Matrix Sciences

Matrix Sciences Acquires Neumann Risk Services

Matrix Sciences

Matrix Sciences recently announced the acquisition of Neumann Risk Services, LLC (NRS), led by Melanie Neumann, J.D., M.S., according to a press release. Neumann’s venture, NRS, combines a consulting business with a legal practice, focusing in the areas of food safety, food science, food defense, recall & crisis management.

Adding NRS to the Matrix Sciences portfolio allows them to further grow their consulting capabilities, working with Neumann to expand their set of services. She will be building a suite of services targeted at helping companies reap the benefits of their investments in food safety risk management, according to the press release.

In addition to taking the role of Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Matrix, Melanie Neumann will also maintain Neumann Legal Services, a separate but allied legal practice. “I made the decision to join Matrix Sciences because our vision for meeting the changing and unmet needs of the food industry align very well,” says Neumann. “But more than that, our value in how we need to meet those needs make for a great fit.”

Neumann received her law degree from Mitchell Hamline Law School and a Master of Science in Food Science from Michigan State University. Neumann has worked as an attorney in a number of capacities at major food companies throughout the world, building herself a reputation as a prominent consultant, thought leader and adviser in the world of food safety.

Robert Wiebe, chief executive officer of Matrix Sciences, says this acquisition is an important step in their growth strategy. “Melanie and NRS are critical to building a true full-service solution provider,” says Wiebe. “Building on the capabilities and capacity from our acquisitions of Richter International and Northland Laboratories, our portfolio of companies represents a growing and unique partner for our customers in addressing the challenges and opportunities in bringing safe food to market.”

Stephen Ostroff, FDA

FDA’s Ostroff Says Foodborne Illness Still Resistant to Change

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Stephen Ostroff, FDA

“Everything changes; nothing remains without change.” It’s the Buddha quote that Stephen Ostroff, M.D., FDA deputy commissioner for food and veterinary medicine, used to kick off his plenary presentation at this year’s Food Safety Consortium. Yet “there is one thing that is stubbornly resistant to change,” he commented, and that’s foodborne illness. The incidence of culture-confirmed human infections hasn’t improved, and it can be seen in the number of cases reported through CDC’s FoodNet system. Why?

Stephen Ostroff, FDA
FDA’s Stephen Ostroff, M.D. answers audience questions during a town hall meeting at the 2017 Food Safety Consortium.

Ostroff has a few theories. First, there are much better diagnostics and surveillance systems in place versus 10 or 20 years ago. “Those improvements in finding the cases may be masking improvements that have occurred,” he said. Second, looking at the data from the big picture perspective may mask positive sub-trends. “We are actually doing better,” Ostroff said. “Within the data, there is some good news and some bad news.”

Ostroff also proposed that emerging food safety risks are having an impact on the rates of foodborne illness, including new trends that are altering the food landscape. The global food supply is more diverse than ever. In addition, the change in consumer preferences and eating patterns may lead to gravitation towards higher risk foods that are improperly handled. Other areas of risk include new methods of food delivery (i.e., e-commerce—Ostroff added that within a few years, up to 20% of our food will be delivered to our homes.). The final risk he touched on was new food types, such as synthetic foods (i.e., synthetic meat). “Nobody is quite familiar with the potential hazards associated with those foods,” he said.

FSMA Update

Over the past year, a new administration has come into place, along with a new FDA commissioner. In addition, compliance dates for six out of the seven foundational rules are now in effect (the compliance date for the Intentional Adulteration rule is July 2019). Although the new administration is focused on reducing the regulatory burden, it doesn’t appear to be impacting FSMA requirements. “To date we have no requests to change or delay FSMA requirements,” said Ostroff. “And that’s very good news.”

Third-party certification program. In June FDA launched a website through which organizations could apply to be recognized as an accredited body. Ostroff said the response and interest related to the program has been “overwhelming”, with hundred of entities visiting the agency’s website to learn more.

Voluntary Qualified Importer Program (VQIP). The agency anticipates that the application window will open January 2018 (however, Ostroff hinted that it may be delayed a bit). October 2018 is the projected start of the first benefit period.

