s what we refer to as predictive diagnostics.
When you talk about rapid diagnostic testing, can these tests be performed in the food or beverage facility?
Pascal: Yes, they take our equipment and utilize it at their site, whether that be a third party laboratory, the production site of a brewery, a food processing facility or a nutraceutical manufacturer. We manufacture the equipment and the reagents that we’ve developed, and we put that into a test kit that customers can purchase after we’ve installed the equipment at their production site.
Are there any specific food areas that you’re focusing on now?
Pascal: Some of our key focuses relate to beverages, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic. We do quite a lot in nutraceuticals. We do quite a bit of work in cannabis, and in food safety, we’re focused on changing the game with regards to environmental monitoring. With environmental monitoring you’re looking for specific pathogens with the theory being, if you can control your environment, you can control what gets into your food products.
You’re typically looking for one of two pathogens: salmonella or listeria. We said, why not do them both together? And we created a universal medium. By providing specific data points for both pathogens within a single test, it can detect and enrich both salmonella and listeria from the environmental swab.
In all the work we do, our partnerships with industry are very important. The way that we build our pipeline is directly through partnerships with industry, which informs us on their key challenges as well as better ways to make tools. So, when we come out with a new tool, our goal is to not only meet the needs of our partner but meet or exceed the needs of their peers in the industry as well.
Biofilms, those slimy films of bacteria that cling to surfaces, can wreak havoc on your equipment and harbor dangerous pathogens that contaminate your products. And they are not easy to detect or remove. Charles Giambrone, Food Safety Manager, Rochester Midland, shared strategies for the detection, remediation, and control of biofilms at the Food Safety Tech Hazards Conference in April.
“Biofilms are how microbes look to survive in nature and within your food plant,” said Giambrone, “and they can form quickly—within 13 hours.”
Biofilms form on any equipment with a large surface area and, in addition to contaminating food, they can damage equipment. “Once you get biofilms on the conveyor belts, you have slippage,” said Giambrone. “Just as biofilm plague will rot your teeth, biofilms form acid that corrode equipment. Eliminating biofilms can increase performance and prolong the lifespan of equipment.”
Detection of Biofilms
If you are seeing any of the following, it is a sign that you have a biofilm(s) in your facility:
Sporadic out of spec environmental test results
Rainbow appearance on stainless steel
Decreased shelf life of product
Increased bacterial count in finished product
Spike in bacterial counts that disappear and reappear
“When you get these spikes, where the bacterial count goes down and then whips up, that is a biofilm,” said Giambrone.
Where Biofilms Like to Lurk
The most common areas for biofilm formation include dead legs, slow-moving water lines, conveyors, floors, drains, pipeline or filler gaskets, and pump valves and gasket junctions. “You must do periodic tear downs to clean gasket junctions because the CIP (clean in place system) cannot reach these areas,” he said.
Control and Remediation
Removal of biofilms requires mechanical action as well as the application of strong chemicals applied for a lengthy contact time. “You need to detach the biofilm from its surface with mechanical action,” said Giambrone. “The irreversible adhesion of biofilm prevents a CIP system’s shear flow rate forces from properly stripping biofilm from a surface.”
High water temperatures (based on the specific cleaner you are using) are necessary for removal, but Giambrone cautioned against use of the FDA-approved temperature of 180 degrees F. “You want hot water—about 130 degrees F—not scalding (180 degrees F), because scalding water fixes the protein to the surface making it harder to clean, and it’s also a safety hazard,” he said, noting that contact time is also important. “Increased contact time of cleansers/sanitizers will yield better results.”
The goal of your biofilm removal process is to detach biofilms from the surface, break down the community into small components via detergents, surfactants, and mechanical action, and then completely destroy the detached subsections via true oxidative sanitizers: PAA, chlorine or ozone.
Additional risk factors for biofilm formation include:
Extended run operations
Dry cleaning only during the week
Equipment cleaned daily but not with a stringent regimen to remove biofilms
Walls and drains not cleaned every 24 hours
The agents Giambrone recommended for biofilm remediation include: Chlorinated alkaline cleaners, acidic cleaners, EDTA (chelating agents), which remove minerals from biofilm matrix—“These are very effective in removing the biofilm from the surface,” he said—and enzymatic cleansers.
ISO compliance is essential to maintaining high levels of food safety and quality. Trying to manage the ISO compliance process manually—with paper files or Excel spreadsheets—is an expensive, time-consuming, error-prone process. Manual systems make it difficult to spot noncompliance issues, track certification paperwork, and get real-time visibility across an enterprise. Technology can be a game-changer when it comes to achieving and maintaining ISO compliance.
SaaS-based quality and audit software can automate ISO compliance-related tasks, making it easier as well as more efficient and accurate to track quality metrics, document corrective actions, and generate reports. Additionally, this software can save time and costs, while reducing the risk of errors. It also provides real-time visibility into the compliance process, allowing organizations to quickly identify and address any issues that may arise, ensuring that they stay compliant.
