A sample image of one of the recalled products. A full list is available on FDA’s website.
The FDA, CDC, and state and local agencies are investigating a multistate outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium infections that have been linked to BrightFarms packaged salad greens. Last week BrightFarms recalled packaged salad greens produced in its Rochelle, IL greenhouse farm over concern of Salmonella contamination. The products, which have “best by” dates through 7/29/2021, were sold in Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and Indiana.
Thus far 9 illnesses and one hospitalization have been linked to the Salmonella outbreak.
The FDA is advising that consumers, restaurants, retailers and distributors throw away any of the affected products, and clean and sanitize any surfaces that may have come into contact with the product.
Food safety experts will discuss challenges and tangible best practices in Salmonella detection, mitigation and control, along with critical issues that the food industry faces with regards to the pathogen. This includes the journey and progress of petition to USDA on reforming and modernizing poultry inspections to reduce the incidence of Salmonella and Campylobacter; Salmonella detection, mitigation and control; and a case study on the pathogen involving crisis management.
Register to attend Food Safety Hazards: Salmonella Detection, Mitigation, Control & Regulation | Thursday, July 15, 11:45 am ETFSIS has announced revised guidelines to help poultry facilities control Salmonella and Campylobacter in raw poultry. The changes are a result of new scientific and technical information, public comments, and FSIS’s decision to separate the guidelines into one on controlling Salmonella and one on controlling Campylobacter. The guidelines, “Availability of Revised Compliance Guidelines for Controlling Salmonella and Campylobacter in Raw Poultry”, also provide best practices for poultry establishments.
“FSIS has updated the guideline contents to reflect the most recent best practices, supported by current peer-reviewed literature and analyses of FSIS data,” the agency stated in a news release. “Updates include information on using neutralizing agents in sampling to prevent carryover of antimicrobial substances and a current list of antimicrobials for establishment use. Also included are improvements in the information on pre-harvest practices, with a comprehensive revision of the litter/bedding section.”
Q: What are the maturity levels of food safety culture?
Kathleen Wybourn: The UK Food Standards Agency defines 6 levels of maturity:
Calculative non-compliers intentionally violate regulations for reasons of financial gain. They only comply under inspection requirements, prioritize productivity at the cost of hygiene and, lack adequacy of facilities and/or equipment. They are accustomed to bad conditions without realizing risks and continuously do not comply with food safety requirements.
Doubting compliers question the overall risk posed by lack of food safety, leadership is not a reference for behavior, exhibit failures of structures, equipment and utensils; training is an unnecessary investment for them, employee suggestions are not encouraged. They do not understand the potential severity of deviations from food safety regulations.
Dependent compliers seek advice or instructions and see food safety as something that needs to be addressed by others. Possibly, if there is no external control, food standards are not met; they have a few structural deficiencies, including employee facilities, they are not proactive about food safety, have some awareness of contamination risks, while knowing the rules and legislation, and rely on external sources for updates on legislation and to tell them, if and what needs to be changed.
Proactive understand that hazards are significant and accept that requirements are effective and necessary. Their leaders are a good example, care for the safety of food constantly, work conditions ensure the work is done properly. Employees are encouraged to warn about deviations, review their procedures to comply with new regulations.
Leaders see food safety and quality as a part of their business. They encourage, explain and praise good practices, the board adopts improvements and view them as investment and not cost, seek best practices, not only compliance with regulation. They are never complacent, when it comes to food safety, and food safety rules are not questioned by them.
Q: If your leadership and management do not want to get engaged, which steps can you take to develop your organizations food safety culture?
Wybourn: This depends on each organization; however, technologists and practitioners should provide education and knowledge to their management regarding food safety culture. If you are a certified site, it is a requirement, not a nice to have. The FDA is considering reducing inspections and the worst what can happen is a recall and food safety culture can assist with preventing. Food safety culture is beyond food safety management systems. Showing your leadership, the full benefits and positive results will get their attention.
Kathleen Wybourn, DNV Director, Food & Beverage Supply Chain and Product Assurance, North America
About Kathleen Wybourn, DNV Director, Food & Beverage Supply Chain and Product Assurance, North America
Kathleen began her career in food manufacturing at the NutraSweet Division of GD Searle/Monsanto where she held various managerial positions including managing analytical and microbiology labs, quality control, quality assurance, supplier audits and operations. Since leaving food manufacturing, Kathleen has worked in various food safety auditing management positions, including Director of Operations at the GMA as Director of the GMA SAFE program.