FSMA Fixes. “There have been quirky issues that ended up in the FSMA regulations either because of the way FSMA was written by Congress or because of the way the regulations ended up,” said Ostroff, who added that the most problematic “quirk” is the intersection of whether an entity must comply with the Preventive Controls rule or the Produce Safety rule, and it all comes down to the farm definition. As a result, the agency extended compliance dates for a number of situations, one of which involves the agricultural water provision (January 2022 for large farms, January 2023 for small farms, and January 2024 for very small farms). Related to this provision, FDA is looking to reducing the regulatory burden but will keep standards in the lab analytic methods, frequency of testing and determination of water quality.

Training. The FDA has been partnering with many entities around the world to implement FSMA training both for industry and regulators. More than 50,000 people have been trained for the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule and more than 5000 have been trained for the animal food rule.

Inspection. At last year’s Food Safety Consortium, there was a lot of chatter about agency enforcement and inspection. Although Ostroff didn’t touch on enforcement, he provided a few figures on inspection activity for fiscal year 2017:

  • Preventive Controls for Human Food
    • Modernized CGMPs: 720
  • Preventive controls: 165 (46 outside of the United States)
  • Preventive Controls for Animal Food
    • CGMPs: 220
  • Foreign Supplier Verification Program: 285
  • Produce safety rule: 8 (sprouts)
Food Safety: Past Present & Future panel

Discussing Key Issues: Images from the 2017 Food Safety Consortium

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Food Safety: Past Present & Future panel

Image credit: Michael Conaty

3M Food Safety

3M Food Safety Test for Cronobacter Designated Performance Tested Method by AOAC

3M Food Safety

Last week, 3M Food Safety announced their 3M™ Molecular Detection Assay 2 – Cronobacter was designated by AOAC International as Performance Tested Method (Certificate #101703). The assay is compatible with their Molecular Detection System, which uses isothermal DNA amplification and bioluminescence detection to test for pathogens.

Cronobacter, a type of bacteria commonly found in powdered foods, supplements and baby formula, can survive for almost two years and exposure to an infant can be life-threatening.

“While less well known than other foodborne pathogens like Listeria or Salmonella, Cronobacter is no less dangerous – particularly because it preys on some of the most vulnerable populations,” says 3M Global Marketing Manager Carolina Riba. “It’s a point of pride for our team that the tests we’ve made for the dangerous pathogen were recognized by an organization like AOAC International.”

Using approved protocols set by the AOAC Research Institute, 3M’s testing process used an independent laboratory. They tested the assay on powdered infant formula, powdered infant cereal, lactose powder and an environmental surface.

Cara Pahoyo

5 Burning Questions About The Rise In Foodborne Illness

By Cara Pahoyo
No Comments
Cara Pahoyo

The food industry has been one of the most celebrated and fastest-growing industries over the last decade or so. Which is no surprise, considering how much food is now being consumed, or posted on Instagram, on a daily basis. Pop-up food carts and hole-in-the-wall food places have been a huge hit too and even inspired a number of Hollywood films about the tough competition and revolutionary marketing tactics that have taken over the food industry (see: Jon Favreau’s Chef and Bradley Cooper’s Burnt). It’s good times, for sure. Well, for the most part, I mean.

When did foodborne illness become a major concern in the US?

Unfortunately, it’s not just the revenue that’s on the rise, because food borne illnesses too are making the headlines as of late. Talk about spoiling (no pun intended) the fun, eh? Well, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, the number of foodborne disease outbreaks resulting from imported foods increased during surveillance years 2005 to 2010.

Where are the numbers coming from?

Dr. L. Hannah Gould, Ph.D., a senior epidemiologist at the CDC, revealed those findings during an oral presentation here at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases in 2012. According to the CDC, 39 foodborne disease outbreaks were reported in which the implicated food had been imported into the United States. These outbreaks resulted in 2348 illnesses, 434 hospitalizations and 3 deaths.

How many are affected?

