Ryan Gooley, Mock Recalls

Practice, Practice, Practice. Why Mock Recalls Are So Important

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Ryan Gooley, Mock Recalls

Being recall ready goes beyond checking off the boxes for meeting traceability requirements, qualification standards, or meeting auditing requirements for certifications. “It’s really a discussion that needs to happen from a business continuity standpoint within an organization so that should there be an issue, the team has actually talked through different strategies and ways of technically executing a recall within the organization,” says Ryan Gooley, recall consultant at Stericycle ExpertSolutions. During an interactive workshop at next week’s Food Safety Consortium conference, Gooley will lead attendees through recall scenarios and help them create a recall plan to address global needs, communications strategies, resource allocation, and business continuity requirements. Gooley recently sat down with Food Safety Tech to discuss the importance of mock recalls within the food industry.

Food Safety Tech: What are the most common mistakes food companies make in preparing (or not preparing) for a recall?

Ryan Gooley: One of the mistakes companies make is not having the discussion internally about a recall and whether they are ready and able to respond to and support a recall. Although it’s becoming less of an issue, people still don’t want to talk about recalls—they’re afraid if they talk about it, it will happen to them.

They also take their industry partners, whether supply chain partners or existing vendors, for granted.

Ryan Gooley is leading a session, The Multiplier Effect: How One Ingredient Can Lead to Multiple Recalls, at the 2016  Food Safety Consortium conference  on Thursday, December 8 | Learn More In addition, companies miss the amount of effort and resources it takes to properly support a recall once a communication goes out. This specifically relates to class I or class II recalls that go down to the consumer level and involve press releases and media exposure.

In any industry, your resources are geared toward producing product and getting it into the market; it’s not the reverse of managing take-backs and returns, and communicating to customers. A lot of it comes down to resource allocation.

FST: What are the most important elements of a recall plan in the food industry?

Gooley: Traceability is huge. Most companies have a pretty good understanding of traceability as it relates to where they receive ingredients, where the ingredients go within their processes, and ultimately where they are distributed. Traceability is important, because you can’t initiate a recall if you cannot identify where the suspect product went.

The other part of the recall plan is testing the plan. Going through your recall plan and testing it pulls together the different departments that are responsible for supporting the recall exercise and effort within the company. Having conversations about who is responsible for what, the information [that should be] pulled, and who needs that information is really important for building the team. [It ensures that] should a company need to initiate a recall, the team members who are engaged and responsible have actually talked through the process and practiced. With more practice comes more efficiency and less chance for error or oversights.

Another important element of a recall plan is understanding your communication plan and communication crisis management plan. A lot of people talk about recalls as just identifying the product and notifying downstream what to stop selling, etc., but a lot of what goes into the recall plan is business strategy—how are you going to manage not only retailer and customer calls, but consumer calls and media calls? Who is responsible for communicating what, when and where? Do you notify just your impacted customer or do you notify your non-impacted customers? What type of communication and messaging do you have? When companies have not done a mock recall exercise, oftentimes they have not had these conversations, and they really struggle on the communications piece, especially because it needs to be drafted, approved, and communicated in a very short period of time.

Recent Developments in Pesticide Analysis

Evaluation of Q Exactive LC-MS for Pesticide Residues in Fruits and Vegetables – Plenary Lecture: Abstract: The Thermo Scientific™ Q Exactive™ LC-MS has been evaluated for detection, identification and quantitation of pesticide residues included in the European Union Monitoring Program. Pesticides were analyzed in four matrices representing wide range of difficulty (tomato, pepper, orange and green tea). Read more and watch the lecture here.

Find the Weak Link in Pesticide Residue Analysis

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments

Plagued by false or inaccurate results during pesticide analysis? To get to the bottom of the issue, it’s important to find any weaknesses in your pesticide residue workflow. In a recent blog on Analyte Guru, Richard Fussell of Thermo Scientific discusses areas in which pesticide testing labs can identify the weak links, including:

  • Solvent extraction. QuEChERs (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged and Safe) acetonitrile extraction method
  • Sample processing
  • Extraction efficiency

Get the details about how to find the weakest link in Fussell’s blog here.

More on pesticide analysis:

FSMA Update: FDA Submits Final Produce, FSVP, and Third-Party Accreditation Rules

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments

Industry awaits Federal Register publication.

Today FDA announced that it submitted the final FSMA rules for produce safety, foreign supplier verification and third-party accreditation rules. As we await final publication by the Federal Register, here’s a look back at some of Food Safety Tech’s recent coverage related to FSMA issues:

Is your supplier program aligned with new FSMA rules?

The Real Cost of Not Having an Effective Food Safety Management System

How Does SQF Certification Prepare You for Better FSMA Compliance?

FDA Awards $600,000 for FSMA Training Center

Not to miss event this month: FDA to Weigh In on FSMA Enforcement at Food Safety Consortium

 

You’ve Selected a GFSI Scheme. What’s Next?

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments

Once a company has selected a GFSI scheme, does it need to pursue an additional scheme? The answer may depend on the client’s needs, according to Claudio Bauza. During the 2015 Food Labs Conference, Bauza tells Rick Biros, publisher of Food Safety Tech whether or not there is an advantage to selecting an additional scheme.

 

Understanding Pesticide Residue and Maximum Residue Limits

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments

The idea of controlling pests dates as far back as 2500 B.C. From using soaps to copper sulfate to DDT, industry has evolved in how it controls pests in agricultural crops. In a video shot at Food Safety Tech’s 2015 Food Labs conference earlier this year, Angela Carlson of SGS discusses the regulations involving maximum residue limits (MRLs) as well as how MRLs are set at a global level.

