Barry Whitman

Conveying Equipment Plays a Vital Role in Food Safety

By Barry Whitman
No Comments
Barry Whitman

A processing plant’s conveyors touch food at every point of production, from receiving to packaging to before and after critical processing stages including slicing, thawing, pasteurizing and cooking. Today’s food-grade sanitary conveyors are built to protect the spread of bacterial contamination that can cause foodborne illness. But what do sanitary conveyors do, and how do they contribute to food processing plant safety?

How Sanitary Conveyors Work

Conveyors move ingredients and products between processing stages in any production plant. They ensure the different plant applications are integrated into a single process and automate handling challenges such as lifting, lowering or reorienting product for further processing.

In food manufacturing, conveyors are critical as they allow large amounts of product to be processed quickly and efficiently, but they also perform another crucial function: ensuring food safety. Conveyor equipment must maintain the same food hygiene standards as the rest of the plant.

Sanitary Conveyors and Food Safety

Bacterial contamination is the most serious threat to food safety when consumable products are handled in bulk. Harmful bacteria can proliferate when food becomes trapped or equipment is improperly sanitized and can spread quickly through any exposed product.

Food-grade conveyor equipment is designed to avoid contamination of products. Modern conveyor food processing systems include food-safe components and special features designed to maintain hygiene to prevent dangerous bacteria from contaminating products and limit their ability to spread.

Sanitary conveyor equipment also helps protect products by:

  • Limiting the time food is exposed to potential contamination
  • Combining and reducing processing steps to minimize handling
  • Matching handling techniques to specific products

Today, food-grade conveyors provide effective sanitary control while offering a full range of handling solutions that can be customized to the needs of a product or the constraints of a production space. These include:

  • Belt conveyors for flexible, seamless line integrations
  • Bucket and incline conveyors for raising product in motion
  • Tote dumpers for safe, efficient bulk handling
  • Horizontal motion conveyors for loose or granular products
  • Vibratory conveyors for cooked foods

Food Contamination Costs Brands Millions

Food-safe solutions designed with a manufacturer’s product and processes in mind are critical when considering the true cost of a food safety failure or product recall.

The CDC estimates that sicknesses caused by foodborne pathogens affect 48 million Americans yearly, with up to 128,000 people hospitalized with bacterial pathogens such as campylobacter, listeria, salmonella, and E. coli. Increasingly sophisticated industry monitoring means manufacturers are subject to ever-higher hygiene standards and more sophisticated contamination tracing techniques.

Today, even a limited product recall can cost a brand up to $10 million. The cost of downtime and lost product of a complete line shutdown to deep clean, sanitize and test equipment can be far higher. In addition, the indirect costs to a business can be challenging to measure but are just as real. These can include:

  • Damage to the brand
  • Damage to the company’s reputation
  • Loss of public confidence in the product category
  • Loss of key staff
  • Lower workforce morale

Today’s Food Safety Standards

To minimize the risk to consumers and the food system as a whole, regulators and industry groups require food processing equipment, including sanitary conveyors, to meet a wide range of standards. Common standards in the U.S. today include:

Compliance with these standards is enforced by regular equipment inspections and testing. Typically, any food-exposed surface must pass a rigorous surface-swab test to meet sanitary requirements.

Safety standards are also constantly improving. For example, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act is being rolled out and will raise standards significantly in several sectors.

Ensuring Food Safety with Sanitary Conveyors

How does today’s food-grade conveying equipment help protect food safety? Here are four examples:

Minimize handling. Perhaps the biggest contribution conveyors make to food safety is minimizing the amount of physical handling products receive. Reducing the need for human contact with food significantly reduces the risk of contamination. Because different types of conveyors can move, raise, lower and change the direction of travel, the need for human handling of food is often eliminated. Some equipment, such as horizontal motion conveyors, can even slow down or reverse direction to allow parts to be cleaned or replaced without stopping the line.

Match technology to process. Choosing the suitable conveyor for a product or process is critical to maintaining a consistent level of hygiene. For example, vibratory conveyors are best for preventing the sticking of cooked food, while horizontal motion conveyors keep frozen product like seafood moving. Experienced equipment providers can help match conveyor equipment to the manufacturer’s specific needs.

Vibratory conveyor belt
Vibratory conveyors help prevent cooked food from sticking to the conveyor.

Use sanitary materials. The best food-grade conveyor equipment is made from high-quality, hygienic materials. To minimize the risk of contamination, any surface that comes into contact with food must be:

  • Smooth and free of cracks, crevices or dents
  • Nonporous and nonabsorbent
  • Non-reactive to food products
  • Corrosion resistant
  • Require little or no maintenance to maintain these characteristics. (This applies particularly to painted, coated or electroplated surfaces. There should never be any flaking, bubbling or chipping of food-exposed surfaces.)

To preserve hygiene, most leading brand manufacturers of sanitary conveyors choose either FDA-approved food-grade plastics for belting or bucket systems and a range of metals for contact surfaces, depending on the application.

While a range of metals might be appropriate for applications handling dry materials such as hard candy or pasta, processors handling dairy and meat products must meet much tighter sanitary standards. In these sectors, true food-grade stainless steel is preferred for its naturally antimicrobial properties and resistance to high-temperature washdown, pasteurization and sterilization procedures.

Designed for safety. The design of professional-grade food conveying equipment takes sanitation into consideration. Today’s systems include minimal moving parts. Keeping the design of machinery simple has several benefits, including:

  • Makes it easier to clean, maintain and sanitize
  • Reduces wear and tear to minimize downtime and maintenance calls
  • Fewer connections and other potential contamination points
  • Key components are easier to access for cleaning and maintenance
  • Simplifies sanitation and validation processes

Simpler equipment also enables the toolless replacement of key components, reducing the likelihood of damage or contamination of a production line by non-sterile maintenance tools.

In addition, newer conveyor systems offer active water and condensation management, which minimizes moisture accumulation and actively manages liquids released by cooking, draining and dewatering. These systems feature:

  • Angled surfaces
  • Tilted or grooved belts and conveyor surfaces
  • Self-draining piping systems

Food processors should look for features that minimize water ingress between components for equipment exposed to high-temperature washdown and sterilization processes, such as conveyors handling dairy or raw meat products. Look for:

  • Solid stainless steel tubing
  • Minimal unwelded joints, crevices or fasteners
  • IP69K compliance: the top industry standard for limiting water ingress between parts

Simple design, premium materials and quality construction all help to minimize food-exposed places where bacteria can build up. They also make it easier to swab-test and validate equipment. Features include:

  • Properly designed and installed fasteners
  • Tight, overlapping joints and connections
  • Smooth, polished welds and well-milled contact surfaces
  • Radiused corners without welds

In addition, look beyond direct contact surfaces when checking for harboring opportunities. Look carefully at the top edges and contact points with coverings or lids where moisture or waste could accumulate.

Value-Added Sanitary Conveying

Value-added technologies or features processors should consider when choosing conveying equipment include:

Combining/Eliminating Processes. Advanced equipment such as vibratory conveyors offer value-added processing that allows product to be laned, spread, dewatered or reoriented while in motion, providing the ability to combine or eliminate processes that were previously separate steps. Fewer steps mean less handling or exposure time for vulnerable materials like sliced fresh produce, raw meats or cheeses.

Improved Quality Control. Variable-speed horizontal motion conveyors allow finished products to be more easily inspected on moving trays before final packaging, enhancing the output quality and allowing more opportunities to spot substandard product.

Clean-in-Place. Premium conveying equipment is generally customized for specific applications and may include features such as clean-in-place equipment. This allows food-exposed surfaces to be cleaned or to self-clean while the machine is still operating.

Value-added equipment such as belt scrapers, flip-down guarding, belt lifts and quick-release take-ups minimize hands-on maintenance, helping to ensure sanitary conditions for longer periods of time.

Ensuring food safety is a top priority for processors, and sanitary conveying equipment plays a role in protecting both the processor and the consumer. Choosing high-quality equipment that fits into a plant’s design and set up and is easy to clean and sanitize helps create trust in brands while also impacting the bottom line.

