According to a new report by Global Market Insights, the plant-based meat market, which is currently valued above $150 million, is expected to be worth more than $320 million by 2025. Increased consumer demand for meat alternatives can be attributed to a variety of factors: More awareness of environmental hazards linked to killing animals, animal rights issues, as well as a desire for more vegetarian-based diets due to health concerns.
On a nutritional front, the report also notes: “Plant based meat products are incomplete protein source and lack vitamin B12 which may hinder market growth. Manufacturers are researching to enhance the nutritional profile of plant based meat products by mixing high protein food sources such as quinoa which may fuel product demand.”
Specific sectors that are expected to grow are the following:
Pea-based meat: 10.5% CAGR from 2019 to 2025
Wheat-based meat: Increase to more than $40 million by 2025
Beef wheat-based meat: Expected to grow about 10% by 2025
Chicken soy-based meat (currently valued at $70 million in 2018)
Regionally, plant-based meat is anticipated to grow 10% by 2025 in North America, with the report pointing to more awareness of the risks associated with contaminated as well as adulterated meat. In Europe, the value of the market is expected to exceed $55 million by 2025.
Following last year’s widespread E.coli O157 outbreak involving romaine lettucelinked to the Yuma, Arizona growing region (Spring 2018), FDA launched a sampling assignment to test romaine lettuce for pathogenic Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and Salmonella spp. The microbiological surveillance sampling began on December 18, 2018 in the Yuma region and focused on 26 commercial coolers and cold storage facilities to allow FDA to sample multiple farms from several locations at once. The agency collected and tested a total of 188 samples for both pathogens. It did not detect Salmonella in any sample; STEC was detected in one sample, but additional analysis found that the bacteria was not pathogenic.
“The findings of this assignment suggest that there was no widespread Salmonella or STEC contamination of romaine lettuce from the Yuma growing region during the period when sampling occurred. As a next step, the FDA is working with leafy green stakeholders in the Yuma region to consider a longer-term environmental study to identify and control risks that will prevent future outbreaks, with the ultimate goal of protecting consumers. – FDA
The point of the sampling assignment was to determine whether target pathogens were present, and if so, to respond quickly before contaminated products reached consumers.
Yesterday Tyson Foods, Inc. announced a recall of its Weaver brand frozen chicken patties over concern that they could be contaminated with foreign materials. The Class I recall affects 39,078 pounds of frozen, fully cooked product that were produced on January 31 of this year and shipped to retailers nationwide. The recall was initiated after Tyson informed FSIS of consumer complaints.
Nearly 40% of U.S.-produced food is not consumed, according to a 2018 report by The Center for Biological Diversity. In addition, retailers are named as the largest culprits when it comes to food waste. IBM estimates that supermarkets tossed about 16 billion pounds of food last year alone. The technology company is working to get more involved in this problem and is holding the Food Waste Developer Challenge in an effort to find solutions to help reduce waste.
John Walicki, senior technical staff member, CTO IoT developer advocacy at IBM
“Often, innovation comes from unexpected places. IBM’s sponsorship of the Food Waste Developer Challenge encourages developers to use their unique expertise toward solving some of society’s hardest problems,” says John Walicki, senior technical staff member, CTO IoT developer advocacy at IBM. “We hope to ignite an open community of impassioned developers to create solutions that improve the food supply chain and reduce food waste.” In a Q&A with Food Safety Tech, Walicki explains the important role that technology could play in stopping the ongoing food waste problem.
Food Safety Tech:What are the biggest challenges in addressing food waste?
John Walicki: One big issue is that the data around a product’s age, origin and journey lies with different parties or isn’t being tracked at all. Without shared visibility into these product attributes, at all stages of their life, it’s hard for grocers and producers to optimize how they sell and fulfill each item to guard against waste. And while less waste has a direct impact for the bottom line, more than ever, it has just as big of an impact in the mind of the increasingly belief-driven customer. According the 2018 Edelman Brand Survey, nearly two-thirds of consumers now choose, switch to or boycott a company based on its stand on societal issues, up from 51% in 2017.
FST: What is the goal of IBM’s Food Waste Developer Challenge?