Tech Trends to Watch
While technology has already elevated ISO compliance dramatically, there are some exciting trends we are watching that have the potential to significantly improve the process:
The rise of automation and the Internet of Things (IoT) are driving increased adoption of technology solutions for ISO compliance and quality management.
The use of data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) are becoming more prevalent in ISO compliance, as companies look for ways to improve the accuracy and efficiency of their compliance efforts.
Consumer demand for transparency and sustainability is driving increased attention to ISO compliance and quality management. This will continue to intensify in the coming months and years.
Recently, we have seen large companies adopting technology to improve their quality and safety initiatives. Some notable examples include consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble, who implemented a comprehensive quality management system that incorporates ISO standards. P&G has worked hard to achieve ISO certification across many of its global operations, vowing to operate responsibly, build and maintain public trust in their products, and meet (or exceed) all legislative and regulatory safety requirements.
Similarly, Swiss fragrance and flavor manufacturer Givaudan has implemented a digital quality management system to automate quality data collection and analysis, helping the organization achieve compliance with ISO standards and improve product quality. They have developed a structured system to identify, assess, respond to, and mitigate risks to protect the company’s products and assets. They also vow to improve compliance with proper corporate governance guidelines and to follow all applicable laws and regulations. Hopefully, we’ll see more organizations following their lead.
The Benefits of Adopting Tech Solutions
There are many benefits to adopting new technologies to achieve ISO compliance. These include:
Automating essential tasks. Tech tools make it much easier to track metrics, document corrective actions, and generate reports, compared to manual methods. They also improve accuracy, allowing you to save time, money, and hassle. The more efficient, streamlined process lets you work smarter, not harder.
Reducing risk. Tech tools can help organizations increase their safety processes and protocols, achieve ISO compliance, and reduce the risk of food safety breaches that could cause major legal, financial, and reputational damage. Maximizing safety—and minimizing risks—can help boost key performance indicators (KPIs), including sales and profits, as well as customer loyalty, retention, and referrals.
Centralizing data. Many food businesses have overflowing file cabinets in their back offices, and they’d be hard-pressed to find a specific document quickly for an auditor. It’s far more effective and efficient to organize these documents through a tech solution that provides centralized, organized data and reports. This way, you’ll always have quick, easy access to information at your fingertips, allowing you to instantly track, manage, and find the various components of ISO standards—including certification documents, audit information, and operational records. This can save significant time (and frustration) over paper file systems.
Boosting visibility and transparency. Tech tools provide real-time visibility as well as a wider, deeper, more comprehensive view of your whole enterprise—or drill down by location. With access to real-time data, your organization can quickly identify (and fix) any noncompliance issues that may arise, allowing you to stay compliant. It also answers customers’ and investors’ calls for more transparent information about your business practices.
Boosting ROI. Companies may worry about the cost of purchasing tech tools—especially during our current economic uncertainty—but this is one of the smartest investments that your organization can make. Investing in modern technology solutions will save you money in the long run. Tech tools provide a huge ROI, by helping companies cut costs through energy efficiency, prevention of food safety breaches, and elevation of customer confidence, loyalty, and sales. Becoming ISP certified can also result in other lucrative benefits, such as attracting new investors, and helping to recruit and retain employees.
Reinforcing key messages to priority populations. Since ISO is widely considered the global gold standard, when you become ISO certified, you’re demonstrating that you prioritize safety, quality, consistency, and compliance, and that you’ve followed guidelines to provide consistently high-quality products and services. Being ISO certified demonstrates to key audiences, including your customers, investors, employees, and other stakeholders, that you’re investing the time, money, and energy into running as safely, effectively, and ethically as possible, and that protecting them remains your top priority.
Technology can make a dramatic difference in achieving ISO compliance, transforming the process from the manual methods that organizations have used for years. By automating the necessary tasks, you’ll save time, identify (and fix) areas of noncompliance, reduce errors and headaches, boost efficiency, increase visibility, and centralize data. Now is the time to ditch your paper certifications and overflowing file cabinets and embrace a smarter, easier, more efficient way of working.
Listeria monocytogenes continues to be a key factor in food recalls. While it is not the most common pathogen behind foodborne illness, it does have a high mortality rate. Listeria is hearty. It thrives in cold, moist environments, can grow under refrigeration temperatures and is salt tolerant. The risk of listeria contamination can be reduced through stringent sanitation, and environmental monitoring and testing. But far too often, it takes an outbreak or recall for companies to truly understand the efforts needed to find and destroy it in their facilities.
At Food Safety Tech’s Hazards Conference in Columbus, Ohio, in April, Stacy Vernon, Food Safety Operations and Program Manager at CIFT, an Ohio Manufacturing Partner, shared lessons learned from food companies that have experienced Listeria in their facilities and resulting product recalls.