In 2008 Kathleen joined DNV as Director of Food Safety Solutions where she is responsible for the Food and Beverage division of DNV GL – Business Assurance. Kathleen has written articles on Food Safety Certification including: First Look: GFSI Adds New FSSC 22000 Standard, WAL-MART’s Magna Carta for Auditing, and Navigating the Jungle of Food Safety Standards – all published in various Food industry magazines. Kathleen was instrumental in the study conducted at Michigan State University on Food Safety Certification in the US titled “Food Safety in the U.S. Supply Chain – Consumer and Food Industry Perceptions.” Kathleen is very active with GFSI, having served on various Technical working groups and speaking at the GFSI Global Conferences.
Kathleen has a Bachelor of Science Degree from Northern Illinois University and an MBA from Loyola University of Chicago.
The event begins at 11:45 am ET on Thursday, July 15.
Presentations are as follows:
Get with the Program: Modernization of Poultry Inspections in the United States; A panel discussion with Mitzi Baum, STOP Foodborne Illness;
Sarah Sorscher, Center for Science in the Public Interest; Martin Weidman, DMV, Ph.D., Cornell University; and Bruce Stewart-Brown, Perdue Foods
Detect, Deter, Destroy! A Discussion on Salmonella Detection, Mitigation and Control, with Elise Forward, Forward Food Solutions; Dave Pirrung, DCP Consulting; additional speaker TBA
A Case Study on Salmonella, with Rob Mommsen, Sabra Dipping Company
Sponsored TechTalks will be provided by Will Eaton of Meritech, Patrick Casey of BestSanitizer, Adam Esser of Sterilex, and Asif Rahman of Weber Scientific.
One of the recalled RTE chicken products from Tyson Foods. Labels of recalled products are available on the FSIS website.
Tyson Foods, Inc. is recalling 8,492,832 pounds of ready-to-eat (RTE) chicken products over concerns that the product may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes. The Class I recall affects frozen, fully cooked chicken products that were produced between December 26, 2020 and April 13, 2021, and shipped nationwide to retailers and facilities that include hospitals, nursing homes, restaurants, schools and Department of Defense locations. The recalled products bear establishment number “EST. P-7089” on the product bag or inside the USDA mark of inspection.
The FSIS website lists all products affected by the recall—which includes diced chicken, frozen, fully cooked chicken strips, diced chicken, chicken used for fajitas chicken wing sections, and pizza with fully cooked chicken.
The CDC is advising that businesses do not serve or sell recalled products, and that any refrigerators, containers or surfaces that may have touched the recalled products be thoroughly cleaned.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased concern and awareness about health and safety across the spectrum. Though there is no evidence that the novel coronavirus can be transmitted through food, increased concern about food safety remains. Among other food items, outbreaks tied to various fresh and frozen produce are all too common, despite processors’ best efforts to mitigate risk of pathogen growth during harvesting and processing, including multiple intervention washes prior to product packaging.
Still, adverse issues have persisted, leaving the foodservice industry wondering what more can be done to make fresh produce safer. This is where material science innovations come into play. New technology can enable processors to continue to reduce pathogen growth after the package is sealed, providing a final intervention step to significantly reduce the risk of foodborne illness from minimally processed foods.
Q: How does material science technology work as a pathogen mitigation strategy for fresh produce?
Angela Morgan, Ph.D.: Innovations in material science technology have enabled a new class of polymer compounds that perform active functions within packaging material to protect products from environmental conditions that can adversely impact quality and safety. This is called active packaging technology.
My company, Aptar CSP Technologies, developed 3-Phase Activ-Polymer™ technology more than 25 years ago for use in the pharmaceuticals space. Now, this technology is being applied to provide food protection solutions, specifically for fresh and frozen produce, to help mitigate risk of foodborne illness outbreaks.
To understand how this technology works, you first need a basic grasp of 3-Phase Activ-Polymer™ technology. Essentially, this material science innovation has three parts: a base polymer that provides physical structure, an active particle or component that offers a protective function, such as absorbing liquids or emitting an antimicrobial agent, and a minority polymer or channeling agent that enables gas movement throughout the base polymer. This technology can be custom-formulated to accomplish a range of tasks, such as absorbing moisture, scavenging oxygen or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), emitting aromas or eliminating odors or, in the case of produce, dispersing an antimicrobial agent within a sealed package to mitigate pathogen growth.