Rick Biros and Caludio Bauza, Food Labs conference

Where Small Companies Can Begin with GFSI

By Food Safety Tech Staff
1 Comment
Rick Biros and Caludio Bauza, Food Labs conference

Many small companies are working with limited resources and as a result, employees wear a variety of different hats. As they look to begin the process of selecting a GFSI scheme, the process can be daunting. Where should they start? Which scheme makes the most sense? In an interview with Rick Biros, publisher of Food Safety Tech, Claudio Bauza discusses where small food companies can begin their journey.

At this year’s Food Safety Consortium conference, don’t miss the “Ask the Experts–You Are GFSI Compliant. Now What?” The session takes place Wednesday, November 18.

 

Mislabeled Salmon

Are Those Filets Real? Mislabeling of Wild Salmon Continues

By Maria Fontanazza
1 Comment
Mislabeled Salmon

Full traceability throughout the entire seafood supply chain is recommended following a study released yesterday by Oceana involving the mislabeling of salmon. The organization found that 43% of samples taken from restaurants and grocery stores were mislabeled, with DNA testing uncovering that 69% of mislabeling involved farmed Atlantic salmon that was labeled and sold as wild-caught salmon. According to Oceana, the report is the largest salmon mislabeling study in the United States yet.

“The federal government should provide consumers with assurances that the seafood they purchase is safe, legally caught and honestly labeled,” said Beth Lowell, senior campaign director at Oceana in a press release. “Traceability needs to be required for all seafood to ensure important information about which species it is, whether it was farmed or wild caught, and how and where it was caught follows all seafood from boat (or farm) to plate.”

At this year’s Food Safety Consortium conference, industry experts will discuss Supply Chain Risk Management, Foreign Supplier Verification, and a range of other food safety issues. REGISTER HERE

Oceana combined a nationwide study of 384 samples with a winter survey of 82 samples to learn whether there was a correlation between time and location. Findings revealed that the majority of the mislabeling in restaurants occurred when the fish was out of season. In addition, high rates of mislabeling were found on the East coast—37% in New York City, 45% in Washington, DC, and 48% in Virginia. It is important to note that the 43% of the samples deemed mislabeled derived from the smaller winter survey.

Samples were considered mislabeled if:

  • Described as wild, Pacific, or Alaska and DNA testing proved them to be farmed Atlantic salmon
  • Labeled as a specific type of salmon but testing proved them to be a different species

In the report Oceana takes issue with FDA’s guidance on seafood naming, calling it “neither clear nor consistent”, along with Country of Origin Labeling for seafood. The organization urges the Presidential Task Force on fish and seafood fraud (established last year) to set forth a requirement that all seafood sold domestically have documentation proving it came from a legal source, along with full supply chain traceability. The task force released its final action plan in March, but Oceana is asking that the group expand documentation requirements as a market access condition. Oceana’s full report provides a breakdown of its investigation.

Robert Garfield, Senior Vice President of the Safe Quality Food Institute

How Does SQF Certification Prepare You for Better FSMA Compliance?

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Robert Garfield, Senior Vice President of the Safe Quality Food Institute

“Over a period of time, things have changed for the corner suite, and many CEOs and presidents of corporations understand that with the media today and the way that FDA has improved its ability to focus on contamination, something needed to happen,” said Robert Garfield, senior vice president at SQFI during the recent “SQF in the Age of FSMA” webinar. “It’s not everything that we wanted…but it’s a rule that brings the regulations up to where they need to be in this century.”

GFSI leaders will be available during the Food Safety Consortium conference. On Wednesday, November 18, don’t miss the session, “The Role of Technology in Ensuring Accessible, Actionable Data to Tackle FSMA Compliance”. LEARN MOREGarfield discussed the role of SQF certification in FSMA compliance during part one of the 2015 GFSI Leadership webcast series. Hot topics included:

  • Foreign supplier verification program alignment
  • Building a food safety plan, including HACCP to HARPC migration
  • Being audit ready and record keeping requirements
  • Environmental monitoring
  • “Farm-to-fork” and safety controls
  • SQF scheme changes to align with FSMA
  • How SQF fills in the gaps in FSMA requirements

The next webinar takes place Friday, October 30 and covers the alignment of BRC certification with FSMA. John Kukoly, director of BRC Americas, is the featured speaker. Register here for the complimentary webinar.

USDA Logo

USDA Goes Local, Investing in Farm Production, Research and Conservation

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
USDA Logo

The USDA has ramped up efforts to provide farmers and local producers with more money with the goal of expanding market opportunities at the local and regional level. Between 2009 and 2014, the department invested more than $800 million in more than 29,000 local and regional food businesses and infrastructure tasks, and last year alone boosted local food growth by nearly $11.7 billion, according to a recently released USDA Fact Sheet.

The investments target helping farmers and ranchers gain access to new and local markets, improving infrastructure to connect producers with new markets, and improving access to local food. Highlights of the USDA’s initiatives between 2009 and 2015 include:

  • A 500% increase in the number of Value Added Producer Grants awarded to local food projects
  • Assisting in the construction of almost 15,000 high tunnels nationwide to extend the growing season, reduce input costs and conserve natural resources
  • Provide 15,000 microloans to farmers and ranchers (up to $50,000) nationwide
  • More than 900 investments in local food infrastructure, including food hubs, the number of which has doubled to more than 300; local processing facilities; and distribution networks
  • Provide $60 million in assistance to more than 900 projects involving the Farmers Market Promotion Program
  • Support communicates using local food to reduce food insecurity, providing $28 million to more than 150 Community Food Projects nationwide