The food industry has faced numerous challenges in recent years that have disrupted its stability and normal operations. While it might feel like the industry is finally starting to stabilize, there is still a long way to go to achieve a steady new normal. The industry remains extremely vulnerable to inflation pressures, product shortages, cyberattacks and food fraud. Any one of these risks can send a manufacturer or restaurant scrambling to replace missing ingredients or supplies and resume operations.
In today’s unpredictable landscape, crisis management plans are essential for reducing downtime, safeguarding food quality and maintaining customer trust. These plans help establish backup suppliers in times of supply chain disruptions and bolster defenses against cyberattacks and food fraud. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, developing a customized crisis management plan tailored to your specific production risks is crucial. Below are some insights into using a crisis management plan to tackle common threats faced by food manufacturers and restaurants.
Vendor Management: Ensuring Continuity
Vendors play a key role in the food industry, and their vulnerabilities can directly impact your food safety and quality. Ingredient shortages and price fluctuations create supply chain disruptions that must be managed through proactive measures.
Including a vendor replacement strategy in the crisis management plan enables quick adaptation to unforeseen circumstances. This strategy should encompass multiple sourcing options, rigorous vendor audits, effective communication channels, comprehensive product specifications and efficient change management processes.
Detecting and Preventing Food Fraud
When supply chains are disrupted, food fraud becomes a serious concern. Counterfeiting, dilution, substitution and mislabeling pose risks to both food quality and safety. To combat food fraud effectively, it’s important to vet suppliers to ensure they provide the correct ingredients and adhere to quality standards.
Integrating your supplier selection processes into the crisis management plan will help ensure consistency as you vet new suppliers. Additionally, frontline employees should receive training to detect food fraud. This includes training that enables them to identify abnormalities in raw materials, manufacturing processes and finished goods.
Risk management is not solely the responsibility of leadership. To effectively combat food fraud, it needs to be part of your frontline worker food safety training program.
Safeguarding Against Cyber Threats
With increasing reliance on technology, the food industry has become more vulnerable than ever to cyber threats. Last year, the U.S. cybersecurity company Dragos identified the food and beverage sector as the second largest victim of cyberattacks, making it imperative to prioritize cybersecurity measures.
While robust security platforms and backup systems are important, the most effective defense lies in having an informed workforce trained to identify and prevent potential attacks. It’s critical to ensure your crisis management plan includes preventative measures such as educating employees on recognizing suspicious emails, updating passwords regularly and avoiding risky online behavior.
Transparent Communication Builds Trust
When changes occur in suppliers, products or ingredients, transparent communication with your customers is vital. The crisis management plan should lay out clear guidelines for informing customers on important updates, including formulation and label changes when different ingredients or formulas are used. These guidelines should have the agreement and support of multiple internal departments, including management, marketing, production, safety and quality. Implementing thorough communication strategies can be time-consuming, but surprising customers with unexpected product changes can cause lasting damage to their trust and loyalty.
In today’s challenging food industry environment, proactive planning and risk mitigation are crucial for preserving business continuity, brand reputation and customer relationships. A comprehensive crisis management plan tailored to address specific threats is essential. By prioritizing cybersecurity, vendor management, fraud prevention and transparent communication, food businesses can navigate the challenges effectively and ensure their long-term success in this rapidly evolving landscape.
Food industry professionals are increasingly searching for intelligent food packaging that can signal when consumables are unsafe to use. Solutions encompass time-temperature indicators that give real-time shelf-life indicators and labels that change color to show potential contamination. Recent work in this area focuses on pH-reliant options.
Foods have various pH levels, and lower pH products typically have longer shelf lives, as they are less hospitable to the growth of microorganisms. Following are some of the latest efforts to harness the power of pH to enhance food safety.
Films Made from Bio-Based Ingredients
Researchers are looking at plant-based pigments to create pH-responsive packaging and reduce the use of chemical-based triggers. Efforts in this area include pH-responsive films made from hydrogels, including films made of anthocyanins (water-soluble pigments) from red cabbage, which contains 24 types of anthocyanins. The films, which are biodegradable, change color as the pH of the food changes. In another case, scientists wanted to see how pH-sensitive packaging would perform in high-ammonia environments. They put film on a package of fish for 72 hours and noticed a resultant color change that indicated spoilage.