Kristy Gulsvig

Post-Incident Forensics:  Piecing Together the Puzzle After a Cyberattack

By Kristy Gulsvig
No Comments
Kristy Gulsvig

We live in an age where cybersecurity risks are everywhere—from the emails we receive to the online platforms we use. And industries, such as the food industry, that are part of our nation’s critical infrastructure are key targets for cybercriminals.

In September 2021, the FBI’s Cyber Division alerted companies that the Food and Agriculture industry was among the most susceptible to cyberattacks in the U.S. Since that alert, numerous attacks have taken place, many of them impacting global supply chains and endangering consumer safety.

The Connection Between Food Safety and Strong Cybersecurity

The food and agriculture supply chain is incredibly complex and consists of a web of interconnected systems and procedures. Farms and food processing plants have become heavily digitized in an effort to speed up production and add higher levels of efficiency.

Most farms and food processing facilities use advanced monitoring systems to check everything from temperature to packaging standards. And because many of these systems are automated, any interference or tampering could lead to severe consequences. This is why it is imperative that companies implement post-incident forensics techniques into their operations.

The Role of Post-Incident Forensics

In cybersecurity, digital forensics play a pivotal role in revealing hidden weaknesses that lead to breaches, and in pinpointing the origins of a cyberattack. While a post-incident forensic analysis can’t undo the harm already done, it can offer valuable insights to help deter similar breaches in the future.

These forensic investigations involve a lengthy and thorough process that requires a number of important steps that include:

Identification. During or in the early stages after a cyberattack, companies need to clearly identify the type of incident that has taken place. This is where investing in threat intelligence platforms and security information and event management (SIEM) solutions becomes important. These tools, along with human intervention, can be used to isolate specific events and locate the source of potential breaches in progress or ones that have recently taken place.

Preservation. During a criminal investigation, law enforcement agencies and detectives work diligently to preserve all forms of evidence; the same is expected when completing digital forensics. Because digital breadcrumbs can be modified or removed over time, it is important to isolate and mark specific information relevant to the investigation with a chain of custody. This ensures that anyone with access to files or systems for analysis is properly authorized to do so and can be accounted for.

Collection. A post-incident forensic analysis is all about data collection. There are any number of areas where data can be pulled to paint a bigger picture of the event. Relevant data from a cyberattack can be stored in equipment logs, hard drives or on cloud databases. Investigators will need a methodical process for locating and storing data so it can be analyzed in the future. They often use specialized technology such as forensic imaging software to create a copy of drives in their original state and pull in information without potentially damaging the original evidence.

Analysis. In the analysis stage of a digital forensic investigation, investigators comb through the gathered data to understand its significance. This phase can last from a few weeks to several months, based on the depth and impact of the cyber attack. This step is pivotal because it sheds light on vital details, helping cybersecurity teams understand exactly how the breach happened and formulate strategies to ward off future incidents.

Reporting. Once the analysis is concluded, it is the investigative team’s responsibility to draft a comprehensive report outlining key findings from their study. This report should be written in a way that is accessible to both technical experts and a non-technical audience, ensuring everyone clearly understands how the attack took place. This report is important not only for the organization to learn and adapt, but also to meet legal or regulatory standards. Some of these reports might be publicized, so it’s essential they accurately reflect the depth of the investigation and any necessary steps to take moving forward.

Challenges of Post-Incident Forensics in Food Safety

The food and agriculture sector presents unique hurdles when executing post-incident forensics. A primary obstacle for cybersecurity experts responding to an incident is the expansive nature of food and beverage supply chains. With large distribution networks, as well as various partnerships with suppliers, manufacturers and retailers, the potential for cyberattacks increases exponentially. This complexity often leads to longer timeframes required to trace the origins of an attack.

It’s also important to know that most major cyberattacks don’t stem from a singular breach. Typically, cybercriminals will invest considerable resources to infiltrate several systems or networks over a long period of time. Investigators will then often find themselves in a “Russian doll” scenario, where uncovering one level of the attacks reveals another one underneath it.

Over the years, it has also become significantly harder to source well-trained cybersecurity professionals who have both the industry knowledge and the forensic expertise necessary to tackle more complicated attacks. This often leads to organizations taking dangerous shortcuts and not adequately budgeting their incident response programs.

Best Security Practices for Food and Beverage Industries

To ensure that organizations are well-positioned to complete thorough post-incident investigations, there are some important cybersecurity best practices that should be implemented.

Invest in the Right Cybersecurity Infrastructure. Not every industry has the right infrastructure in place to protect themselves or successfully recover from a large-scale security event such as ransomware recovery. This is why investing in firewalls, intrusion detection systems and other cybersecurity solutions is integral to securing your systems. While these tools may not eliminate all the risks associated with modern cyber threats, they will help to significantly minimize attack surfaces.

Create a Comprehensive Disaster Recovery Plan. Though preventing attacks is a top priority for organizations, it’s just one aspect of a strong defense. For businesses in the food and agriculture sector, it’s crucial to also have a thorough disaster recovery strategy in place. The foundation of a successful post-incident forensics investigation is proper planning and clearly documented processes. Disaster recovery plans give organizations the ability to create a clear and methodical roadmap for how to proceed once a major issue has been identified.

Conduct Regular Security Audits. Given the evolving nature of technology, even the best-prepared organizations might inadvertently introduce vulnerabilities into their systems over time. This makes it crucial for organizations to routinely check their systems by conducting an SOC audit or undergoing a risk assessment to spot and address any potential flaws in their cybersecurity measures.

Collaborate With Outside Security Experts. Every industry has unique security challenges to address. But rather than tackling these issues on their own, critical infrastructure organizations can—and should—lean heavily on the security experts in their sectors. This includes partnering with risk assessment specialists and managed service providers that can help identify where gaps may exist in an organization’s security and work closely with stakeholders to address them.

Establish the Right Security Culture. Post-incident forensics investigations are an important part of building a strong, more resilient food and agriculture sector. Although equipping an organization with the appropriate technology and processes is essential, establishing a culture of security awareness and accountability is beneficial for everyone involved. By following a well-outlined plan and collaborating with established cybersecurity experts, organizations can better safeguard against modern threats and reduce the damages when events occur.

Eric Sugar

Implementing ZTA for Cybersecurity: Benefits and Best Practices

By Eric Sugar
No Comments
Eric Sugar

When thinking about food safety, your first thought is likely safe handling and avoidance of potential contamination. However, cyberattacks pose an increasingly serious threat to food safety, food businesses and consumers.

As the food service industry becomes increasingly reliant on digital technology and processes in their day-to-day operations, cybersecurity should become an integral part of their safety considerations. Technologies that present vulnerabilities and must be protected include online ordering and delivery, point-of-sale systems, inventory management, supply chain management and customer loyalty programs.

Business leaders in the food service space may be surprised to learn that their businesses are key targets for cyberattacks.[1] The technologies used in the food service industry generate and store large amounts of data, such as customer information, payment details and product specifications, which could be valuable to cybercriminals who want to steal, manipulate or destroy it. These cyberattacks can cause significant operational disruption, financial losses, reputational damage, legal liabilities and customer dissatisfaction.

Zero-trust Architecture (ZTA): A New Approach to Solving Cybersecurity Issues

One new concept in the cybersecurity space that could fundamentally change how businesses approach the security of their data is zero-trust architecture (ZTA).[2] ZTA is based on the principle of “never trust, always verify,” meaning every request for access to a resource is verified by multiple factors before access is granted. This approach can help businesses protect their resources from various cyber threats.

ZTA offers several other benefits to businesses, thanks to its unique security features. For example, ZTA reduces the attack surface and prevents lateral movement by attackers within a network, as each resource is isolated and protected by granular policies and controls. ZTA also enhances the visibility and monitoring of network activity and behavior, improves the compliance and governance of data and assets, and increases the agility and scalability of network operations. In simpler terms, ZTA allows businesses to ensure their data’s security.