Lesson Learned: Regulatory Requirements
The regulatory requirements related control of listeria monocytogenes can be found at USDA 9 CFR Part 430.4 and FDA 21 CFR Part 117. Both agencies offer guidance documents that serve as valuable resources that food companies can use to build their food safety programs:
“The question is, are your people reading these? Are they aware they exist?” asked Vernon. “In speaking with companies who have gone through recalls, many were not even aware these guidance documents existed or were not utilizing them.”
Lesson Learned: Sanitation Program Shortcomings
“Sanitation is the No. 1 program that you need to have on point,” said Vernon. “Unfortunately, labor shortages and turnover have made this a big challenge in recent years.”
Issues that companies uncovered following recalls include:
A lack of understanding of the difference between cleaning and sanitizing
Sanitation teams not given enough time to properly sanitize equipment
Lack of easy access to the tools needed to sanitize properly
Lack of training on what biofilms are and how to detect them
“Sanitation teams tend to be small, and they need to be everywhere,” said Vernon. “Are you looking at their foot traffic? Your sanitation team should get, at least, general training on food safety and pathogens. Make sure this department is not overlooked because they do pose one of the highest risks of cross contamination.”
Lesson Learned: Poor Sanitary Design
Companies cited similar shortcomings in sanitary design. Vernon recommended that companies implement the following practices, if they are not currently following them:
Involve your food safety professionals in the purchase of new equipment
If purchasing used equipment, make sure that it has been maintained
Google “Sanitary Design Checklist.” These free downloads are available from the American Meat Institute, U.S. Dairy and other organizations and are great resources
Look for facility and equipment design flaws, such as cracks or separations in the floor, exposed threads, hallow pipes not sealed, bad welds, and water/product accumulation points
“Drain maintenance is also key. One company uses a snake to swab their drains, so they know if they have listeria before it works its way back up into the facility,” said Vernon.
The goals of an environmental monitoring program (EMP) is to aggressively seek and destroy pathogens. “You need to know where listeria is entering the facility, where it harbors and how it moves in your facility so you can effectively eradicate it,” said Vernon. “There is still a mentality that people are scared to find it, so they swab the safest areas. We need to change that mindset to ‘I want to find it and I want to eliminate it.’”
EMPs need to be tailored to your specific facility. Some of the issues companies found with their EMPs following recalls included a lack of internal knowledge to build a comprehensive and custom program and failure to swab properly. “Ask yourself, who is responsible for setting up our EMP and can they do it alone, or do we need outside expertise?” said Vernon.
When swabbing, you need to apply pressure and seek out hard to reach areas. When determining which zones to swab, consider the following:
Your risk assessment and hazard analysis
Previous environmental monitoring data collected
Visual appearance of surface
Products produced and intended users
Potential for growth after packaging
“Focus on areas where RTE products are exposed. Companies often do not want to swab Zone 1, but one company that went through a recall has implemented swabbing in Zone 1 while they are sampling their products,” said Vernon. “Their reasoning is, the products are already on hold and if they have to throw one shift of product away, it costs much less than a recall or outbreak.”
Lesson Learned: Lack of Employee Knowledge
Several of the companies Vernon spoke with found that they had inadequate food safety and pathogen training and knowledge at all levels; and that they did not have a good sense of employee traffic flow and habits. “When is the last time you stepped back to evaluate traffic flow in your facility?” asked Vernon. “Companies that took the time to evaluate traffic flow and employee practices were often surprised that they did not understand their employees’ movement within the facility or work habits.”
Key areas to investigate include:
How do employees and product move through your facility?
What is your footwear policy?
Are employees following appropriate GMPs for handwashing, PPE, product handling, etc.?
Are sanitation employees cleaning properly?
“Changing employee practices doesn’t take a lot of capital,” said Vernon. “It is one of the cheapest ways to mitigate risk.”
Lesson Learned: Not Reassessing Programs
EMP and sanitation programs should be reassessed when findings occur or changes happen in the facility, including anytime you bring in new equipment. “Start with a document review and then reassessment of your environmental monitoring program,” said Vernon.
The food industry is under intense scrutiny, with concerns about food safety and quality making headlines around the world. Today, the industry faces unprecedented challenges when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of the global food supply chain. Leaders need to manage known concerns such as foodborne pathogens, food fraud and contamination, as well as emerging challenges, including ingredient scarcity and changes in consumer preferences that have created the need to reformulate recipes quickly, source from new suppliers, and increase imports—all of which contribute to increased risks.
Due to climate change and shifting environmental factors we are seeing crop failures, and new bacteria and antimicrobial resistance to foodborne pathogens, which increase the cost of managing food safety. As consumers demand greater transparency and look to place more trust in the food chain, changing buyer habits further compound these challenges by putting a greater onus on food handling, production, manufacturing, and supply companies to provide more education to consumers about foodborne illnesses.
Recalls are the biggest threat to a brand’s profitability and reputation, and this threat is growing. According to FDA reports, recalls increased by 700% in 2022, with undeclared allergens being the leading cause for the last five years. The Food Safety Authority in the UK tells a similar story with undeclared allergens accounting for 84 of the 150 recalls last year, followed by salmonella, listeria, and foreign body contamination.