Work elsewhere has involved making color-changing films from chitosan, a sugar derived from external shellfish skeletons. The main benefit of these films is that they provide visible and easy-to-understand indicators of possible spoilage. A secondary perk is that chitosan has antimicrobial properties, which could extend shelf life and help manufacturers maintain quality.
One low-tech option involves packaging a consumable with a sachet filled with a substance that can alter the food’s pH level.
Moving pH Sensors from Processing Plants to Packaging
Food processors have long used pH sensors to provide valuable data during specific food development and manufacturing processes, ranging from fermentation to pasteurization. The main goal is to verify that the pH level is within the desired range after a process’s completion. In a 2022 study, researchers tested a salicylic acid-based carbon electrode paired with a pH sensing element based on electropolymerized flavanone and found that the sensor had a 0.03-pH-unit maximum error rate.
A 2020 study, which involved treating lychee fruit with a specially engineered chitosan-based coating, showed the coating reduced pH levels during an 18-day storage period, making the fruit stay fresher for longer.
Elsewhere, researchers used 3D printing to make fruit labels that preserve freshness. Each label contained cellulose nanofibers that held growth regulators and chitosan. The team pre-programmed the nanofibers to inject the contents into the fruits at desired intervals. Tests showed this innovation caused a six-day extension of fruit shelf life. The labels included a color-changing component to monitor freshness.
In addition to a developing biodegradable options, researchers are also finding ways to make pH sensors smaller. A graduate student at Southern Methodist University recently developed a disposable pH sensor that’s only 10 millimeters wide and 2 millimeters long. That small size makes it suitable for virtually all food packages. Additionally, this device is inexpensive to develop with minimal labor, making it an economical option.
It has become increasingly clear that use and sell-by dates are not the most accurate means to inform consumers if food is still safe. However, intelligent food packaging developments that track pH levels can facilitate improvements that reduce food waste and the risk of illness due to foodborne pathogens.
Some of these technologies are still under development, and it will take time to determine if they’re sufficiently scalable for industrial use. But, as intelligent food packaging becomes more commonplace, decision-makers will have new tools to gain a competitive edge, and protect both their bottom lines and consumers’ health.
In June, the USDA FSIS granted label approval and grant of inspection to two companies manufacturing cell-cultured meat: Upside Foods and Good Meat. This was the final step in the U.S. regulatory process, opening the door for commercialization. We spoke with Justin Dranschak, Director of BioPharma at Molecular Devices, about a potential timeline to sales, what this means for other manufacturers of lab-grown meat products and what impact these products may have on the U.S. and international food supply. A former employee with the Ohio Department of Agriculture and Siliker Labs, Dranschak has been working on cell line development for the past 10 years.
The FDA recently announced that it had no further questions about the safety of two cell-cultured meat products, which then went on to gain USDA grant of inspection and label approval. Can Upside Foods and Good Meat now sell their products commercially, and are these products ready for commercialization?
Dranschak: These approvals mean they can come to market, so the companies can now move forward with full-scale biofabrication. In terms of commercialization, there are still some challenges in terms of achieving price parity with meats now sold at the store level. The next step is optimizing production and scaling up the capacity of these systems. Everything up to now has been done on a small to medium scale, with a focus on thorough, rigorous testing. Scaling up from small to medium to large is a big challenge, and we’ve seen that in a lot of biological workflows as you’re dealing with different types of cells. They will need to optimize production and consistency of quality to ensure what they’re putting out in stores really matches what customers are looking for.
I recently saw a speaker who noted that the amount of meat or cells you need to create a final product is really not efficient or optimized? Has that been remedied or does that continue to be a challenge?
Dranschak: That is probably the No. 1 issue that is being looked at from a development perspective. But there are a lot of novel breakthroughs that are just on the periphery in terms of different styles of growth media that we can use, and different styles of vats and containers that we can use to ensure that the cells are getting correct feeding at the correct time and that you are then moving those onto the next step of the process at the right time. There are new technologies for monitoring and visualizing those cells. But those scaling efforts are the obstacle right now.