The technology we are discussing here, InvisiShield™, is a specially-engineered antimicrobial delivery system that safely creates a controlled dosage of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) gas inside a sealed package to reduce pathogen growth – both bacterial and viral – while minimizing negative organoleptic properties. Extruded into a film, the technology is adhered to the lidding film of fresh produce immediately prior to sealing, providing a final intervention step that is currently lacking in today’s produce processing methods.
Once the package is sealed, the humidity inside the package triggers a controlled release of ClO2 into the environment surrounding the produce, reducing pathogens within a matter of hours and leaving no trace after treatment. Independent studies from researchers at NC State have validated the technology delivers approximately a 3 log or 99.9% reduction in pathogen growth with no negative impact to taste, appearance or texture. The technology has been shown to be effective on a range of bacteria and viruses such as pathogenic E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, Human norovirus, Hepatitis A, Shigella, Campylobacter jejuni, Staphylococcus aureus, Yersinia enterocolitica, Vibrio vulnificus, Geotrichum candidum, Feline calicivirus, and Rotavirus.
Q: What are some of the benefits of adopting this technology?
Morgan: Aside from the obvious benefits of brand protection, keeping food safe for consumers, and reducing the likelihood of recalls due to foodborne pathogens, InvisiShield™ technology is an additional hurdle or mitigation step in a processor’s food safety plan or HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Plan). The HACCP is a management system endorsed by the FDA in which food safety is addressed through analysis and control of biological, chemical, and physical hazards from raw material production, procurement and handling, to manufacturing, distribution and consumption of the finished product. While currently voluntary for the produce industry, HACCP programs are also highly recommended across all food industries. Currently, to comply with food safety testing requirements, processors need to hold product for as long as three days to wait for testing results to assure the product is safe to distribute. However, the InvisiShield™ antimicrobial delivery system enables the processor to bypass those wait times, immediately distributing product upon packaging. This results in extended shelf life and reduced wastage, while also providing an additional intervention step to protect against all of the residual effects of having an outbreak such as negative impacts on brand image and the expense of recalls.
Currently, to comply with food safety testing requirements, processors need to hold product for as long as three days to wait for testing results to assure the product is safe to distribute. However, the InvisiShield™ antimicrobial delivery system enables the processor to bypass those wait times, immediately distributing product upon packaging because the final pathogen mitigation process occurs inside the sealed package during shipment.
About Angela Morgan, Ph.D
Angela Morgan is Director of Business Development and Food Safety Solutions responsible for commercializing the portfolio of antimicrobial technologies at Aptar. She most recently worked at Sealed Air Corporation as the Director of America’s Legacy Food and Product Care Division, and previously worked at Turkey Hill Dairy and Campbell’s Soup Company. Morgan received her B.S and M.S. degrees in Food Science from Pennsylvania State University and her PhD. from Clemson University in Packaging Engineering. Finally, Morgan holds memberships in numerous professional and civic organizations and serves on the AIPIA advisory board.
The recent cyberattack that shut down meat supplier JBS should be a wakeup call to the food industry. These attacks are on the rise across industries, and food operations both large and small need to be prepared. In a Q&A with Food Safety Tech, Brent Johnson, partner at Holland & Hart, breaks down key areas of vulnerability and how companies in the food industry can take proactive steps to protect their operations and ultimately, the consumer.
Food Safety Tech: Given the recent cyberattack on JBS, how vulnerable are U.S. food companies, in general, to this type of attack? How prepared are companies right now?
Brent Johnson, partner, Holland & Hart
Brent Johnson: Food companies are in the same boat as other manufacturers. Cyber threats are constantly evolving and hackers are developing increasingly sophisticated delivery systems for ransomware. Food companies are obviously focused on making and delivering safe and compliant products and getting paid for them. Cybersecurity is important, but it’s difficult for manufacturers to devote the resources necessary to make their systems bulletproof when it’s an ancillary part of their overall operations and a cost driver. Unfortunately, hackers only have one job.
We tend to think of big tech and financial services companies as the prime targets for ransomware attacks because of the critical nature of their technology and data, but food companies are really no different. Plus, unlike tech companies and the financial services industry, food companies haven’t, as a general matter, developed the robust defenses necessary to thwart attacks, so they’re easier targets.
Food Safety Tech: What is the overall impact of a cyberattack on a food company, from both a business as well as a consumer safety perspective?
Johnson: It may come as a bit of a surprise to those who don’t work in the food industry, but food production (from slaughterhouses to finished products) is highly automated and data driven. That’s one of the lessons of the JBS ransomware attack. The attack shut down meat processing facilities across the United States and elsewhere. I work in Utah and the JBS Beef Plant in Hyrum was temporarily shut down. JBS cancelled two shifts at its meatpacking operation in Greeley, Colorado where my firm has a large presence as well, because of the ransomware attack. So, the impact on a food company’s business from a successful ransomware attack is dramatic.