Implementing ZTA in Food Service

A ZTA system is effectively a combination of components that work together to enforce the policies and controls for accessing each resource across the network. Some components commonly found in ZTA systems include:

  • Identity and access management (IAM): IAM is an essential foundation for a ZTA approach, as this protocol authenticates and authorizes users (and their devices) before granting access to resources. Potential methods of IAM include single sign-on (SSO),[3] multi-factor authentication (MFA),[4] role-based access control (RBAC) and attribute-based access control (ABAC), among others.
  • Data protection: ZTA systems also implement strict data protection standards, which encrypt and secure data that is both in transition and at rest. Commonly used methods of data protection include transport layer security (TLS), internet protocol security (IPsec) and secure shell (SSH).
  • Network segmentation: Network segmentation is an important aspect of a ZTA approach to cybersecurity that isolates and restricts network traffic between resources. A system might use software-defined networking (SDN), software-defined perimeter (SDP) or micro-segmentation to achieve this effect.
  • Security information and event management (SIEM): Finally, a ZTA system implements SIEM, or the collection and analysis of logs and events from all the ZTA components. This allows businesses to monitor and detect anomalies across the network.

One example of a food service business that could benefit from implementing a ZTA system would be a restaurant that offers online ordering and delivery. The restaurant’s system may verify the identity, device health, network location and data encryption of each customer before granting access to the online menu and payment system. It could also verify the same information for each delivery driver before granting access to the order details and location information. Then, it would collect and analyze the logs and events from all ZTA components to monitor and detect any anomalies or threats across the network.

Protecting against cyberattacks should be a priority for any business. In the food service industry, you are dealing with sensitive data such as customer information, payment details and product specifications that must be protected at all costs. A zero-trust architecture (ZTA) system is the best way to ensure that this data is protected from wrongdoers who might want to access your data illegitimately.

 

References:

[1] Rundle, J. (2023, June 15). Food producers band together in face of cyber threats. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/food-producers-band-together-in-face-of-cyber-threats-8aa2e3ca

[2] CrowdStrike. (2023, June 28). What is Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA)? – CrowdStrike. crowdstrike.com. https://www.crowdstrike.com/cybersecurity-101/zero-trust-security/zero-trust-architecture/

[3] Teravainen, T. (2022). single sign-on (SSO). Security. https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/single-sign-on

[4] Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) | CISA. (2022, January 5). Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency CISA. https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/multi-factor-authentication-mfa

 

Jim Jones, FDA
Food Safety Think Tank

Unifying Human Food Regulation: A Conversation with Jim Jones

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Jim Jones, FDA

In September, Jim Jones, former EPA employee and member of the Reagan-Udall Expert Panel for Foods, became the first FDA Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods. He is tasked with reorganizing the agency to develop better coordination among the multiple departments involved in the regulation of human foods in the U.S., as well as allocating resources to better protect consumer.

Jim Jones, Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods at FDA, to deliver the Keynote Presentation at the Food Safety Consortium Conference October 20-22, Washington DC. Attendees will gain valuable perspectives on regulatory shifts, emerging challenges, and collaborative opportunities shaping the landscape of food safety and compliance. Discover how the new Deputy Commissioner’s strategic vision will drive innovation, enhance public health outcomes, and foster trust within the food industry. FoodSafetyConsortium.org

At the EPA, Jones was a principal architect of the 2016 overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act and was also responsible for decision-making related to the regulation of pesticides and commercial chemicals. He also led several national sustainability programs, including the EPA’s Environmental Preferable Purchasing Program and the Presidential Green Chemistry Awards Challenge. Here, he shares his vision and goals for a unified Human Foods Program (HFP) and why he pursued the opportunity to lead this new program.

What are your goals in your new position and what attracted you to the role of deputy commissioner for human foods?

Jones: People often want to know why I came to the FDA. I had a long career in government service and after some time in the private sector, I missed being involved in really meaningful work that affects the life of every American. I also came to the FDA because I believe in Commissioner Califf’s proposal for a unified Human Foods Program. Having been part of the Regan Udall Foundation’s evaluation of the foods program, I had the opportunity to understand what was working, and what was not working at the FDA. During this evaluation we realized that fundamentally the challenges within the agency were structural and not attributed to staffing. Our job, therefore, is to improve our internal structure so that we better utilize the talent we have to carry our mission more efficiently and effectively.

The proposal for a unified Human Foods Program focuses on the wellness of U.S. consumers by recognizing that access to safe, nutritious food is key to improving the health of our nation. This proposal is a major reorganization of how our food programs are structure and how they will function day to day. Over the long term, we believe it will support the transformation of how the FDA regulates food.

As the first Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, I am deeply committed to upholding and executing this vision. As we work to implement the proposed HFP, I am committed to building on the vision laid out in the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. Through our reorganization we will be elevating the importance of nutrition, strengthening state partnerships, and embracing innovative food and agricultural technologies that will allow us to supply the nation – and the globe – with ample safe and nutritious food in the decades ahead.

But we can’t do this alone. In fact, one of my main objectives that I want to carry throughout my tenure at FDA is strengthening our relationships across the many groups that we work with. I am starting this process off by meeting with as many of our stakeholders as I can. I have made a commitment to listen and learn from those who grow, produce, manufacture, and sell foods, from our state regulatory partners, and also those in academia and consumer and health advocates. Leveraging the expertise across our stakeholders is how we will make progress. I am encouraged by the work that has already been done—and I am excited about the possibilities for building on this foundation to bring about broad, systematic changes to how we protect the food supply and help improve the nutrition of consumers.

During your work on the Reagan-Udall panel, what were some of the challenges of the current FDA system that surprised you and that you felt could be most readily addressed?

Jones: We’ve heard time and time again that the current structure is too fragmented, and that the agency needs clearer decision-making and priority-setting pathways over its human food activities. Consolidating human food activities under a single leader who reports directly to the Commissioner unifies and elevates the program while removing redundancies, enabling the agency to oversee human food in a more effective and efficient way. We’ve also heard that the program is challenged since it doesn’t have authority over inspectional resources. Our plan will give the HFP clear authority over resource allocation so it can best prioritize risks and manage foods resources.

The report mentioned lack of a clear vision and mission for human foods program; what is the vision and mission you would like to adopt and instill in the program to guide its work?

Jones: We want to move forward with an approach that puts prevention at the heart of what we do. As I laid out in my statement earlier this year, to protect public health we have prioritized preventing foodborne illnesses, enhancing food chemical safety, and improving nutrition. To help prevent foodborne illness outbreaks, we are removing structural barriers and supporting integration across the agency’s food programs. This will enhance our ability to identify contaminant risks earlier and intervene more quickly and in a more targeted way.

To improve nutrition in our proposal, our dedicated Nutrition Center of Excellence will centralize coordination and provide strategic leadership. This will elevate, strengthen, and expand our nutrition work. We also are proposing to have one office dedicated to food chemical safety, dietary supplements, and innovation. This dedicated office will create a framework for our post-market safety review of previously authorized chemicals used in food to complement our robust premarket safety evaluations.

Based on your experience with the EPA and now the FDA Human Foods Program, what are some of the benefits to having distinct public agencies overseeing specific areas of public health, and where do we need more collaboration to better protect the public?

Jones: There are skills developed in regulatory agencies with a public health orientation that are very transferable. For example, understanding that meaningful public engagement before you decide how to regulate leads to more informed and timely decisions, but also sustainable decisions. You also understand the critical role played by Congress, as well as how to manage issues within the Executive Branch. These are all very important in getting work done and aren’t unique to any one Agency.

Elevating the importance of nutrition is a key focus of the proposed HFP model. What are some of the current challenges in fulfilling the dual role of ensuring safe food while also ensuring or providing better access to nutritious food?

Jones: If you think about the overall goal of having a food supply that supports health and wellness, our food safety and nutrition initiatives go hand in hand.  We want to prevent illnesses that can occur due to contamination as well as those that occur because of poor nutrition.