When developing lab grown meat, what is the manufacturing process?
Dranschak: The process starts with instrumentation called single cell printers. The company starts with a single cell taken from an animal, whichever animal they are using, and then they identify the cells of interest and put those in a machine that is then going to dispense a single cell into a 96-well plate. From there, they track that cell as it grows and multiplies. As you grow and multiply those cells, you also need to monitor them over time and prove that they did start from a single cell—that’s proof of monoclonality and that is what the FDA requires. The FDA wants to know where that cell came from and also the stability—ensuring that cell is not going to change or modify over time.
Once you’ve identified that you have these cells that match all the desired characteristics, that’s when you move into quality and production scale. At this point, you’re interested in things such as nutritional content and also biological content. Are the proteins in these cells the same as what we would see in regular chicken or fish? Are we seeing the same levels as we increase the number cells that we are producing in these vats? So, it comes down to a number of different groups working together in tandem to produce cell lines that are going to taste how consumer expect them to taste, and to ensure consistency over time.
If you start with a chicken, for example, and you extract some cells, do you then need to do that extraction for each future piece of chicken or can you build your own cell bank that becomes your product base?
Dranschak: You create a cell bank. These companies are developing thousands of cells and cell banks, and as they go through their processes they’re learning from each cell bank—identifying cells or methods that might over-produce or under-produce something. These cells are held for future learning so they can call on them at any time for development purposes or for future production runs.
What is the timeline in terms of producing a final product from a single cell?
Dranschak: It can take anywhere from 12 to 18 months up to 3 years. When looking at food versus a biological therapeutic, it’s a much more defined process, so I do see significant opportunities for shortening that cycle using automation—moving from more manual processes and synergizing those with robotics to move things in a higher capacity through the system. With advancements in AI and software, we’re also going to see a lot of process optimization in terms of the actual building design of these systems and incorporating the safety and sterilization processes that we have in pharmaceuticals and biotech back into the food industry for development.
Are there differences in terms of progress in the areas of development of cell-cultured poultry products vs. beef or seafood?
Dranschak: In terms of the path forward, this [FDA and USDA approvals] represents a major step because it provides a regulatory roadmap for the food industry and other industries using cell-cultured products. That being said, each process is different. Each cell line and each cell type has its own unique challenges in terms of how they grow, taste, function, etc. But the overall framework from a regulatory perspective has been set.
There is some wariness about cell-cultured meat, even within the food industry, are there unique safety concerns for lab grown meat?
Dranschak: They are largely the same. I previously worked in a food analytical lab doing microbiological testing with Siliker Laboratories. You’re going to be performing the exact same tests from the pathogen level as well as from a food characterization level. The main difference is the manufacturing process, and all of that has been extensively documented. It is extremely safe. Lab-grown meat does come with challenges from a public health perspective because it is something new. Overcoming that challenge requires education.
To me, this is an amazing and positive step forward. It offers us an opportunity to meet food challenges in parts of the world where, for example, they are unable to have access to meat on a regular basis. Lab grown meat allows us to address global food crises and support global health through science and the development of new products.
Food safety is set to gain national prominence with the release of “Poisoned: The Dirty Truth About Your Food.” The documentary from director Stephanie Soechtig was inspired by the book, Poisoned: The True Story of the Deadly E. Coli Outbreak That Changed the Way Americans Eat, by Jeff Benedict, which tells the story of the landmark 1993 Jack in the Box E. Coli outbreak.
The film premiered on June 9 at the Tribeca film festival and will launch on Netflix in Fall 2023. We spoke with Dr. Darin Detwiler, author, founder and CEO of Detwiler Consulting Group, and professor at Northeastern University, whose son Riley died as a result of the outbreak at just 16 months old, about his involvement in the documentary, who the film aims to reach, and changes that could be implemented to strengthen America’s food safety system.
How did the documentary come together and how did you get involved?