On the consumer safety side, a ransomware attack that impacts automated safety systems would cause significant problems for a food manufacturer. Software controls much of the food industry’s safety systems—from sanitation (equipment washdowns and predictive maintenance) to traceability (possible pathogen contamination and recalls) to ingredient monitoring (including allergen detection). Every part of a food company’s production system is traced, tracked, and verified electronically. A ransomware attack on a food maker would very likely compromise the company’s ability to produce safe products.
Food Safety Tech:What proactive steps should food companies be taking to protect themselves against a cyberattack?
Johnson: I wish there was an easy and foolproof system for food companies to implement to protect against cyber attacks, but there isn’t. The threats are always changing. The Biden Administration’s recent memorandum to corporate executives and business leaders on strengthening cyber defenses is a good starting point, however. The White House’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Cyber and Emerging Tech, Anne Neuberger, reiterated the following “Five Best Practices” from President Biden’s executive order. These practices are multifactor authentication, endpoint detection and response, aggressive monitoring for malicious activities on the company’s networks and blocking them, data encryption, and the creation of a skilled cyber security team with the ability to train employees, detect threats and patch system vulnerabilities.
Food Safety Tech: Are there specific companies within the food industry that are especially susceptible?
Johnson: Not really. Hackers are opportunistic and look for the paths of least resistance. That said, as can be seen from the recent Colonial Pipeline and JBS ransomware attacks, hackers have transitioned from the early days of going after individuals and small businesses to whale hunting. The money is better.
It’s important to observe that the recent attacks have been directed at industries that present national infrastructure concerns (oil, the food supply). There’s no evidence of any involvement by a foreign government in these attacks, but it’s a fair question as to whether the hackers, themselves, expect that the federal government will step in at some point to assist the victims of cyber attacks financially due to their critical importance.
Food Safety Tech:Where do you see the issue of cybersecurity and cyberattacks related to the food industry headed in the future?
Johnson: Other than the certainty that the attacks will increase in both intensity and sophistication, I have no prediction. It’s not a time for complacency.
Q: What leads a company to decide a quality management solution is necessary?
Bryce Romney: For many companies, the catalyst for beginning the procurement process is needing to better integrate with data across the brand. Safety and quality checks have traditionally been managed with clipboards, spreadsheets, and email. While these may have their place in a modern quality model, fully manual processes make it difficult to aggregate, visualize, and use data effectively as a company grows.
Companies may also start looking to a quality management software when:
Their supply chain is expanding and it’s no longer possible to track suppliers and vendors manually.
Specific certification bodies require digital audit submission and converting from manual to digital has become too time consuming.
Corrective actions are not being effectively tracked as a part of the continuous improvement process.
Other departments have begun modernizing and integrating data across the company has become difficult.
In essence, many companies look to quality management software when it becomes difficult to track quality with more traditional processes as the company grows.
Q: What common missteps do companies make when selecting a vendor?
Romney: One of the biggest issues I see companies make is believing the right quality management software will give them an effective quality model. No software will fix a broken quality system or create a good system where one doesn’t exist. It’s critical, then, to ensure you go into the procurement process with a good quality and safety model in place. If there are things that aren’t working now, automating them won’t help. Get consensus from your team on what the quality and safety framework should be before streamlining it with quality management software.
Something else I frequently see is having the wrong people involved in procurement, or not ensuring the correct teams have a voice in the process. Narrowing your vendor selection to the final choice involves more than the director of operations or head of supply chain. Ultimately, the stakeholders that should get involved include whichever executive will give final approval, someone from the IT team who will head implementation, the team that will have to manage the software, representatives from any departments who may interface with quality, and someone to represent the needs of any suppliers, factories, or other partners who may have to use it.
Finally, I see that often people try to begin without a clear idea of their goals and desired outcomes in mind when bringing in new software. When you assemble the correct group of stakeholders, it’s critical to work on creating a specific list of goals, and a corresponding list of necessary features and functions. Having specific needs is key to narrowing an initial broad selection to the shortlist to your final selection. It allows you to avoid emotional decision making and focus on which vendor can meet your company’s needs. After all, as the Cheshire Cat in “Alice in Wonderland” says, “If you don’t know where you want to go, then it doesn’t really matter which path you take.”