Though foodborne illnesses are often never formally reported, about 48 million Americans, or one in six, get sick each year from food, the CDC estimates, with 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths. In fact, in 2014, 19,542 cases of infection were traced from 15% of the US population being surveyed by CDC.

Why is it on the rise?

The culprits? Chances are, you’ve been storing them somewhere inside your establishment: packaged caramel-coated apples, frozen ice cream sandwiches, fresh peaches and nectarines, frozen meet, etc. Not exactly the answers you were expecting, perhaps?

According to experts, the growing popularity of packaged foods such as pre-cut fruit and prepared sandwiches has heightened the risk of spreading foodborne illnesses. Furthermore, they have identified that contamination can occur between preparation and packaging, or in high-tech processing plants, after heating to destroy harmful bacteria and before packaging. Which means, somewhere in the last decade, we lost our way (or something like that).

What can we do to stop foodborne disease from spreading?

The whole fiasco regarding foodborne illness is a public safety concern and must be addressed by everyone. However, while adjusting individually may not be a problem for most of us, the same cannot be said for food places and restaurants. Just imagine the public relations horror for restaurant managers if any of their customers get sick while dining at their place?

Restaurants must be more strict and thorough when addressing food safety concerns. The entire crew must be trained when it comes to food handling and a food safety manager must also take charge in overseeing procedures in the kitchen. In fact, proper storage and disposal must also be adequately done at all times. With those safety measures in play, establishments will be able to showcase their commitment to adhere with local food standards and basic food handling procedures. That’s a step in the right direction, for sure.

Summing up, foodborne illness is definitely a manageable concern and will likely not become a factor that will hinder the overall growth of the food industry. However, the fact that it can be controlled and yet still recurring means that there’s still a fair amount of work needed to be done to improve the industry in other aspects—and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing (at least not yet).

3M Food Safety

From Culture To Compliance: The Link Between Food Safety Culture & Audit Preparedness

3M Food Safety

On Tuesday, December 5th, 3M Food Safety and Neumann Risk Services will host the final part of a 4-part webinar series on the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). A special panel discussion of food safety experts will provide insight into how a robust food safety culture can positively impact audit preparedness and signal a culture of compliance.

Attendees will learn what a strong food safety culture looks like and how it can help comply with FSMA and the Safe Quality Food (SQF) Code. The free webinar will be recorded at the 2017 SQF International Conference in Dallas on November 9. It will conclude with a live Q&A for attendees and be offered on-demand to webinar registrants.

The first three webinars are currently available for on-demand listening at the 3M Health Care Academy, and each presents the opportunity to learn about the challenges companies are facing in operationalizing FSMA rules. The webinars offer real-world insight into how companies streamline implementation and execution of food safety plans, supply chain programs and other FSMA-driven programs.

Melanie Neumann, Neumann Risk Services
Melanie Neumann Neumann Risk Services, LLC

Melanie Neumann, president, Neumann Risk Services, a Matrix Sciences Company, will be moderating the panel discussion. Panelists will include:

  • Bill McBride, principal and managing director of Foodlink Management Services and SQFI Asia Pacific representative
  • Dr. Lone Jespersen, principal and founder, Cultivate
  • Dr. Martin Wiedmann, Gellert Family professor in food safety, Cornell University
  • Dr. Jay Ellingson, corporate director of food safety and quality assurance, Kwik Trip, Inc.

The webinar will take place on Tuesday, December 5 at 1:00 p.m. Central Standard Time. To sign up for the webinar, click here.

Scott Mahloch, FBI, Food Safety Consortium

U.S. Food System Continues to Be Soft Target for Terrorism

By Maria Fontanazza
1 Comment
Scott Mahloch, FBI, Food Safety Consortium

Sadly, more and more these days, terrorism has become a prevalent concern. The food sector is not immune to threats either, especially as soft targets and lone wolf attacks become more common.

Food Safety Tech discussed the issue with special agent Scott Mahloch, weapons of mass destruction coordinator for FBI Chicago, during a conversation leading up to this year’s Food Safety Consortium, where Mahloch will be speaking.

Food Safety Tech: In the past year, have there been any changes or new developments in the way in which the FBI conducts outreach to the food industry?