Most people in the U.S. do not eat enough fruits, vegetables, dairy, whole grains, and healthy oils, and consume too much saturated fat, sodium and added sugars.  Our goal is to ensure U.S. consumers have greater access to healthier foods and nutrition information to identify healthier foods more easily.  This work supports public health by reducing preventable illnesses through improved nutrition is among our highest priorities because it has the greatest potential to reduce diet-related chronic diseases that are the leading cause of death and disability in the U.S.

In order to elevate and strengthen the FDA’s nutrition portfolio, the HFP includes a proposal to create a Nutrition Center of Excellence that will enable the FDA to focus even more strategically on nutrition policies and initiatives.

We have a food safety system that encompasses many agencies on the federal, state, tribal nation, and county levels, do you see areas for improvement in helping all these agencies work more cooperatively.

Jones: Food safety is a shared responsibility that involves food producers, distributors, manufacturers, and retailers. Close coordination among the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and international, state, local, tribal, and territorial regulatory partners, public health, and agriculture departments is crucial to finding, stopping, and preventing foodborne illness outbreaks.

To foster the health and wellness of all U.S. consumers, the proposed HFP will continue to expand upon tools to enhance our food safety work. For example, we will prioritize partnerships through the proposed new Office of Integrated Food Safety System Partnerships, which will be a one stop shop for local, state, tribal, and territorial food safety partnerships.

Each of the agencies above have mentioned challenges in attracting and nurturing new food safety professionals, including auditors and inspectors. Do you see opportunities to improve recruitment and retention in the profession through the Unified Human Foods Program?

Jones: As always, the FDA is eager to recruit and retain talented federal employees. With the reorganization of the new HFP, along with available resources, we hope to attract top talent to assist with our food safety goals.

 

 

 

Prasant Prusty and Arundhathy Shabu

Effective Root Cause Analysis for CAPA Management

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

Businesses often overlook the power of well-executed, competent complaint-handling systems in boosting business growth. Data from ABa Quality Monitoring Ltd revealed nearly 70% of customers are more likely to stick with a company if their complaints are resolved, and this figure jumps to an impressive 95% if complaints are addressed immediately.

Every company faces distinct operational challenges that can result in missed deadlines, product holds, supply chain disruptions and customer complaints. Each of which can impact the quality of the enterprise’s product or service.

This is why the ability to conduct a comprehensive root cause analysis (RCA) to identify the origin of concerns and formulate and execute remedial processes, such as corrective and preventive actions (CAPA), is essential for food companies. Root cause analyses reduce the risk of future nonconformances and complaints and help streamline business operations and protect your bottom line.

An Overview of CAPA and Root Cause Analysis

Corrective and Preventive Action, or CAPA, is a methodical system used across industries to identify, rectify and avert issues, errors or noncompliance in processes, products or systems. Corrective actions fix existing problems, while preventive actions stop their recurrence.

Root Cause Analysis (RCA) encompasses various problem-solving methodologies, permitting teams to identify the fundamental reasons behind issues. It goes beyond just detecting the main problem to determine contributing factors, implement corrective and preventive measures, and foster continuous improvement in business processes.

Conducting a Root Cause Analysis

A CAPA management system’s success hinges on the RCA strategy’s efficiency. Whether businesses are facing a manufacturing defect, a customer complaint, a safety incident or any other problem, conducting an RCA is instrumental in identifying the underlying reasons and implementing effective solutions. Rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach, RCA should comprise a highly adaptable toolkit of techniques, and methods. Here are the basic steps for performing a root cause analysis:

Step 1: Understand the Issue

Initiate the process by clearly defining the problem or incident that must be examined. Ensure that the problem statement is specific, measurable and well-documented, enabling a precise understanding of what needs investigation.

Step 2: Collect Information

Aggregate all available data related to the issue, which may include incident reports, witness statements, photographs, process documentation and any other pertinent information. The more data you collect, the better your grasp of the problem.

Step 3: Identify Root Causes

Recognize the immediate or proximate factors that directly contributed to the problem. These are the most visible elements that directly played a role in the incident. Beyond these immediate causes are the contributing factors, often systemic, which may have indirectly influenced the problem. Thoroughly investigate and unearth the foundational reasons behind the issue using appropriate RCA techniques or methods.

Step 4: Develop Corrective and Preventive Actions

Once the root causes are uncovered, brainstorm and assess suitable corrective and preventive actions. Prioritize these solutions based on their practicality, impact and cost-effectiveness, and put the chosen solutions into effect.

Step 5: Establish a Coordinated Plan

Be sure to establish a plan for carrying out the corrective and preventive actions. This plan should include details about the required resources, the assignment of responsible individuals for task execution and an evaluation of the potential risks associated with these corrective measures.

Step 6: Monitor and Verify

Continuously monitor the situation to ensure that the problem does not reoccur. This may involve ongoing training, regular audits or process improvements.

Methods for Root Cause Analysis

Each root cause analysis method offers a unique approach to uncovering the root cause of a problem, providing a systematized way to investigate and address issues. Following are root cause analysis techniques that are adaptable for standalone or combined use, determined by the issue’s intricacy and the particular objectives of the RCA.

  • The 5 Whys: This technique involves asking “why” multiple times to dig deeper into a problem. Repeatedly questioning the cause behind a situation helps uncover the underlying issues. The goals is to identify the fundamental reason and avoid assumptions.
  • Fishbone Diagram: This visual tool organizes potential causes of a problem into categories, such as people, processes, equipment, environment and materials. It’s great for exploring multiple factors contributing to an issue.
Fishbone RCA diagram
Example of a fishbone diagram with sample categories to consider, and sample causes.
  • FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis): This method evaluates potential failure modes and their impacts before they occur. It helps in identifying failure points and assessing the existing controls to address these issues.
  • DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control): A data-driven improvement cycle, dividing the problem-solving process into five steps: defining the problem, collecting data, analyzing root causes, putting solutions into action and establishing controls for sustained improvement.
  • Pareto Analysis: Based on the Pareto Principle, it suggests that a significant portion of issues (80%) can be linked to fewer causes (20%). This tool helps prioritize efforts and resources for problem-solving by focusing on the vital few causes.
  • FTA (Fault Tree Analysis): This deductive method works backward from an undesirable event, using graphical representations to analyze relationships between various events and their causes. It uses boolean logic to determine root causes.

Tech-Enabled Solutions to Optimize RCA Processes

In a world where time-consuming manual tasks can hinder productivity, embracing CAPA management and root cause analysis process technology can drive excellence across your enterprise. By digitalizing CAPA processes, organizations can seamlessly manage the entire lifecycle of complaints, holds and deviations.

Digital systems and software for RCA and CAPA management can enable food companies to centralize and automate the recording and tracking of customer complaints, product holds and deviations from established standards, which will evidently lead to faster response times, improved data analysis and better communication across departments. These digital tools aid in identifying recurring issues for swift remediation while preventing similar problems in the future by facilitating real-time monitoring and reporting.

An ideal CAPA management solution will possess the following digital functionalities to revolutionize the process:

Configurable Record Templates. Customized templates for recording complaints, deviations, holds and CAPA can be created or tailored flexibly, allowing users to accommodate differing data requirements to solve a problem. This helps standardize and streamline the documentation processes involved in RCA and CAPA procedures, as these templates help in the consistent recording of incident details, root causes, corrective actions and preventive measures, simplifying the generation of auditable records. Not to mention, they would play a significant role in reducing data entry errors and saving time, consequently supporting a proficient CAPA management system.

CAPA Workflow Automation. CAPA management tools are designed to facilitate the automation of various stages of CAPA, from incident reporting to the review and approval process. By automating tasks such as routing for reviews, approvals and monitoring deadlines for corrective actions, workflow automation significantly reduces the need for manual intervention, saving time and minimizing the potential for human error within the workflow. As a result, the entire CAPA process becomes less resource-intensive and more refined, ensuring a more seamless journey from identification to resolution.