Q: Quality management systems are increasingly integrated with external partners, vendors, and suppliers. How do you ensure the vendor of choice is able to accommodate all the needs of a local and/or global brand?
Romney: Start with identifying which partners or suppliers will use audits or corrective actions within the software. Are there certifications they use that are already integrated with any of the vendors you’re considering? Do you need to be able to import audits from disparate systems into a single system, and can the new software vendor accommodate that?
When working with a global supply chain, you should also consider the complexities of how the system will be used. Will you be able to get Wi-Fi or data connection in the farms or factories you’re monitoring, and can the software work offline? Do you have vendors with complex business hierarchies that the software will need to work with? Is a trained auditor using the software or will different locations need to have the usability to perform self-assessments?
Once you have a clear idea of what the answers to questions like these are, you can begin to understand which platform will best help you meet those needs. While you may not be able to find a single vendor who can meet all of your business needs, as well as those of your partners, the more you can accommodate in a single system the better. This will reduce the amount of work needed to integrate data between systems and build integrity across the quality team.
Bryce Romney is Director of Product at RizePoint. People, problems and solutions. That’s what keeps Bryce excited about moving the RizePoint platform forward. New customer journeys toward solutions for real problems is where he loves to focus. With the world moving as fast as it does, technology enhancements making leaps every year, Bryce enjoys chasing big visions, while remembering to focus on real people and the problems they still face today in their jobs and lives.
Today Beech-Nut Nutrition Company announced a voluntary recall of one lot of its Stage 1 Single Grain Rice Cereal following sampling that revealed the product tested above the guidance level for naturally occurring inorganic arsenic set by FDA last summer. The routine sampling was conducted by the State of Alaska. The recalled item has an expiration date of May 1, 2022.
“The safety of infants and children is Beech-Nut’s top priority. We are issuing this voluntary recall, because we learned through routine sampling by the State of Alaska that a limited quantity of Beech-Nut Single Grain Rice Cereal products had levels of naturally-occurring inorganic arsenic above the FDA guidance level, even though the rice flour used to produce these products tested below the FDA guidance level for inorganic arsenic,” said Jason Jacobs, Vice President, Food Safety and Quality, Beech-Nut, in a company announcement published on FDA’s website.
Perhaps even bigger news is Beech-Nut’s announcement that it is exiting the market for its branded Single Grain Rice Cereal. The company is concerned that it will not be able to consistently obtain rice flour that is well-below FDA’s guidance level (as well as Beech-Nut’s specifications) for naturally occurring inorganic arsenic.
COVID-19 was an eye-opening public health emergency that brought a renewed focus on hygiene and safety across all industries. For McDonald’s Corp., this change prompted a deeper focus on science, including the use of analytical data, and consumer perception, according to the company’s Director of Global Food Safety Gary van Breda. “There are certain things that are important to our supplier base and for us moving forward, [including] harvesting information from different sources— information from audits, social media and being able to know whether we have the right inputs and algorithms in place to generate information to help us make decisions,” said van Breda in a panel discussion during the final episode of the Food Safety Consortium’s Spring Virtual Conference Series in May. These data-driven insights also helped the company take a closer look at attributes such as air quality and how to clean and sanitize high-touch areas in its restaurants.
Many organizations in the food industry were forced to completely change their strategic approach to doing business. “COVID was a once-in-a-generation disruption,” said Jorge Hernandez, vice president, quality assurance at The Wendy’s Company. “Many of the businesses didn’t survive, and many thrived. What’s the difference? In the leadership and approach: To be able to pivot, be flexible, and adapt to the changing circumstances—talk about flying a plane while you were building it.”
One of the key lessons learned from the pandemic was in the ability to remain flexible and make decisions based on the best information available at that time—and using the latest information to continuously improve processes, said Hernandez. For example, many food service and retail establishments took a giant leap forward in providing contactless ordering and delivery to customers—something that became an expectation versus a nice-to-have advantage. From an internal perspective, Wendy’s developed a much stronger connectivity between different job functions (i.e., operations, human resources, management) that helped them strengthen practices, guidance and procedures necessary to thrive during the pandemic.
During the pandemic, food safety fundamentals were brought to the forefront. “Handwashing became so critical. It would be silly not to take advantage of that moving forward,” said Hernandez. “Before the pandemic this was one of the biggest reasons for foodborne illness [outbreaks]. Now it’s up to us: With this pandemic, to use that momentum to move [these practices] forward and make it part of our routine. We have a unique opportunity to make that change to make safer food.”
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.