Sarah Sorcher, Marion Nestle, Christine Haughney Dare-Bryan, Julie Marler, Bill Marler, Darin Detwiler
Dr. Detwiler: The film makers bought the rights to the book Poisoned by Jeff Benedict, But where Benedict’s book really looks at 1993 and the immediate aftermath of the Jack-in-the-Box E. coli outbreak, the filmmakers also wanted to look at the 30 years since the outbreak. We connected because I had written Food Safety: Past, Present and Predictions, and in that book I talk about 1993 and the immediate aftermath, but I also talk about the Peanut Corporation of America, the romaine lettuce outbreak and other landmark cases over the past three decades. I was a good resource for them in terms of my experience in 1993 with the death of my son, who was one of those four who died as a result of the E. Coli outbreak, and also in terms of my work with USDA and the FDA and my role as an academic who speaks on food safety and food safety policy.
Who is the intended audience in terms of who the filmmakers were hoping to speak to and in terms of who you hope to reach?
Dr. Detwiler: I love the fact that there are different audiences for the documentary. This is an opportunity for food safety professionals to understand the legacy of the E. Coli outbreak and the why behind the protocols, procedures, and expectations in regulatory compliance.
But what excites me is that this documentary was made for the general public, and it can hit the hearts and the stomachs of everyone. Everyone eats, and for more than 50% of people, their first job is somehow connected to food. Could this help someone who is working on a food production line better understand the history behind food handling and food safety requirements?
At the premiere there were so many questions from the audience and people were saying, “I had no idea you could get it E. coli without even eating a contaminated product. I had no idea this is still an issue.” This documentary could impact the decision making of several different categories of stakeholders who all have a role to play in terms of the bigger picture of food safety.
It must be painful to keep revisiting and telling the story of your son’s death.
Dr. Detwiler and son Riley.
Dr. Detwiler: It’s a way from me to pay respect to my son, and this might sound Pollyannaish, but it also helps to memorialize his story and extend the legacy of his life to new audiences.
If my son was alive, he’d be older than I am now—I was 24 in 1993 and Riley would be 31 today. For 30 years I have been sharing his story, and it has served two purposes. One is to help improve food safety at the core level and two is to keep my promise to myself. Right after my son died, I spoke with President Bill Clinton on the phone, and I said, “I feel like I need to help and be a part of this.” My thinking was, whatever I can do in terms of science or technology or laws and policy, we’re going to make it such that families in the future will not be dealing with these problems, but clearly they still are.
There was also a sense of, while I’m faced with losing my son, I don’t want to be faced with this notion that my son lost his father. When I do this work, in my mind it’s like I’m still spending time with him. I’m still there for him. And I do this not only for myself and my son but also for other people who have been affected by foodborne illness. To say “the CDC estimates that 48 million Americans become sick every year, that some 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die every year,” that’s usually the most lip service anyone gives to the idea of foodborne illness. When I tell the story of my son’s illness and other family’s experiences, that puts a face and an emotion to those numbers. My goal is to not only impact those with the ability to change the industry, but also serve those 3,000 families every year—that’s 90,000 families since my son died—that live with that chair forever empty at their family table. I saw this documentary as being very important because the true burden of foodborne illness is represented, and representation is an important part of the healing and recovery from such an event.
I was surprised to learn that back in 1993 E. coli in beef wasn’t a significant concern on the federal level, but was more stringently regulated among a small number of states. Are there food safety risks today where you feel we’re lacking in oversight or regulation?
Dr. Detwiler: There were very few states that were reporting E. coli at that time, but within a year that had quadrupled. Today, we have Pulsenet and Foodnet, which are federal collections of data related to foodborne illness incidents, and we have much better—when you’re looking at multi-state outbreaks—data being collected.
One area that’s of interest is the FDA Food Code in that it is updated regularly, but there are some states that use very old versions of it. When I was doing my doctorate research just a few years ago in 2015-2016, there were some states that were using versions of the Food Code there were over 20 years old, and clearly the science has changed.