Scott Mahloch presented FBI’s Role in Food Defense on November 29 at the 2017 Food Safety Consortium | Learn moreScott Mahloch: The U.S. food system continues to be a soft target, largely unprotected from the insider threat. Since last year’s Food Safety Consortium we have done targeted outreach to the top dozen food processing facilities in the Chicago area. We worked with our intelligence team, came up with a list of questions and spoke with food safety managers and facility managers regarding the insider threat and educated them on the WMD [FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction] program.

FST: Do other divisions of the FBI work in a similar manner as the Chicago division?

Mahloch: It really depends on the office. We have 56 field offices around the nation. In every office we have a WMD coordinator, so it depends on his or her area of responsibility and what that area commands. For example, our office in Springfield [Illinois] is more agriculturally based than we are here in Chicago. Their food outreach would be very similar, but they might be looking at the farms and the agricultural aspect of food production.

FST: Are there any imminent threats to the food sector? Have you seen anything new over the past year?

Mahloch: No, we have not [seen] anything here in the homeland. The bad guys overseas have always expressed interest in attacking food and water, and that remains the same. It’s more the international terrorist groups that have always stressed this in the past. That’s one of the drivers of why we’re so involved in this outreach—we never want that to happen here in the United States. To get in front of the threat, we go out and talk to subject matter experts in this area, the facility managers and food safety managers to get the information out there.

FST: As FBI takes a proactive approach to food defense, what responses have you seen with food companies thus far?

Mahloch: It’s been very positive. People out there believe in our mission and in what we’re doing, and they want to ensure safety and security in their facilities. Communication has been great; they’ve welcomed us into their facility, taken us on facility tours, shown us production lines and answered our questions. It’s been a great relationship.

FST: Does the FBI concern itself with global food supply chain security in terms of how it affects the United States?

Mahloch: Yes, absolutely. What I do is more on a local level here in Chicago, and the same goes for my fellow coordinators in the field offices. We focus on our area of responsibility. The WMD director has a unit that deals with food and water safety. We also have an overseas lead attaché program that works—those folks are also involved in WMD.

FST: What can attendees look forward to hearing about during your presentation at this year’s Food Safety Consortium?

Mahloch: A lot of it will be education and just getting the word out there that the FBI has a role in food safety, food protection and water safety. A lot of people don’t realize the FBI is involved in this. Usually when you think food protection, you think the USDA, FDA, Homeland Security and other agencies that have programs. So a lot of it will be education and telling [attendees] what we do, what we’re about, and where they can turn in a time of need for additional resources. That’s probably the biggest takeaway from the FBI.

[In addition], on outreach and how the FBI is perceived, what we’ve noticed is that we’ve gone into facilities and their defenses are up a bit because they think the FBI is going to regulate, take a look at their processes and inspect. That’s really not what we’re about. We’re not a regulator—we don’t go in and try to change internal processes or rip apart what they’re doing. What we do is strictly education. There are other regulatory bodies that mandate how things are supposed to be shipped, stored and processed. That’s not the FBI. Sometimes there’s that misconception when we go in and want to do some outreach—that FBI is there to regulate. That’s not the truth. We’re a resource and we’re trying to open those doors of communication.

And as far as the threat in the homeland, right now there is none and we continue to try to stay ahead of the threat through education and being a resource.

 

Results: FSMA IQ Test on Intentional Adulteration Rule

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments

The results are in for this year’s final FSMA IQ test on the intentional adulteration rule. If you didn’t take the test yet, follow this link. Find out how you fared below.