Investigation & Root Cause Analysis. Digitalization ushers a thorough investigation process by collecting documentary evidence in an organized manner, enabling a quicker and more accurate determination of root causes and leading to more efficient corrective and preventive actions to prevent recurrence.

Integrated systematic RCA models into the digital system expedites the root cause analysis process while amplifying its efficacy. Through continuous data gathering from machinery and processes, advanced analytics platforms identify patterns and anomalies, aiding in pinpointing the root cause of failures or issues. Visualization tools provide clear insights into complex relationships among various factors, aiding in understanding causality and devising adequate solutions.

Collaboration is also substantially improved through digital platforms, allowing multidisciplinary teams to collaborate seamlessly regardless of their locations. These tools help structure the RCA process, ensuring tasks are assigned, progress is monitored, and deadlines are met, thus driving the investigation into a more optimal and exhaustive RCA analysis.

Non-Compliance Management. Well-defined planning and implementation of noncompliance action items become possible through digital tools by assigning corrective and preventive actions to respective stakeholders for prompt rectification, compliance maintenance and future risk mitigation. Furthermore, evaluating and validating the effectiveness of corrective and preventive actions is a critical step in RCA. Ensuring the successful closure of the CAPA process by reviewing and confirming the resolution of nonconformances becomes more efficient with digital solutions.

Notification & Alerts. CAPA management systems can be configured to send timely notifications and alerts to relevant stakeholders and responsible parties involved in the CAPA process. These notifications serve as unique reminders, ensuring that individuals are promptly informed about their tasks and impending deadlines. By doing so, the risk of missed actions or delays is considerably mitigated. This real-time communication not only keeps everyone on track but also supports a more responsive and accountable approach to handling corrective and preventive actions.

Reporting & Trend Analysis. Digital CAPA management tools also empower organizations to generate customized reports and analyze data trends. These serve as a window into the performance of the detection, rectification and thorough review of outliers within CAPA processes, providing invaluable insights for informed decision-making and continuous improvement initiatives.

In essence, the transformative power of digital tools is instigating a monumental shift in technology adoption, heralding a new era in establishing efficacious root cause analysis for successful CAPA management. By harnessing these tools, organizations can unlock avenues for enhanced efficiency, elevated quality standards and fortified regulatory compliance. This paradigm shift is paving a path toward sustained progress, where proactive problem-solving becomes the cornerstone of organizational growth and resilience. 

Emily Newton, Revolutionized Magazine

Sanitary Design: Finding the Right Conveyor Belt System

By Emily Newton
No Comments
Emily Newton, Revolutionized Magazine

Sanitary or hygienic design supports food safety by ensuring that the equipment you bring into your facilities does not pose a risk to the food you produce and that it can be properly maintained and sanitized. When it comes to purchasing a new conveyor belt system, there are several considerations, as well as standards and regulations, that can and should guide your decision.

Current Standards and Regulations

The food safety standards that apply to conveyor belts may differ depending on where your company operates. Here’s a closer look at some geographic specifics as well as standards recognized worldwide.

The United States. In the U.S., the FDA does not directly certify conveyor belts. Instead, the agency focuses on Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs). These are overarching regulations covering virtually all aspects of a food processing facility. In addition to equipment, CGMPs extend to sanitation, plant design, production, process controls and more. The FDA also has additional CGMPs for infant formula, acidified foods, low-acid canned foods, bottled water and dietary supplements.

The FDA maintains a list of approved food contact substances (FCS) and materials deemed safe and not technically affecting consumables. A food-grade conveyor belt’s materials must be on the FDA’s list to comply with U.S. regulations.

Europe. The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) combines 34 European countries’ standardization bodies. It includes, but spans far beyond food to cover consumer appliances, health care, construction, chemicals and much more. Different CEN standards apply based on how and where the conveyor belt will be used. For example, CEN/TC 153/WG 9 is for equipment used to process cereals, while CEN/TC 153/WG 2 relates to meat processing infrastructure.

Less broadly, the 1935/2004 regulation applies to conveyor belts used in the European Union (EU). It concerns all articles or materials that touch food. The regulation also mentions 80/590/EEC, which established a symbol designating safe materials. Moreover, it emphasizes that food producers must maintain traceability and verify the sources of any food-grade materials.

International Third-Party Certification Systems. In addition to abiding by country or regional standards, food processing professionals may wish to pursue internationally recognized certifications. One example is Food Safety System Certification 22000 (FSSC 22000). It covers food safety and quality management for manufacturing, packaging and storage. Another is the BRCGS Global Food Safety Standard, adopted by many of the top food manufacturers as well as retailers and restaurants.

These third-party certifications are optional. However, they can strengthen a company’s worldwide reputation and increase consumer confidence.

There are no third-party certifications specifically for conveyor belts used in the food industry. However, the Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association (CEMA) website offers research and technical information that can help guide purchasing decisions as you investigate products and suppliers.

3-A Sanitary Standards (3-A SSI). The 3-A Sanitary Standards (3-A SSI) cover design methods and principles to support proper sanitation by making equipment easier to clean. Standard 3A 39-01 covers pneumatic conveyors for dry materials, while 3A 41-03 is for mechanical conveyors that move dry items. These are voluntary standards developed for food processing plants and facilities associated with the dairy industry.

Conveyor belts that comply with the 3-A standards are made with nontoxic, food-safe materials. They must also tolerate repeated and ongoing exposure to cleaning products. The 3-A standards also include details about construction of the conveyor belt to prevent areas where food could get caught. This includes making systems with smooth surfaces and no sharp corners.

Moreover, 3-A standards require designers to consider methods of cleaning. For example, must the cleaning occur in the production area, or can the conveyor system be moved to another area for cleaning and sanitation?

Considerations When Choosing a Conveyor System

A food processing plant’s environment presents several key considerations when selecting conveyor belts. For example, many belts include nonflammable materials so they can be used near high-heat areas. Moisture in the air can also affect the belt. Too much wetness could cause some materials to stretch or break, while too little moisture can cause other materials to crack or shrink.

Companies must think about the processing that occurs as food moves along the conveyor. Does it require cutting, washing or exposure to oil? Consider each stage the products go through, from raw to complete. Each step could introduce new considerations for your food-grade conveyor belt. Take potatoes, for example. Processing often involves immersion in a boiling oil bath and seasoning, and each processing step causes potential temperature changes and chemical exposures.

Following are additional considerations when investigating a new system:

Food Characteristics. Aspects of the food itself could affect how well a conveyor belt works or how long it will last. Sugar and salt are two examples of non-synthetic preservatives that double as ingredients. Their abrasive textures can cause premature wear on conveyor belts not designed to handle them. Look for options with special polymers that encourage the food with sticky textures to come off cleanly and not cling to the belt. Consider overall weight of the foods on the belt at a given time as well.

Cleaning Methods and Products. Manual cleaning methods are time and labor-intensive, but they’re cost-effective for small operations. Plus, they work well for removing bacteria and/or biofilms from hard-to-reach places. Automated options usually rely on motorized brushes and sprayers that move along a belt’s surface. Dry ice blasting and dry steam cleaning also help to remove dried or stuck-on materials.

Consult the manufacturer’s cleaning instructions to identify chemical agents that will work best for the belt’s materials as well as those that you should avoid. Using inappropriate cleaning products could cause the belt material to break down, creating food safety and contamination risks. One best practice is to choose a washdown-rated food-grade conveyor belt that can tolerate many different cleaning methods as well as high temperatures.

Many modern conveyor systems also have quick-release parts that make cleaning easier and reduce the amount of time that the equipment is out of commission.

Optional Accessories. Many conveyor belts can be customized as needed before or after purchase. These optional accessories may include cleaning-in-place (CIP) modules or automated container-filling systems. Some companies now offer plug-and-play CIP modules that can be attached to any conveyor belt without expensive retrofitting.