As food regulations become more complex to navigate, it is now essential to reassess the industry’s approach to managing risk. Protocols such as VACCP and TACCP are regularly used as part of a solid food defense program to identify risks. But the traditional approach of relying solely on regulations and compliance-based systems is no longer sufficient to ensure food safety in today’s complex, volatile and globalized food supply chains. Now is the time to implement a more holistic and dynamic risk-based approach to managing food safety more effectively.
What Is a Risk-Based Approach to Food Safety?
A risk-based approach allows the industry to proactively identify potential food safety risks and take appropriate measures to mitigate them, rather than simply responding to problems as they arise. For example, mature food businesses are building on food safety management systems with food safety audits to identify and manage risk to stay ahead of the curve. A risk-based approach helps underpin the continuous improvement process and, by doing so, demonstrates the ability of a company to be a trusted partner in the global food supply chain.
One of the key aspects of a risk-based approach to managing food safety is proactive intervention and control, using relevant data analysis stored in a cloud-based platform. All stakeholders need access to accurate and actionable data during risk assessment and management to make informed decisions. However, there are many barriers to accessing risk-related data for smaller operators, many of which are still working in a largely manual way.
Data must be collated from across the business, and multiple data sources need to be collected and appropriately analyzed to protect both the brand and public health. It is estimated that we are at least 10 years away from any type of interoperability of industry data, which will allow better transparency and visibility of risk across the supply chain.
Stay Ahead of Emerging Legislation
Visibility of the emerging legislation in source countries of ingredients and raw materials is critical, as are contingency sourcing plans and good risk analysis protocols. Food integrity needs to be a standing agenda point as part of internal meetings, and ESG policies need to be visibly delivered. The industry needs to ensure that it is aware of changes in regulations that could impact the safety and quality of its products through horizon scanning tools. There is also an onus on the industry to make its risk assessments more dynamic to incorporate change at a frequency that is appropriate for risk evaluation with effective crisis management plans in place.
Supply Chain Management Is Critical
Sourcing raw materials and ingredients across supply chains requires best practices. You must ensure that your supply chain partners and suppliers know how to manage a crisis and that emerging risks are shared across the supply chain. Quality, food safety, and regulatory divisions must actively participate in risk assessments and receive relevant data and communication. ESG policies also need to include the supply chain; leaders in this space need to be able to verify that these policies are delivering.
Marketing claims must be vetted and aligned with regulations and markets where products are sold. Procurement, supply chain and communication, and external partners such as NGOs and consumer associations are important groups to involve in risk profiling and ongoing management. While managing emerging issues and horizon scanning is critical, it is also important to remain vigilant on the basics, as most food safety and allergen incidents are known risks.
Detecting Food Fraud
Opportunistic food fraud cases are rising in the high food inflation market, with recent examples including everything from adulterated honey to the mislabeling of beef. To deter food fraud, businesses need to focus on risk-based auditing and testing through sampling programs. Knowing your supply chain, shopping around safely, being vigilant about ingredients and specifications, utilizing training, and building awareness and readiness are imperative to deter food fraud and create a culture of confidence and greater food safety.
Think Differently About Managing Risk
Now is the time for the food industry to reassess its approach to managing risk. A risk-based approach focusing on prevention, continuous improvement, and stakeholder collaboration is necessary to ensure a safe and secure food supply chain in an increasingly complex and challenging environment. The industry must prioritize data accessibility and accuracy, have a crisis management plan, be aware of emerging legislation, and include ESG policies in its risk management strategies. By focusing on risk-based auditing and testing, the industry can deter food fraud and create a culture of confidence.
The probability of eliminating all risks is very low, so the food industry must pivot and be agile to challenge the traditional approaches to managing food safety. It is time to think differently about managing risk and adopt new practices that promote prevention and collaboration.
The Food Safety Tech’s Hazards Conference + CFI Think Tank “Industry & Academia Advancing Food Safety Practices, Technology and Research” took place April 3-5 in Columbus, Ohio. The event offered two days of practical education on the detection, mitigation, control and regulation of key food hazards, followed by discussion geared toward identifying gaps for research and innovation.
Sandra Eskin, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA FSIS, opened the program to discuss the agency’s proposed Salmonella in poultry framework. She highlighted the need for a more comprehensive approach that includes incentives to bring down the Salmonella load in birds entering the slaughterhouse, enhanced monitoring of safety measures within the facility, and enforceable product standards for raw poultry products.