On the federal level, there are 15 different federal agencies that play a role in food safety as well as many different state agencies, but you don’t just have 50 states. Within those 50 states you have either the State Department of Agriculture or the State Department of Health overseeing food safety—each of which have two different missions and two different sources of funding. On top of that there are more than 3,000 different jurisdictions for food safety in the U.S. when you start looking at military bases, tribal reservations, universities and colleges, etc. In some places it’s regulated by the state and in others it’s by county or even by city. So there are a lot of moving pieces and a lot of different players, resulting in this patchwork of regulatory agency oversight.
Shortly after the 1993 outbreak, the USDA declared that E. coli was an illegal adulterant in meat, and today we rarely see cases of food safety failure related to E. coli and meat. However, there were no significant changes in FDA policy until FSMA was passed in 2010, and the rules didn’t start to be implemented until 2016.
Imagine if we had a single food safety agency. Imagine if there had been a single agency 30 years ago and if the change in policy hadn’t just impact food regulated by the USDA but instead impacted all foods.
Does this mean you support the potential move to create a single Human Foods program at the federal level?
Dr. Detwiler: I do support it and believe it would solve some of these gaps. When you look at other nations you don’t have the division among the states like we have here. Just the sheer number of agencies at the federal level, economically it doesn’t make sense. Look at what happened after 9/11. Suddenly you have the Department of Homeland Security that says we can cut through some of these problems by creating a federal agency that brings together all the different agencies involved in national security. Imagine if something like that was done in terms of food safety.
There are a lot of factors to consider, and this is a complicated issue. I don’t think this documentary will answer all the questions, but I hope that it will compel consumers to start asking these questions. That is where we can potentially see the greatest change and improvement in food safety.
You mentioned that in the documentary the film makers wanted to focus on the legacy of 1993, what in your words is the legacy of 1993?
Dr. Detwiler: In terms of the positive, it gained the media’s attention. We have a food safety culture and industry today that has radically grown when you look at magazines and websites and conferences and things like that. What I do find unfortunate is that it is focused on industry. Imagine if all the messaging about driver safety was kept within the automobile industry and not actually getting to drivers. This documentary fills a big gap by focusing on the consumer. We also have seen the positive impact of the USDA declaring E. Coli an illegal adulterant in meat.
Some of the things the documentary highlights, however, is the issue of antibiotic resistance and salmonella still being legal in poultry. When you look at some of the things that haven’t changed—for example, we see cattle feed lots that are next to where romaine lettuce is grown, the idea that Hepatitis A could be prevented in the food industry and in restaurants if employees simply got the vaccine to prevent it, and the lack of consequences for food safety failures—there are still areas that are lacking.
Most people don’t realize that with Jack in the Box back in 1993, there were no state or federal charges filed even though the CEO acknowledged—in front of news cameras—that they violated state law on the minimum cooking temperature, resulting in hundreds of illnesses and hospitalizations and the death of four people.
For families who’ve lost a child or their child has been left disabled, these cases have all been settled out of court and out of the public eye. This documentary bypasses all of that and puts this information in a very public package.
The recent ransomware attacks on U.S. Government agencies and hundreds of private U.S. companies is a reminder that cybersecurity remains one of the most significant challenges facing the food and agriculture (Ag) industries today. It was a concern that took center stage at a recent OSPA (Outstanding Security Performance Awards) webinar entitled “Food Protection: The Ultimate Security Challenge?”
Presenters Megan Francies, Food Protection Manager at LambWeston, Mark Wittrock, Assistant Director of Health, Food and Agriculture Resilience, Office of Health Security, U.S. Dept of Homeland Security, David Goldenberg, Chief of InfraGard National Sector Security and Resilience Program (NSSRP), Food and Agriculture Sector at UC Davis, Andy Griffiths, European Regional Security Director at Firmenich, Jason Bashura, MPH, RS, Sr. Manager of Global Food Defense at PepsiCo, and moderator Professor Martin Gill, Director of Perpetuity Research & Consultancy International (PRCI), addressed key questions, including:
How well protected is our food supply?
What are the risks and are we sure we are preparing and responding effectively?
How can increased information sharing between and amongst the public and private sectors help to reduce these risks?