  1. The Intentional Adulteration program that must be developed can rely on food security issues addressed by Preventive Control programs.
    • FALSE
    • 39.51% answered correctly
  2. In developing your Intentional Adulteration Plan, you must determine vulnerabilities to your food product risks.
    • TRUE
    • 98.81% answered correctly
  3. Your written program is called a Food Security Plan.
    • FALSE
    • 62.65% answered correctly
  4. There is no reanalysis provision for Intentional Adulteration programs and Food Defense Plans under the rule.
    • FALSE
    • 89.29% answered correctly
  5. The Intentional Adulteration compliance plan must include the monitoring of certain key areas.
    • TRUE
    • 95.18% answered correctly
  6. Only large food companies over a certain size need to develop and establish a Food Defense Plan under the FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule.
    • TRUE
    • 6.02% answered correctly
  7. There is now risk assessment associated with the Intentional Adulteration rule requirements.
    • FALSE
    • 10.84% answered correctly
  8. Mitigation strategies within the Food Defense Plan are key components to a compliant program.
    • TRUE
    • 96.43% answered correctly
  9. Each point, step, or procedure in the facility’s process must be included in the Intentional Adulteration vulnerability assessment process.
    • TRUE
    • 80.72% answered correctly
  10. Economic adulteration is a key component of the FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule?
    • FALSE
    • 23.81% answered correctly
Julie McGill

Make Your Food Chain Recall Ready At The 2017 Food Safety Consortium

By Julie McGill
No Comments
Julie McGill

As we reflect back on 2017, food recalls continued to dominate our headlines even after the implementation of FSMA. Our industry has taken corrective actions to limit risk. We want to protect consumers as well as our brands, limiting the financial and reputational damage that a recall can inflict on a company. We, along with consumers, are also more aware and in tune with the news due to social media and the 24-hour news cycle. It may appear that there are more recalls, but I would argue that the industry is more proactive and more accountable by submitting itself to voluntary recalls. Without a doubt, the food industry is under increased pressure.

Looking forward to 2018, we are reminded that it was 25 years since the E. coli outbreak at Jack in the Box. It was a monumental turning point in food safety that sparked the industry to modernize and examine processes. Since then, the food industry as a whole has come a long way. During my 16 years at GS1 US, working on programs such as the Foodservice GS1 US Standards Initiative, I saw food companies embrace global standards to increase efficiencies and build a foundation for traceability and supply chain visibility. Now adding Blockchain, Smart Labels, and IoT data to the technology mix will continue to advance the modernization of the food industry.

The good news for our industry is that consumers are patronizing companies that are embracing transparency as a strategic business strategy and these are the companies who are winning the market share as a result.

As stewards of our industry, we will always review our processes, continue to train and educate our employees and adopt better ways of guarding the supply chain. One way to become better at protecting the food chain and the public is exchanging ideas with our peers. We are stronger together.

That is why I am excited to bring together a diverse group of industry leaders for this year’s Food Safety Consortium to discuss this very topic. Titled, Is Your Food Chain Recall Ready?, I will be joined on Thursday, November 30th at 2:30pm CST by Jessica Jones, sr. specialist of Supplier Quality & Safety at Chick-Fil-A; Barbara Hullick, senior director of Food Safety at Produce Alliance and Bryan Cohn, vice president of Operations at Seal the Seasons.

During this panel session, we will discuss:

  • Best practices for FSMA compliance before, during and after a recall.
  • Best practices to execute precise, data-driven and timely recalls and stock withdrawals.
  • Establish and execute a process for escalation and post-recall audit reporting.
  • Work and communicate with suppliers and distributors on “what if” scenarios and what they can expect when quality issues arise.
  • Create a food safety culture which works in concert with legal, marketing and other internal teams.

I hope you will join us in person at the Renaissance Schaumburg Convention Center Hotel for the entire conference but if not, join us virtually! Registration details can be found on the Food Safety Consortium website.

Question mark

FSMA IQ Test Part III: Intentional Adulteration Rule

By Food Safety Tech Staff
1 Comment
Question mark

The FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule provides a new level of compliance in food security and defense with specific requirements to be determined, implemented and maintained. The planning must include effective assessments on possible risk areas and steps for responding to these. Do you know the correct response to these questions?

Kestrel ManagementWorking with Bill Bremer, principal of food safety compliance at Kestrel Management, LLC, Food Safety Tech is continuing its FSMA IQ test series. Results will be posted monthly in our Food Safety Consortium newsletter leading up to the 2017 event.

Confirm your company responsibility in meeting FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule compliance by answering True or False.