Day one continued with a focus on Salmonella and Listeria. Barb Masters, VP of Regulatory Policy at Tyson Foods presented “Salmonella: What We’ve Learned and Remaining Gaps in Detection and Mitigation.” Masters highlighted key gaps in Salmonella detection, mitigation and research including:
Correlating what comes from the farm to what is entering a plant
Potential benefits of quantification testing
A better understanding of products that have the highest levels of Salmonella
Identification of virulence factors of different serotypes
The need for rapid testing methods that can be used at the plant level
Sanja Ilic, Ph.D., presented findings on the risks and most effective mitigation methods for listeria in hydroponic systems, followed by a session from Stacy Vernon, Ph.D., on recent listeria outbreaks in RTE meats and ice cream.
Attorneys Bill Marler, founder of Marler Clark, and Shawn Stevens of the Food Industry Counsel opened day two with an overview of the legal and financial risks of food safety hazards. The program continued with a focus on detection and mitigation of pathogens and biofilms.
Session Highlights
Application of Ozone for Decontamination of Fresh Produce with Al Baroudi, Ph.D., VP of Quality Assurance and Food Safety, The Cheesecake Factory, and Ahmed Yousef, Ph.D., Professor and Researcher with the Department of Food Science & Technology, OSU
Estimating Mycotoxin Exposure in Guatemala and Nigeria with Ariel Garsow, Ph.D., Food Safety Technical Specialist at the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN)
Mitigating the Risks of Salmonella and Listeria in Your Facility & Products with Sanjay Gummalla of the American Frozen Food Institute, and Rashmi Rani, Senior Manager of Food Safety and Quality Assurance, Schwan’s Foods
How to Use Whole Genome Sequencing in Operations To Improve Food Safety and Root Cause Analysis with Fabien Robert, Head of Zone AMS, Nestlé
Biofilm Prevention and Control Practices with Charles Giambrone, Food Safety Manager, Rochester Midland
On April 5, attendees joined the Ohio State University Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention (CFI), founded and directed by Barbara Kowalcyk, for its annual “Think Tank.” The program featured student research presentations and an “Einstein Lunch” that brought members of industry together with graduate students and OSU researchers to identify gaps in research in the areas of pathogen detection and mitigation, handwashing and mycotoxins.
“We’re hoping this is the first of future collaborations with CFI and Food Safety Tech, where we have industry and academia presenting together,” said Rick Biros, founder of Food Safety Tech, the Food Safety Consortium and the Food Safety Tech Hazards Conference series. “This is something I feel both academia and industry benefit from, and I look forward to working with Barbara and CFI in the future.”
“I learned a lot myself, and it was great to see this program come together,” said Kowalcyk. “I want to thank the presenters, attendees and all the people who worked behind the scenes to make this event happen.”
Scenes from Food Safety Hazards Conference + CFI Thinktank
Training is one of the foundational principles of every food safety program. It is a theme that’s repeated throughout governmental regulations, industry guidelines, and audit requirements, but adult learning can be challenging. It is also expensive, when you factor in the resources needed, salaries of everyone involved, and loss of operational productivity. After all these resources are allocated, it’s frustrating to witness mistakes made by those that have gone through the proper training…so you “retrain” as a corrective action, only to see the same thing happen. When this cycle repeats itself, I can’t help but be reminded of Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity, “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
A true preventive measure may be to reevaluate your training methods and train smarter, not harder. Take time to really understand your audience, discover their motivations, and devise ways to truly reach them. The five cornerstones of teaching: legitimacy, authenticity, engagement, empowerment, and simplicity can be used to elevate any training program to make it more effective.
Legitimacy
Your audience will be much more open to receiving the subject matter if they believe in the legitimacy of the source, namely, the trainer. Objectively ask yourself, “Why should I be teaching this class, and why should these people believe what I say?” Take the time to establish yourself as a subject matter expert. Instructors often start with a quick bio slide to explain their qualifications and experience. You can also start by telling your audience a bit about yourself, including your educational background and experience. Also take the time to explain the “why” of what you are teaching. For example, we don’t allow jewelry in the processing room, because it could fall into product or could get caught in a conveyor and cause a serious injury.
Authenticity
Why should these people care about what you say? Steven Covey, author of “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” also wrote the book, “The Speed of Trust.” In this book, he explains that trust is the foundational principle that holds all relationships together and the most essential ingredient in effective communication.[1] Establishing trust and authenticity is the quickest means of taking a training from you talking to people to having them hear what you are saying. Some people are automatically suspicious, so being honest and straightforward goes a long way to gaining that trust.
Engagement
I’ve been training adults for my entire 21-year career—see how I started establishing legitimacy with you—and I’ve learned that training is about 90% entertainment and 10% relaying facts and hoping they stick. Remember your favorite teacher. Were they boring and monotone, or lively and engaging? Engagement can be achieved by actively getting your audience to participate. This can be done through verbal quizzes, break-out exercises, live polls, and asking them to share their experiences.
At the end of the day, engagement is coupled with the question, “Why is this important to me?” How do you make the subject matter important to the audience? How can you get them invested in the subject matter and motivated to implement what they’ve learned? When dealing with food safety subject matter, one way is to share foodborne illness statistics and stories of those who have been affected. Stop Foodborne Illness has captured many of these stories on its website. When you identify something that everyone has in common, namely, that we and our loved ones all eat the food that we are producing, it increases audience engagement.