The Desired Length. A conveyor belt’s length is an important consideration, but companies need not worry if they realize they need to add length. Food-grade fasteners allow you to extend the belt to meet your facilities’ needs. Splice presses can be even more efficient, especially with air-cooled designs that offer splice times of under 10 minutes, providing maximum flexibility for manufacturers.

Maintenance and Warranty Considerations

When investigating options, sales representatives can help you choose the correct model and optional features for your needs. Once you’ve identified a few suitable options, ask about maintenance and warranty options. Even short periods of downtime can be extremely disruptive in the food industry, so you need to understand how to contact customer support and how quickly they can respond to requests for service.

Warranties can vary in length, the specific components they cover and can affect the final cost. Read the fine print to make sure you understand circumstances, such as changes in the manufacturing process or environment, that may void the coverage as well.

Purchasing a new conveyor belt system requires planning and a thorough investigative process. Consider these points as you research options and reach out to peers in the industry to get their input on trusted products and manufacturers.

Nicole and Scott, NSF

Leveraging Cloud-Based Technology in Supply Chain Management

By Nicole Keresztes James, Scott Arnald
No Comments
Nicole and Scott, NSF

In today’s fiercely competitive food and beverage industry, managing tight margins and shifting consumer preferences present major challenges. Add to this the growing incidences of food fraud, increased regulations—including the FSMA Final Food Traceability Standard—and complex supply chains and keeping an eye on the big picture becomes an almost impossible task. From primary producers to manufacturers, retailers and restaurants, companies are seeking ways to innovate and modernize their supply chains while strengthening food safety and quality, adhere to mandatory regulations and audits, and reduce operational costs. Embracing cloud-based technologies and digital solutions can help businesses adapt to new challenges and regulations, while increasing profits and growth.

Going Digital with Supplier Requirements

The FDA’s Food Traceability Final Rule, set to be enforced by 2026, highlights the urgency for industry to streamline its practices and establish digital solutions that collect and quickly provide information in the event of a recall. Supplier and compliance management digital solutions reduce administrative overhead with proactive supplier management. They direct suppliers to use an online portal to register, upload documents, complete questionnaires and communicate with businesses. By implementing these digital solutions, suppliers can also gain access to intelligent compliance engines that detect potential issues by comparing supplier information against company requirements. This data can be used to assess risks and analyze trends and performance of suppliers so businesses can prioritize continuous improvements, allocate resources to the appropriate sectors and make data-driven decisions. Digital solution’s counterpart—manually collecting and analyzing supplier data—poses greater risks for human error and potentially costly operational setbacks.

Additionally, supplier portals aid in supplier-business collaboration and allow for improved communication and consistency among assessors. They also provide access to historical documents and information. Companies transitioning to more sophisticated digital supplier management tools will likely notice a reduction in data errors and misinterpretation of requirements, ensuring the reliability of the information being recorded.

Cloud-Based Quality and Compliance

Cloud-based solutions that offer multiple modules, such as Supplier & Compliance Management, Product Specification and Artwork Management, Issue Management, and Audit Management, can aggregate multiple supply chain processes into a single platform. These solutions are versatile, cost-effective and can adapt to many kinds of businesses in our industry; companies simply choose which module offerings fit their business needs and then have the option to add additional modules when applicable.

Cloud-based solutions also expedite data, documents and records collection in real-time during audits and assessments, allowing for effortless delivery when program documentation is requested or required. With live synchronization of information, including statistical process control data and critical food safety data, cloud-based technologies enable results to be shared among users both onsite and around the globe. They also provide users with a collation of assessment results and corrective action responses vital to the decision-making and review processes.

Protecting Supplier and Client Data

The escalating threat of data breaches—Malwarebytes reported a 607% increase in cyberattacks on food and agriculture companies in 2020—underscores the need for stringent security measures. Therefore, it is crucial that companies choose software tools from a provider that ensures built-in information protection with encryption to maintain cybersecurity and confidence in daily supply chain operations. Looking for digital solutions that adhere to international security management standard ISO/IEC 27001 is a good starting point. Platforms with this high-security certification provide assurance against data loss and offer firewalls and virus and malware protection.

Safeguarding in Today’s Environment

As our industry adapts to new regulations, technology innovations and supply chain risks, we must protect every facet of operations, from food fraud prevention to cybersecurity, with the collective goal of protecting consumers. Utilizing leading digital solutions and technologies, including cloud-based resources, simplifies historically complicated supply chain processes and reduces the risk of errors in supplier management.

While traditional software includes the potential risk of data and security breaches, our industry is safeguarded with leading technologies that are compliant with ISO-IEC 27001 information security management standards, ensuring sensitive information remains protected, and our complex supply chain endures.

Gitte Barknowitz

Technology and Farming: An Essential Relationship as Pesticide Restrictions Impact Agriculture in the EU

By Gitte Barknowitz, Ph.D.
No Comments
Gitte Barknowitz

Pesticides and other chemical compounds are widely used in agriculture because they protect crops and improve the efficiency of food production. However, it is necessary to identify what type and how much chemical residues are in food, water and soil as these residues may pose a potential threat to human health as well as the environment. Reducing pesticides in food will result in a lower toxic chemical burden entering the body and accumulating in the tissues and organs, but it will take a concerted effort.

The European Union (EU) member states are implementing extensive policy changes to improve soil quality and ultimately improve the quality of crops. Among them is a “proposal for a new Regulation on the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products, including EU wide targets to reduce by 50% the use and risk of chemical pesticides by 2030.” In July 2023, the European Commission also “adopted a package of measures for a sustainable use of key natural resources, which will also strengthen the resilience of EU food systems and farming.”

Reducing the use of chemicals is an important step to ensuring enough safe food for the growing human population. This challenge comes at a time when arable land is being lost, the demand for food is increasing and the world population is expected to increase to 9.7 billion in 2050, according to the United Nations. This will require food growers and processors to implement more sustainable growing practices often referred to as Integrated Pest Management (IPM). While the benefits of natural pest control are already well understood—clean water, healthy soil and improved biodiversity—reducing reliance on synthetic pesticides will require increased analysis, and as a result, generating a lot of data.

It all begins with the analysis of chemical residues found on crops.

Naming the Culprits

With more than 1,000 pesticides in use around the world, it is important to know the properties and toxicological effects of each. A group of pesticides commonly used to curb weeds is herbicides. Glyphosate, (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine), a widely-used, broad-spectrum, systemic herbicide and crop desiccant, has in the recent years come under scrutiny as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

In the coming years, more data will be gathered on pesticides in the EU, with part of that information coming from control measures and agricultural practice reviews. A large part will come from laboratory measurements to meet data requirements mandated by the new regulations. Compiling consistent, accurate data depends on the equipment that produces it. This is particularly important for food safety.

As technologies advance and more information can be obtained, including residues on food, the requirements for the type of data are also changing. For example, quantifying how much of a predetermined pesticide residue is in a sample is a narrow parameter. Identifying all of the compounds that can be found will provide more data to characterize the sample. Ideally, collecting both will provide the most complete answer to the question, “How much and what kinds of pesticides remain on our food?”

Once that information is available, it is possible to choose appropriate remediation steps. But it takes sensitive laboratory equipment to both identify and quantify residues.

Connecting the Dots Between Pesticides and Food

The most common technology currently used to monitor pesticides is liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). First, the sample (e.g., soil, water, fruit or vegetable) is injected onto the liquid chromatograph (LC). The LC separates the complex mixture based on the chemical properties of the individual pesticides before being analyzed by the mass spectrometer (MS). MS instruments analyze samples based their masses—or more correctly their mass-to-charge ratio—in a very accurate and precise manner. MS/MS instruments also break apart the pesticides and are able to look for these fragments. These are used to quickly determine if a specific compound is present and in what amount, known as identification and quantitation.

Amadeo Rodríguez Fernández-Alba, professor in analytical chemistry at the University of Almeria and head of the European Reference Laboratory for Pesticide Residues, has valued the benefits of using LC-MS/MS for pesticide residue analysis for years. Over time, the technology and methods have evolved to identify and measure the amount of chemicals in food plants and soil.