Walicki: The goal of the challenge is to excite and crowd-source the minds of the developer community to create creative cloud-based, AI-enabled solutions for reducing food waste. For example, developers in the challenge have access to open-source code patterns for IoT, blockchain, AI-enabled bots, and more from IBM they can leverage in creating a solution. Nearly all of these capabilities are available for free on the IBM Cloud.
FST: Where are the key areas in which the food industry should be collaborating to solve these issues?
Walicki: The supply chain is the area [that] a lot of food retailers and producers are looking at. Better visibility into where the food is coming from, when, and its conditions are key in understanding when food will perish, etc. This involves collaboration from every partner all the way from the farm to when the customer purchases the product. The food chain is such a connected eco-system today. It’s really a team game in terms of generating solutions.
In addition, retailers are working to get better visibility into real-time on-hand inventories, so they can better know exactly how much of a certain product they have, so they can take prescriptive action if needed. More and more this type of insight requires the integration of data across many systems, both cloud-based and not. This means tight collaboration for food retailers internally and with suppliers.
As the consumer craze over plant-based meat continues, cell-cultured meat is next on the list of alternatives to “real meat”. There are several factors driving this market, including increased demand for meat as the world’s population grows and becomes more affluent, and the concern that if more sustainable solutions are not implemented, there won’t be enough protein to feed the world’s population by 2050, according to Paul Mozdziak, professor at NC State University. Mozdziak, who presented his perspective on cell-cultured meat during the IAFP Annual Meeting last month, has been working in the cell-cultured meat space for 25 years. It’s not a new concept, he pointed out, but sustainability issues, concerns over the efficiency of the animal industry (i.e., the biological limits of animals), along with a waning enthusiasm in eating animals have sparked even more interest in animal technologies during the past few years.
Animal cell culture technology involves a controlled growth of animal cells from livestock, poultry, fish or other animals, their subsequent differentiation into various cells types, and their collection and processing into food, according to Roberta Wagner, assistant administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development at FSIS, USDA. Wagner shared the regulatory perspective on this emerging segment at IAFP. And although the session in which Wagner and Mozdziak spoke was titled, “Is Cell-cultured Meat Really Meat?”, neither of them answered this question. Rather, they discussed the status of the sector and the challenges ahead.
Scale Up
“The technology has been around,” said Mozdziak. “The issue is getting it to scale and myogenic to actually produce product.” Muscle cells want to attach to something. The process of making cultured meat involves isolating cells, getting them to grow in suspension and transferring them to a bioreactor to grow. In order to create a fully formed muscle, the cells needs to attach to a scaffold and differentiate, he explained. The bioreactor facilitates a sterile environment, but when scaling up, the challenge is the unknowns (which could introduce food safety issues) during downstream processing. “Once it’s out of the bioreactor and in a non-sterile environment, there are a variety of ways it can be contaminated,” said Mozdziak.
The production process could be cost prohibitive as well. “Currently, serum-based media cost $25 a liter; serum-free is $104 a liter. How much lower can we go from that?” said Mozdziak. “A kilo of turkey at ALDI is $6… therefore the media costs would have to be below $12 a liter for this to ever be profitable.”
How Will It Be Regulated?
In October 2018, FSIS and FDA held a joint public meeting to discuss the use of cell culture technology to develop products derived from livestock and poultry. The agencies also started talking about what regulatory oversight might look like. In March of this year the USDA and FDA reached a formal agreement on joint framework for regulating cell-cultured meat and poultry products. FDA will regulate the extraction of cells from live animals and jurisdiction will be transferred to FSIS during the cell harvest stage, and FSIS will oversee production and labeling. “The agreement roughly mirrors our jurisdiction of both agencies for traditionally produced livestock,” said Wagner. She added that regarding FSIS authority over cell-cultured products, the agency does not expect there will be a need for additional legislation nor will there be new regulation to inspect the products (Establishments that harvest cells or process the cells must comply with sanitation, HACCP and any other applicable FSIS regulations). Labeling for cell-cultured meat and poultry products must be approved.