Empowerment
Once you have an engaged audience, the question becomes, “What can I do about it?” By telling the audience what they personally can do to influence (prevent, reduce or, eliminate) the problem, they are more likely to have a vested interest in the outcome.
I was involved in opening a new facility a few years ago. The General Manager personally took every new hire for a tour of the facility to explain the machinery and demonstrate some of the workplace safety features. While on that tour, he told them that each person in this building was allowed to hit the E-Stop button at any time and shut down the line if they saw something wrong or suspected that something wasn’t right, with no repercussions. He emphasized the importance of the subject of food safety by empowering each person with the authority to shut down the line. By giving them this power, he ensured that every person was captivated by the safety training and took the message to heart.
Simplicity
One of my personal mantras is, “Simplicity is the key to sustainability.” The simpler you make something; the more likely people will be to do it correctly and keep it up over time. The more complicated you make something, the less effective it becomes, especially over time. I use this quote when talking about creating procedures, but it’s applicable in the training setting too. The more complex the training, the harder it is to understand. The longer the training, the harder it is to captivate your audience, as people often “check out” and stop paying attention, especially if they’ve worked a long shift and just want to go home. I’ve found that shorter, interactive trainings can be more impactful than longer sessions.
One of my most successful training sessions was as a temporary QA Manager, trying to ensure that the annual training requirements were performed, prior to an audit. I asked the attendees they’d done in the past and got an eye roll along with grumblings about PowerPoint presentations. I decided to try something different and created about 10 “slides” on chart paper and held the training while we stood in a quiet corner of the warehouse. My first group was the third-shift sanitation crew. We spent 20 minutes going over the big concepts, joking about my horrible illustrations, and sharing stories about the subject matter. Afterwards, I asked them how they liked it and got some genuine nods and smiles. I decided to repeat the session with the rest of the processing employees and all the office staff (warehouse setting and all). I was shocked how many people came up to me afterwards and told me how much they enjoyed the session and appreciated the change.
Case Study, “Don’t Throw-Up Worms!”
One of the most effective food safety campaigns in history was the effort to slow cases of Trichinellosis, a foodborne disease that was sweeping the country in the early 1900s. The government’s strategy included new regulations for swine feed and educating the public of the dangers of eating undercooked pork. It started in the 1920s, when Benjamin Schwartz, Senior Zoologist with the Bureau of Animal Industry published a leaflet for the USDA entitled, “Trichinosis: A Disease Caused by Eating Raw Pork.”[2] As a result, the government started surveillance activities to understand the extent of the problem. In the 1930s and 1940s, it was estimated that one in every six Americans was infected with Trichinella spiralis,[3] so the U.S. government implemented a widespread campaign to educate the public.
This campaign, which was so effective that Trichinella is almost unheard of in domestic pork today, worked because they leveraged the five cornerstones to create an extremely effective training.
Legitimacy – The U.S. government was a trusted source of knowledge.
Authenticity – This message was backed by doctors and scientists from the CDC and other agencies. Also, people knew that pork was the making them sick, so this information was verified by personal experience.
Engagement – Because scientists had discovered that Trichinella is a microscopic parasite, they coined the phrase, “Don’t Throw-Up Worms!” since vomiting was a common symptom, and that caught everyone’s attention.
Empowerment – The general public had a tremendous amount of control because the solution focused on fully cooking pork at home or ordering pork chops “well done” at restaurants.
Simplicity – The solution was extremely easy, just cook your pork a little longer. If it’s easy, people will do it, and they did.
Let’s look at the results. Between 2002 and 2007, the CDC only recorded 52 cases of Trichinellosis and only seven of those were traced to commercial pork.[4] The figure below shows the number of reported cases of Trichinellosis in the U.S. from 1947-2007, and the steady decline is evident.
CDC surveillance data on reported cases of Trichinellosis in the U.S. from 1947-2007.
Trying a New Approach
Occasionally, you’ve got to mix things up to keep your audience interested. There are so many different training tools that are available on the internet, from YouTube videos (my favorite is a rap about handwashing) to novel ideas. You can also change up the setting; try standing in an unusual place in the facility or host a training outside or on the facility floor.
Make sure that you are thinking about your target audience when creating your training. Use language that’s appropriate and techniques that resonate. This might take a little trial and error, so don’t be afraid to try new things and discard the ones that don’t work well.
As Gen Z and Millennials overtake older generations as the majority of the workforce, there has been a lot of research into effective training for younger generations. One technique that is garnering a lot of interest is gamification. I’ve seen video games that replicate a chef at a busy restaurant, in which good manufacturing practices must be used to fulfill multiple orders. This might be more effective than sitting an 18-year-old down for a four-hour ServSafe training. It doesn’t have to be as complex as a specially designed video game, I’ve seen things as simple as food safety word searches and crossword puzzles that are left in the breakroom. Trivia is also a popular and engaging tool to use during training sessions, especially when there are fun prizes on the line.