In his recent work, Fernández-Alba showed the analysis of 30 compounds of emerging concern (CECs) in soils irrigated with simulated reclaimed water on trial farmland using a targeted MS/MS approach. An accumulation of 13 pesticides and 5 pharmaceuticals could be found at different rates, highlighting the importance of increased analysis for reclaimed water testing.

Regarding the testing method, the authors pointed out that, “a modified QuEChERS method showed the best results in terms of extractability and accuracy. The extraction procedure developed provided adequate extraction performances (70% of the target analytes were recovered within a 70–99% range), with good repeatability and reproducibility (variations below 20%) and great sensitivity (LOQ < 0.1 ng/g in most cases). No matrix effects were observed for 70% of the compounds. Finally, the analytical methodology was applied in a pilot study where agricultural soil was irrigated with reclaimed water spiked with the contaminants under study. Of the 25 CECs added in irrigation water, a total of 13 pesticides and 5 pharmaceutical products were detected…”

Reduction in pesticide usage needs to be monitored in both field and food samples for a wide range of analytes including unknown substances to build confidence in the food system. Using mass spectrometry can provide that data.

Glyphosate, mentioned above, is one of the most widely used agrochemicals in the world and also one of the most difficult to detect. In Europe, EFSA has proposed MRLs for a wide range of commodities for glyphosate. Monitoring this kind of highly polar, small-organic pesticide in food and water from diverse sources can be complex, time-consuming and expensive. NofaLab, a sampling and testing lab in the Netherlands, collaborated with SCIEX to create a high throughput method using LC-MS/MS to test for as many polar pesticides in a single analysis as possible.

The final method utilized the sensitivity of QTRAP technology and was “found to be considerably more robust and sensitive than other approaches described in various publications and have achieved the target limits of detection required to meet existing and proposed future regulations.” In addition, the “ion chromatographic approach to the analysis of polar pesticides offers the ability to include multiple analytes in a single injection without derivatization…allowing high-throughput laboratories to manage samples efficiently and minimize running costs.”

Targeted MS/MS analysis has long been the gold standard for pesticide analysis in the industry, but advanced high-resolution MS systems enable even greater accuracy and confidence, helping to identify more contaminants, even unknowns. The ZenoTOF 7600 system uses electron activated dissociation (EAD) to create a higher number of fragments as compared to collision induced fragmentation (CID), which is traditionally used in targeted MS/MS analysis on other systems, allowing for highly confident identifications of pesticides in food samples. The ZenoTrap technology additionally enhances sensitivity, which is needed in pesticide analysis to meet regulatory limits. Regardless of the type of sample, whether taken from the soil in a field or from harvested crops, mass spectrometers can identify the type and amount of chemicals present in a sample within several minutes of run time and analyze hundreds of samples in a day.

Streamlining Data Review and Adhering to Data Standards

In an effort to standardize pesticide use, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) established standards for pesticide residues and developed international standards for food products. This framework for providers at various points in the food supply chain can help reduce the risk of contamination and toxicity.

In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes tolerances, also known as maximum residue limits (MRL) in other countries, for the type and quantity of pesticides that can remain on food. The agency sets these to ensure pesticides can be used with “reasonable certainty of no harm.”

Producers adhering to these guidelines must handle and present extensive data sets from test results, and any new future regulations will require robust data to track the success of the initiatives and effectively enforce their use. Reviewing and understanding data in order to make decisions is tricky and labor-intensive. It can take laboratories hours every day to process, interpret and manage the data. Software enables fast data processing and fast review by exception flagging, which is valuable in food safety laboratories that typically see a high turn-around in samples every day.

Maintaining resilient food systems will be rooted in data-driven decisions that improve food safety, including limiting pesticide and other chemical uses. By using modern mass spectrometry technology, researchers can be more confident that their food analyses will lead to better-informed policies, more sustainable agricultural practices, and healthier food for future generations.

Benjamin Hottel

Rodent Control Challenges for Organic Facilities

By Benjamin Hottel, PhD, BCE, PCQI
No Comments
Benjamin Hottel

 As a business owner, you have a multitude of challenges to contend with, but one of the most insidious and damaging threats to your facility operations might be lurking in the shadows: rodents. These stealthy intruders not only jeopardize the integrity of your property but can also carry diseases that pose serious risks to your employees and public health. In organic facilities, rodent control can be a balancing act between implementing control measures to help remedy the problem of rodents and maintaining your “organic” status.

While post-pandemic activities have helped reduce the amount of public rodent sightings, their threat to public health hasn’t decreased. Rodents can spread dozens of harmful diseases directly and indirectly—including salmonellosis, leptospirosis and hantavirus—in addition to contaminating food products and potentially causing structural damage in buildings. Left untreated, rodent sightings within a commercial facility can lead to ongoing infestations and eventually, failed inspections and stalled operations—a costly blow to your bottom line.

Knowing how to spot rodent activity is essential to helping stop it early and prevent a larger issue for your business. If you notice the following signs around your facility, you might have a rodent problem:

  • Capsule-like droppings
  • Rub marks along walls and other hard surfaces
  • Shredded packaging, insulation or fiber like materials
  • Damaged food products and gnawed hard surfaces

There are some factors that can make rodent infestations more likely in a facility. For example, poorly maintained walls, foundations and roofs can create entrances for these pests along with improperly sealed openings such as doors and windows. In addition, standing water, left out food, cluttered spaces and overgrown landscaping can also attract rodents.

Common Types of Rodents

If you suspect you may have a rodent problem in your facility, it is important to correctly identify the species you are dealing with and report any sightings to your pest control provider. Here are some of the most common rodent species you may encounter in a commercial facility:

  • House Mouse: The house mouse is a small mammal named for its propensity to live within human habitats, including food plants. Next to humans, the common house mouse is one of the most prevalent mammal species in the world. Between five to eight inches long, these rodents can produce 50-60 offspring per year.
  • Norway Rat: Norway rats are easily identifiable by their coarse brown fur and large size, measuring up to 19 inches long including their tails. These rodents may be difficult to spot during the day, as they are nocturnal. However, droppings and gnaw marks are telltale signs that these pests may be present.
  • Roof Rat: More slender and agile with even longer tails than the common Norway rat, roof rats present a unique set of challenges for food processors. These pests are known to build nests at higher elevations, making them more difficult to catch in warehouse and processing facilities with large roof spaces.

Protecting Your Organic-Certified Facility

To learn more about specific requirements and rodent management strategies for organic-certified facilities, view our on demand webinar “Rodent Control and Organic Certified Facilities.” 

Organic-certified facilities maintain a variety of measures to ensure they meet all USDA standards. Contamination of non-organic products and substances is a real concern for these highly regulated facilities. As mentioned, rodent control is crucial to maintaining a safe environment in commercial facilities but can threaten to spread diseases and contaminate organic products. Fortunately, there are many organic-certified rodent control methods that these facilities can use to maintain their certification while helping to lower the risk of pests:

  • Preventative Measures: Sanitation and exclusion efforts should be some of the first actions taken before moving on to other control measures. Sanitation will help eliminate food sources for rodents while exclusion work will help prevent rodents from getting into the facility in the first place. Exclusion work should be focused around doors, loading docks, utility penetrations and holes in walls.
  • Mechanical Measures: Rodents can be controlled through a variety of devices including glue boards, snap traps and multi-catch traps.

If either of these two methods are not successful in controlling a rodent problem, work with your pest management provider to determine which approved products (e.g. baits and conventional treatments) can be applied. You can reference the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances for a full list of substances that may not be used in organic facilities.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Rodent Control

By implementing an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, you can help keep pests at bay and work together with your provider to come to the best solution. IPM programs focus on preventive techniques like exclusion, sanitation and maintenance to keep pests where they belong: outside your business.

Most organic food processing facilities have customized IPM programs in place, especially if they undergo regularly third-party food safety audits. These programs are implemented by qualified pest control technicians in collaboration with a facility’s food safety and quality assurance team to help deter pest activity and prevent infestations without losing organic certifications.