Wagner noted two major challenges ahead in the federal regulation of cell-cultured meat. “We’ve received very little information about the process and technology being developed or used by cell-cultured meat and poultry manufacturers,” she said. “If industry doesn’t share such information, there could be a delay in review of products.” She added that the agency is encouraging industry to come forward sooner than later with this information. The second big challenge involves research and science gaps—more is needed to understand the risks.
So, is cell-cultured meat really meat? “Before we can answer that, someone needs to actually have a product,” said Mozdziak. He believes industry will get there in creating marketable cell-cultured meat, but there is no telling how long it will take.
Dole Fresh Vegetables announced a voluntary recall of its 6-oz Dole Baby Spinach bags after a random sample test conducted by the Department of Agriculture in Michigan tested positive for Salmonella. The recalled products were distributed in 10 states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. The products contain Use-by dates of August 5, 2019. No illnesses associated with the recall have been reported.
Don’t miss this Plenary Session on October 1: Recalls Panel Discussion moderated by Rob Mommsen, Director of Global Quality & Food Safety, Sabra Dipping Co.
Panelists:
Don Zink, Ph.D., President, IEH Consulting Division of Foods and Regulatory Compliance, retired Senior Science Advisor CFSAN FDA
Craig Wilson, VP Quality and Food Safety, Costco Wholesale
Daniel Dwyer, JD, Partner Kleinfeld, Kaplan, & Becker
Patricia Wester, PA Wester Consulting and Founder, The Association for Food Safety Auditing Professionals
The most commonly cited observation during a Preventive Controls inspection is an incomplete or incorrect hazard analysis, according to FDA data. Food Safety Tech is hosting a special complimentary webinar series, instructed by Patricia Wester, founder of The Association for Food Safety Auditing Professionals, that will provide attendees with important tips on conducting and documenting a thorough hazard analysis. During the one-hour event, Wester will help participants understand how to recognize gaps in a hazard analysis as well as share best practices for closing those gaps. The content is geared toward food safety professionals and auditors who develop, manage or review food safety plans in a Preventive Controls landscape.
The food industry is behind high tech industries when it comes to automating certain manufacturing and warehousing processes. Although the advantages of using automation technologies can benefit many food companies in the long run, they should also be aware of the potential hurdles before moving forward. “With our growing population, we’re going to have to grow more food with [fewer] resources—automation will enable us to do that,” said Wendy White, project manager, food safety at Georgia Tech during her presentation at the IAFP annual meeting in Louisville, KY. “There are a lot of jobs in our industry that will benefit from automation—I don’t think it will necessarily eliminate jobs; I think it will help eliminate the harshness of some of the repetitive tasks.”
The benefits of automation are clear (especially for processes that involve close precision). Automation technologies can contribute to preventing injuries on the job, promote operational efficiencies, and give companies better access to records and reporting. They also can in turn enable the production of more consistent products, aid in faster product release and lower food costs. The following are the challenges that food companies may face, which include the reproduction of human senses, having the facility footprint that allows for these technologies, expense and complexity, and potential vulnerability to outages and even cybercrimes.
Challenge 1: It’s hard to replicate a human. It’s difficult to replicate any human task that requires thought. “For example, it’s hard for us to understand how many decisions go into picking off an apple from a tree,” said White. “It’s actually extremely hard for a robot to do… we underestimate how many things happen before you pick an apple.” White referred to a project at the Georgia Tech Research Institute’s Food Processing Technology Division that uses cameras to assess characteristics of an apple (i.e., insect intrusion spots, bruises, damage, ripeness, desired color), and integrates different sensing capabilities into a robotic arm. The robotic arm can sense the different gases being produced by the apple and can understand if it is at the peak of its ripeness. Yet, doing this type of work in a lab is very different from operating the robotic arm out in an actual apple orchard, so there is still a lot of work to be done.
Another example is the process of deboning a chicken carcass. “We have to figure out a way to get the bones off faster,” said White, adding that with American consumption of chicken reaching about 92 pounds annually, the poultry industry is trying to keep up. There are safety concerns with deboning, including making sure that a sliver of bone or cartilage is not left on the end product. It’s another task that is not easy for a robot to execute. She discussed current work that is using cameras and x-ray technology to understand the joint location, and from there this information is fed into an algorithm to help the robot make decisions that a trained human would intrinsically make. Once again, it takes a lot of effort for a robot to make those decisions, White pointed out.