Reconsider your approach to training by implementing the five cornerstones of teaching and trying novel approaches. Even small changes can make a big difference. Reach out to your colleagues to learn what has worked for them, and try new tools to help make these sessions more enjoyable for all the participants which will directly increase the effectiveness of your training program.
References:
[1] Covey, Stephen M. R. 2008. The Speed of Trust. London, England: Simon & Schuster.
Food processing bottlenecks are a persistent problem in the industry. Whether due to labor shortages, shifts in consumer demand leading to product or formulation changes, or inefficient facility design, new technologies are coming to market that can help companies identify and overcome these challenges.
Overcoming Labor Shortages
A 2023 survey from Food Processing found that 40% of respondents plan to add new employees to their workforces this year. The survey highlighted the challenges companies continue to face due to labor shortages, including the inability to find enough workers and difficulty in retaining skilled employees. These problems collectively can cause food processing bottlenecks, particularly as companies seek to scale output to meet growing demand and enhance training to build employees’ skills.
Taiwan’s Taipei Medical University is using virtual reality (VR) at its food safety training center, and the technology shows promise as a faster and more engaging training tool. A professor familiar with the implementation of the technology noted that it can reduce safety-related errors and improve knowledge retention, as workers appreciate engaging in the more immersive learning style of VR compared to watching videos and reading textbook chapters.
That means it could also encourage workers to acquire new skills. That’s vital since the Food Processing survey noted that 55% of respondents have ramped up their in-house technical training in response worker shortages.
Incorporating new technologies, such as VR, may improve onboarding while also helping companies attract younger employees seeking companies that keep pace with modern times.
Digital Twins Increase Visibility
Digital twins are highly realistic models that allow companies to run various scenarios in a controlled environment before trying them in real life. They can help managers identify potential bottlenecks prior to implementing a new product or process, and can help solve existing bottlenecks by showing why an assembly line at a particular plant is less efficient than one at a nearby facility operated by the same company.
Digital twins can also help companies reduce waste. In one example, Accenture and Mars collaborated on a digital twin that enabled real-time monitoring of a filling process. That approach prevented too much product from going into a package.
When it comes to food safety, digital twins can identify insufficient food safety measures, highlighting where and how to make improvements.
One company even developed a digital twin for flavor formulations and customer response predictions. Nearly 90% of new food products remain on the market for only one year. The digital twin developed by Foodpairing was designed to predict “winning” formulations to increase the likelihood of success before introducing new food products.
Robots Supplement Human Efforts
There are limits to how fast humans can work safely and maintain stringent quality control. That’s why many food processing businesses have begun using robots to increase efficiency.
In one case, a food processor used cobots to decrease the six-hour time frame required to transition an assembly line to a different product. These robots also allowed the company to move to 24/7 production, which aligned with customer demand.
FlexCRAFT, a Dutch research program centered on using dual-arm robots for greenhouse management, food processing and packaging, has built machines with grippers that can handle various product shapes and packages.
The food processing application centers on deploying robots to separate, remove or cut various chicken parts. The team is currently developing machines to handle variations in size or type to ensure the robots can work with wings as well as thighs. Future initiatives include incorporating active learning and task planning to further improve the technology.
Food processing bottlenecks can keep companies from meeting goals and remaining competitive in a demanding marketplace. However, technology increasingly provides feasible solutions to help overcome these obstacles.
Leaders tasked with approving technological implementations should assess the most significant issues in their companies. From there, they can investigate which technologies have the most appropriate capabilities to reduce or solve those problems.
Inflation can create a challenging environment for the food industry, making it more difficult to maintain product quality, safety, and transparency. In August 2022, U.S. food inflation hit a 40-year high of 11.4% and has since remained persistently high, at 10.1% in January 2023. Manufacturers and suppliers must stay vigilant and take proactive steps to mitigate the risks posed by stubbornly high food inflation and increasingly complex supply chains.
Inflation can be a catalyst for risk in food supply chains for several reasons. Rising prices could encourage bad actors or tempt manufacturers and suppliers to cut corners or compromise quality to maintain profit margins. This can lead to an increased risk of food fraud, where lower-quality or counterfeit ingredients are substituted for genuine ones or where mislabeled products are sold to unsuspecting consumers. Supply chain disruptions could increasingly affect manufacturers as suppliers struggle to manage the increased costs of raw materials, transportation, and labor, as seen this winter in Europe, with the UK experiencing shortages of tomatoes and eggs. This can result in delays, shortages, and other logistical challenges that can make it difficult to maintain product quality and safety.
Inflation can also increase food allergy and sensitivity incidents. Mislabeling or allergen contamination due to substituted alternative ingredients could put allergen or intolerance sufferers at greater risk, as well as your brand. With the threat of food fraud lurking in increasingly complex and volatile supply chains, what steps can food manufacturers take to protect themselves and their customers?