Now that you know how to spot signs of rodent activity around your facility and tips you can implement to reduce their impact on your business, don’t forget to review your IPM plan with your pest control provider. Rodent activity fluctuates with the seasons and a reliable pest control provider will regularly evaluate the effectiveness of your IPM plan to make sure food safety remains a top priority. If you don’t have an IPM program in place or a reliable pest control provider, now’s the time to implement one before you have a costly rodent issue that impacts your business reputation or the health of your employees and customers.

Prasant Prusty and Arundhathy Shabu

Food Safety Culture Is the Key Ingredient To Prevent Foodborne Diseases

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

Culture is not an initiative but rather the enabler of all initiatives, as observed rightly by Larry Senn, who is considered the Father of Corporate Culture.  Similarly, food safety culture (FSC) is the solid foundation that enables organizations to ultimately minimize food safety risks. This is why the simple idea of food safety culture emerges to be a powerful concept in reducing the global burden of foodborne diseases.

Let us consider some facts:

  • Employees working in food enterprises worldwide are required to be well-trained in food safety practices
  • A vast amount of food safety research is conducted around the world to improve and enhance food safety management
  • Companies are required to follow elaborate food safety regulations that include mandatory testing and inspections

It is quite contradictory that food safety remains a major public health threat. One way to understand why this happens is that just because something has been done in a specified manner for a long duration does not necessarily mean it is being done the right way. Hence, there must be a missing ingredient fundamental to preventing food safety incidents, which many have concluded relates to lack of a strong food safety culture.

The Importance of Food Safety Culture in Simple Terms

The behavior of your staff and leadership demonstrates whether each employee understands and is committed to ensuring your products are safe to consume and of good quality. In short, food safety equals behavior. This is the core notion Frank Yiannas talks about in his book, Food Safety Culture: Creating a Behavior-Based Food Safety Management System.

One of the most well-known outcomes associated with lack of a strong food safety culture was the PCA (Peanut Corporation of America) outbreak in 2009 when peanuts contaminated with Salmonella caused nine deaths, 11,000 to 20,000 illnesses, and a recall of 4,000 products. A proactive food safety culture that is centered on rigorous testing, quality control protocols, sanitation and traceability measures could have detected and prevented the spread outbreak, saving lives and money.

Companies are investigating and/or implementing food safety culture training and practices because no matter what we say or document regarding food safety, we cannot make progress unless we actually put these words into practice.

A systematic review of the scientific literature on food safety culture (FSC), published by the FDA in 2022 views food safety culture as a scientific concept. In conducting the study, FDA aspired to present food safety culture as a valid subset of science, rather than just a slogan, and use the knowledge obtained to provide tools that stakeholders can use to develop and assess their own food safety culture. This review is considered the primary groundwork for FDA’s efforts to uplift food safety culture in the industry, among consumers, and in regard to the present regulatory oversight.

Challenges and Barriers to Accomplishing a Strong and Effective Food Safety Culture 

The predominant challenges and barriers to creating, promoting and evaluating a strong and effective Food Safety Culture, as presented in the review, include:

Over-reliance on food safety management systems (FSMS)

FSMS plays a non-negotiable role in every food enterprise. Nevertheless, FSMS tend to be process focused and thus do not affect how human attitudes influence food safety. This is where a behavior-based FSMS is beneficial to forge a well-built FSC, as it offers a total system approach based on scientific knowledge of human behavior, organizational culture, and food safety.

Prioritization of cost-saving and money-earning

A profit-focused mentality is often the main barrier to implementing a positive FSC. Compromising food safety principles to save costs is never a good strategy. It can even be counter-productive as a negative FSC can eventually lead to a food safety incident, generating tremendous economic losses for the organization. An ideal FSC ensures that an obligation to food safety exists throughout the firm that outweighs all other company goals and practices.

Frequent staff turnover

Continuous staff turnover is a common phenomenon in the food sector. High staff turnover requires constant training and supervision to ensure employees’ understand the risks and other essential criteria needed for an adequate food safety climate. It also is challenging to ascertain the commitment and accountability of employees with temporary contracts.

Optimistic bias

Though it is said ‘experience is the best teacher, and the worst experiences teach the best lessons,’ it is always better for employees to realize that they are not immune to food contamination before experiencing a vulnerability to food safety. Every member of a food enterprise should know that they cannot afford optimism bias in terms of food safety, and that it is imperative to be prepared—and on the look out for—worst case scenarios.

How Digitalization Can Assist in Developing and Sustaining a Solid Food Safety Culture

Ideally, a commitment to food safety begins with management and permeates through the organization at all levels. Digital tools, particularly those used to manage the supply chain, can help. By establishing a network platform that integrates the online and offline worlds, digitalization connects all facets of the food production and processing chain. Let us break down how digital tools can be implemented throughout the food industry to enhance supply chain processes while nurturing a strong food safety culture.

1. Setting Expectations 

Digital tools allow for the efficient creation, distribution and maintenance of food safety policies, procedures and protocols. By utilizing digital systems, organizations can document and disseminate clear expectations regarding food safety practices. This includes defining standard operating procedures (SOPs), hygiene protocols and compliance guidelines. These digital resources can be easily accessed by employees, ensuring that everyone is aware of the established standards and expectations.

2. Communication & Training 

The next step is to properly communicate the established strategies among the employees and enforce them. This is where learning management systems and digital employee training platforms come in handy, as they engage and educate employees by conveying information and instructions related to various aspects of the organization. These tech-enabled solutions can also play a vital role in authorizing employees to collaborate via more efficient communication channels, address food safety compliance concerns and initiate appropriate corrective and preventive actions when necessary.

These tools allow companies to create training programs that utilize interactive modules, visual content, videos and quizzes to enhance employee learning and retention, while accommodating diverse learning styles such as flexible self-paced or group training. The training courses can be scheduled and assigned to individuals or groups according to the configured training types. Alerts and notifications can be promptly delivered to relevant personnel to inform them about critical updates and send reminders regarding their training courses. They also help companies track and manage training assignments, ensuring that employees complete required training within specified timeframes. Overall, they empower organizations to propagate information efficiently, advance knowledge transfer and ensure compliance with training requirements, thereby fostering a well-informed and competent workforce.

3. Monitoring 

Scheduling features of tech-enabled solutions offer a valuable means to successfully plan and monitor regular inspections, maintenance tasks and quality checks. Digital task assignment empowers employees to be accountable, confirm that responsibilities are clearly communicated, eliminate ambiguities in executing food business operations and track the progress and completion of each process, elevating the overall transparency of the supply chain process.

Notifications can be automatically generated to alert employees about upcoming inspections or any deviations from standard procedures. It is also possible to maintain an audit log, capturing and storing a detailed record of all food industry activities, actions and events. Another component that can be advantageous for monitoring efforts is a change log, which becomes useful for tracking modifications made to procedures, allowing for traceability, accountability and assistance with regulatory compliance efforts.

4. Reporting 

Digital tools typically include robust dashboards that can provide real-time insights into the supply chain. These intuitive interfaces can display data such as key metrics, compliance rates, inspection results, incident reports and corrective actions taken. Moreover, advanced filtering and drill-down capabilities enable users to delve deeper into specific data segments, facilitating in-depth analysis and comprehensive reporting.

Trend analysis tools can be employed to identify patterns and highlight areas that require further attention. They often incorporate predictive analytics and forecasting models, aiding businesses in predicting demand, optimizing inventory management and reducing waste. Furthermore, employee key performance indicators (KPIs) can be accessed through reporting mechanisms, and trend analysis features, which allows management to gauge employee contributions in upholding a food safety culture.

Tech-savvy solutions, such as food safety management software, are gaining significant traction in the market as they help food enterprises streamline their operations, optimize efficiency, promote transparency and accountability, and ensure compliance with food safety and quality regulations. All of which ultimately serve to instill a responsibility for food safety throughout your organization.