Growing Risk for Food and Ag
Griffiths noted that due to hostile actors and regional conflicts, supply chains are seeing increased vulnerability making the implementation of effective transportation security and cargo theft mitigation more important—and more challenging—than ever.
In the U.S. there is a national response framework, but as Wittrock highlighted both public and private entities need to think broadly and holistically to prepare for and coordinate a response to attacks when they occur.
The need for strategic alliances and information sharing and analysis centers (ISACs) that allow organizations to share adverse events and strategies are important, but when there are many stakeholders with different—and often competing—interests, it is difficult to communicate in a language and in a timeline that meets the ideal requirements, added Wittrock. When living in an increasingly global world, we also must remember that “your friends today are not necessarily your friends tomorrow,” he said.
The risk of copycat attacks when an event occurs is also a concern, said Goldenberg.
The Need for Communication and Information Sharing
Francies championed the benefits of transparent and effective communication between government and the private sector. Her view was echoed by several panelists who encouraged more opportunities for organizations to share security breaches in a non-attributable manner to help others prepare for and reduce commonly experienced risks.
When asked, what is the biggest barrier to communication and information-sharing, Wittrock pointed to siloed discussion among key stakeholder groups. “When looking across the entirety of the food and Ag enterprise, it includes many different parts, pieces and stakeholders,” he said. “The communication happens largely in the vacuum of one particular discipline or stakeholder group. What’s lacking first and foremost is that strategic dialogue across communities.”
Efforts to improve communication are often challenged by lack of clear channels through which stakeholders can share information, said Francies. “A lot of times the communication goes out in a way that is not accessible to everybody, and it’s often last minute so people aren’t prepared to provide the insights that we need,” she said. “We need a defined way or area to communicate that is well known and publicly accessible to industry.”
In addition to clear channels, trust needs to be established among organizations and government agencies as well. “Industry has to have trust that the information they are sharing is going to be handled appropriately and that they are getting information that’s trustworthy from other sources,” said Goldenberg. “Unless there is trust across all the sectors and agencies among food and Ag, there is never going to be good communication.”
The need to protect brand reputation is often at the heart of unreported security incidents, said Griffiths. “But I do think there is a willingness to share certainly within industry and there is a need within law enforcement to obtain that information to determine how big the problem or issue is,” he added. “The problem is, there is no mechanism by which this information can be exchanged in a safe and confidential way that maintains the integrity of both the source and also the information that’s being shared. Yet, unless everyone shares across the board through collaboration or cooperation, we’re forever on the run.”
In light of the significant challenges raised related to communication and information sharing, Bashura shared successes that are taking place, including the ASIAS Aero Portal, which was developed by the FFA and Mitre to ensure security of the aviation industry, Operation Opson, a joint operation between Europol and INTERPOL developed to target fake and substandard food and beverages, the Food Industry Intelligence Network, and resources available through the Food Defense Resource Center. In terms of the importance of building trust among industry, Bashura encouraged leaders to reach out to each other. “Pick up the phone. Make a call, send an email, or shoot a text,” he said.
The FDA has issued a final guidance “Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Apple Juice,” which identifies for industry the action level of 10 parts per billion (ppb) for inorganic arsenic in apple juice. The guidance supports the FDA’s goal to reduce exposure to environmental contaminants from foods commonly consumed by babies and young children.
The FDA noted that its testing results reflect a trend in reductions in the amount of inorganic arsenic in apple juice on the market, with an increasing percentage of samples testing below 3 ppb and 5 ppb. However, since the release of the draft guidance in 2013, the agency has identified some apple juice samples with inorganic arsenic levels above 10 ppb—the level the agency considers achievable with the use of good manufacturing practices.
Though non-binding, the FDA expects that the 10 ppb action level will help to encourage manufacturers to reduce levels of inorganic arsenic in apple juice. The agency said that it will continue its current practice of monitoring arsenic in apple juice samples and if testing identifies inorganic arsenic in apple juice above 10 ppb, the FDA will consider this action level, in addition to other factors, to determine whether to take enforcement action.
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.
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.