Tackling Food Fraud and Allergen Incidents
Despite legislative and industry process improvements, food fraud continues to be a significant risk in the food industry, costing businesses an estimated $30 to $40 billion annually. Food fraud refers to any act of deception, intentional or otherwise, that is intended to result in the sale of a food product that is not what it purports to be. This can take many forms, from adulterating ingredients to misbranding and counterfeiting.
The consequences of food fraud can be severe and include economic losses, harm to human health, damage to the reputation of food companies and loss of consumer confidence in the food supply. Food fraud can also cause environmental consequences, including the illegal use of pesticides, or overfishing, which can have long-term effects on the environment, wildlife, and ecosystems.
In recent years, several high-profile cases of food fraud have occurred, including the widespread contamination of infant formula with melamine in China and the horse meat scandal in Europe. These incidents have highlighted the need for better measures to prevent food fraud and to ensure the safety of the food supply.
To protect the integrity and bolster consumer and producer confidence in organic food, which has long been a target of food fraud, the USDA published one of the largest-ever reforms to their organic program in January 2023. However, many risks remain as legislation tries to catch and close loopholes.
One of the challenges of preventing food fraud is that the supply chain is often complex and global, making it difficult to track the origin of ingredients and monitor their quality. In addition, many food frauds are not detected until they reach the end-consumer, making it difficult to recall contaminated products. In order to mitigate the risk of food fraud, it is essential to plan ahead and implement strong supply chain management practices, including the use of technology such as traceability systems and predictive analytics.
A good starting point to mitigate your risk of food fraud is to conduct a deep dive into your highest-risk raw materials and suppliers instead of trying to tackle everything at once, particularly if you have a large number of raw materials to assess. For instance, you may want to prioritize raw materials that have been linked to recent fraud incidents, such as infant formula, honey, and olive oil.
Four Steps to Protecting Your Business
Know your supply chain. Controlling and understanding your supply chain is essential for minimizing risk. It is important to audit your supply chain back to the field, if possible, or at least to the production and processing facility. For smaller businesses, forensic auditing may not be feasible. However, there are still steps they can take to protect themselves, such as seeking third-party certification programs that verify the sustainability, quality, and ethical sourcing of ingredients. Going back by more than one step in your supply chain is crucial, and conducting a vulnerability assessment of your raw materials and suppliers is an excellent starting point.
Shop around safely. Review the market for potential alternate suppliers or less ‘at risk’ ingredients, subject to the required quality checks and labeling requirements. It is crucial to thoroughly assess current and potential new suppliers and ensure they meet the minimum Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) certification standards, wherever possible. Scrutinize all raw material specifications, including the country of origin, as countries with less established food safety regulations may pose a higher risk. Establishing solid relationships with your suppliers and engaging in regular communication with them is also essential to maintain a high standard of quality, safety, and sustainability.
Be vigilant about ingredients. Markets are constantly evolving, and economic, social, and environmental changes can impact the substitution risk profile of any ingredient that you purchase. To manage this risk, it is essential to have an up-to-date awareness of the various market forces that affect ingredients and their availability.
It is important to note that product adulteration may not always be motivated by economic factors. As ingredients become in short supply, manufacturers may make local substitution decisions to keep the supply available. Remember, there is no substitute for a thorough risk-assessed approach to managing this challenge with a complete and detailed understanding of your supply chains.
Utilize training to build awareness and readiness. Training employees on how to identify, prevent and respond to incidents of potential food fraud or allergens is essential but often challenging for food manufacturers. Regular training should include the types of fraud, how to recognize suspicious behavior, and the importance of accurate record-keeping. Ensuring your teams are trained on what to do is there is a food fraud issue is also key, as is testing the teams through mock exercises to see how they would manage a food fraud event in the business.
Persistently high food inflation rates have created a challenging environment for the food industry, making it harder for manufacturers and suppliers to maintain product quality, safety, and transparency. Food businesses must exercise extra vigilance to face an increased risk of food fraud, supply chain disruptions, and an increase in food allergy and sensitivity incidents. Now is the time to proactively mitigate these risks by prioritizing transparency, gaining control and understanding of supply chains, and acting to prevent food fraud.
It is important to note that no system is foolproof. Food manufacturers should regularly assess and improve their supply chain management practices to ensure they are up to date with industry best practices and changing threats. Increasing your transparency in the ingredient supply chain requires a commitment to responsible sourcing and a willingness to invest in traceability, certification, and supplier relationships. While the risks to food quality and safety are well known, businesses need to ask themselves the right questions and take the necessary steps to protect themselves and their customers. By doing so, they can protect their brand reputation and consumer confidence in the food supply and the environment.
Wait! Wait! Don’t go yet!
Sign up for our FREE newsletters and get the top stories from FST right in your email inbox.
Food Safety Tech is the leading online trade journal.
Join the Food Safety Tech community and stay engaged the way you want to!
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.