Challenge 2: Facility footprint. Implementing automation technologies usually requires a larger facility footprint, and many food companies simply don’t have the space.
Challenge 3: Robot injuries. According to OSHA, about 4,500 injuries occurred in food facilities in 2013, two of which were robot related. However, those two robot-related injuries resulted in death. Although robot injuries are less likely to occur, they are usually more serious when they do happen, cautioned White. She stated between 1984 and 2013, 38 robot-related accidents were reported and 28 resulted in fatalities.
Challenge 4: Finding increasingly skilled labor. An employee needs to operate the robot. Although this may not seem like it would be difficult, the question is whether the existing workforce at a company can handle a completely different way of doing their jobs. Finding the level of skill required to either operate these robots or finding the employee who is willing to even work with these technologies could be a hurdle. White added that she is seeing a lot of research around co-bots, or collaborative robots, which is the term for robots that provide assistance to humans in conducting tasks such as heavy lifting.
Challenge 5: Complexity. The more complex the technology, the more likely there is to be an issue. And when this issue occurs, how long will it take to fix? Will it shut down an entire product line? This is also a consideration for companies that are considering retrofitting their existing facilities.
“We owe it to our workforce to make their jobs as safe and as easy as possible,” said White. She encourages industry to pursue automation but to also be aware of these challenges and vulnerabilities to ensure that companies are approaching implementation in the right way.
As the popularity of home delivery services for food (i.e., online grocery shopping, prepared meals from restaurants, meal kits) continues to gain traction, the industry has been grappling with clear-cut guidance on how to ensure food safety during what is known as the “last mile” of delivery to the consumer. For example, how do third-party delivery services address concerns such as maintaining the right temperature of food during transit? How are allergen risks controlled? Do the people who deliver the food undergo any food safety training?
“It’s kind of a wild west out there,” said Donald Schaffner, Ph.D., professor at Rutgers University during a panel discussion on the topic of home food delivery at the IAFP annual meeting last week in Louisville, Kentucky.
In April, Acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless, M.D. and Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response Frank Yiannas acknowledged that there are food safety challenges presented by “evolving business models” such as e-commerce, and stated that the agency will be looking at ways to work with federal, state and local stakeholders to address the issues. During the IAFP panel, food safety professionals from Amazon, Uber Eats, The Kroger Company and FSIS shed some light on how their respective organizations are handling the food safety risks associated with home delivery.
Training the People Who Deliver Your Food
The overarching consensus among panelists was that there is not a one-size-fits all approach to training the people who deliver food to the consumer, because there are so many different business models out there. The key to developing successful training will be to first understand the risks associated with each of those different models.
“Everyone needs training, but we don’t want to over-engineering it—not everyone needs ServeSafe training,” said Schaffner. For example, training the person who is simply putting food in the car and delivering it to an address should be different from the training necessary for an employee selecting food in the grocery store versus the warehouse employee packing food. “Figuring out the right-size training and what kind is currently available is one of the things that we’re trying to figure out on the [Conference for Food Protection] committee.” (Note, the Conference for Food Protection committee is developing guidance that addresses home food delivery.) Schaffner indicated that training surrounding time and temperature, allergens and product tampering are important considerations.
Howard Popoola, vice president, corporate food technology and regulatory compliance at The Kroger Company provided the retailer perspective. “Our challenge is multiple in nature,” he said, emphasizing that stores try to keep labor at a minimum. Designing training for workers who are getting a $.25-per-hour raise presents a different hurdle. “What we’re doing in the store today is something we’ve never done before, and [we’re] asking individuals to do things they’ve never done before,” said Popoola. “The training we’ve done before is slowly becoming obsolete.” He said that The Kroger Company is evaluating its current basic food safety training and is looking at building on the segments of its stores that are involved in picking, packing and preparing food—especially the fresh items that are more susceptible to potential microbial contamination.
The Allergen Risk
A question was raised about whether delivery services use the same bags over and over, introducing the potential for cross-contamination. As part of its restaurant community guidelines, UberEats encourages restaurants to put food in tamper-resistant packaging. According to Joseph Navin, senior manager of global safety at the company, in order to reduce the possibility of cross contamination, all food should be placed in a bag before it is put in the insulated bag for transport. UberEats also has guidelines for how those bags should be cleaned. Further addressing the allergen risk: “How do we optimize the way that consumers can disclose that they have a food allergy? We don’t want to have food allergies going in the same free form text [box] that says ‘send extra napkins’,” said Navin. He added that UberEats is developing ways in which dealing with allergens is more conspicuous for restaurants when their employees are preparing food.
Allison Jennings, director food safety and compliance North America at Amazon, said the company has experimented with multiple types of packaging, but there isn’t one perfect set of variables and inputs. Amazon currently uses single-use bags for delivery to mitigate risks with re-cleaning, she said.
Consumer Complaints
As a best practice, integrating relevant information from consumer complaints should become part of a company’s food safety program, said Schaffner. An important role of technology will be its ability to collect feedback that allows companies to generate actionable insights related to food safety, identify any gaps, strengthen controls and be able to develop ways to mitigate risks, said Navin. Amazon currently monitors customer feedback using automatic detection for keywords related to food safety and quality that arrives via the phone, online chats with customer service and social media outlets. When necessary, the method can prompt an investigation, look for trends or help engage in continuous improvement processes. “We are constantly looking for any potential blind spots with our processes,” said Jennings. “We also mystery shop ourselves and make sure we’re meeting our requirements.”
The most common consumer complaints reported among the panelists were not related to food safety, but rather food quality—the product was crushed, didn’t look appealing, etc. “Since we rely on third party partners, we’ve walked through with them on those processes…[and are] challenging our third party partners on who they hire to deliver food, training, etc. and taking caution on delivering food,” said Popoola.
Schaffner said common complaints noted during a study conducted by Rutgers University and Tennessee State University were the following: The product was received out of temperature control; there was evidence of packages leaking (meat, poultry, and fish); a lack of cooking directions; and no mechanism to provide feedback to the company if you have a complaint.
According to Navin, among the top complaints that UberEats receives is missing food or a replacement for items that might be out of stock.
Recalls
In general, recalls in the home delivery segment would apply to products that are received via online grocery shopping services. Since consumers must sign up for these services by providing either an email or phone number, companies can contact customers in the event of a recall. For example, Amazon requires an email account, so it directly emails customers when there is recall or known safety risk associated with a product purchased. Similarly, when a customer uses a loyalty card at a grocery store such as Kroger, the retailer can use its robocall system to notify customers if they purchased an item that is subject to a recall or is associated with an outbreak.
Stop Foodborne Illness announced the new 2019–2020 Dave Theno Food Safety Fellow at the IAFP annual meeting last week. Jamie L. Ragos, a recent graduate of the University of Tennessee, takes the reins from Emily Forauer, the inaugural Theno fellow. Stop Foodborne Illness established the fellowship program in memory of food safety expert David Theno who died in a swimming accident in 2017. Theno’s dedication to keeping people safe extended back to the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak at Jack-in-the-Box in 1993.
The Theno Food Safety Fellowship is a full-time paying job at Stop Foodborne Illness and the fellow also completes a 12-credit online food safety certificate with Michigan State University. Along with housing and benefits, the position gives a young food safety scientist real-world experience with Stop Foodborne Illness’ greater community in learning about the detrimental effects of “failures in food safety”.
“Jaime’s credentials make her a stand-out in any crowd. Her impressive resume illustrates her commitment not only to studying food science but also to sharing that knowledge to create safer, healthier communities,” said Stop Foodborne Illness CEO Mitzi Baum in a press release. “We’re thrilled to have her on board.”
Ragos has worked in research programs at the University of Tennessee’s Department of Nutrition; the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications; the Department of Food Science and Technology; and the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology. In addition, she has participated on research teams at the Smith International Center in Guatemala and at North Carolina State University in the Department of Food, Bioprocessing, and Nutrition Sciences.
Wait! Wait! Don’t go yet!
Sign up for our FREE newsletters and get the top stories from FST right in your email inbox.
Food Safety Tech is the leading online trade journal.
Join the Food Safety Tech community and stay engaged the way you want to!
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.
