Infographic: How Many Food Labs Are in the United States?

By Food Safety Tech Staff

Food Safety Tech: Earlier this year in “Counting Food Laboratories”, you discussed the fact that there is an unknown amount of food laboratories in the United States and an inconsistency in how we account for the labs testing our food. What impact does this have on the industry?

Robin Stombler, president of Auburn Health Strategies: There is limited information available on the presence and quality of food laboratories in the United States. Without this essential accountability, the health of the public, the economy and our nation’s security are at risk. For example, when a new food pathogen emerges, we do not have a system for contacting and educating all existing food laboratories on how to detect it. Frankly, we do not know where all food laboratories are located, so we do not know if they are properly equipped to handle the detection, monitoring or verification responsibilities. The lack of data also makes it difficult for industry to plan, track testing trends, and improve quality.

Counting Food Labs — Infographic courtesy of Auburn Health Strategies; Credit: Justin Stombler

August 12, 2016

FDA Issues Final Rule on GRAS

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

Today FDA issued the final rule, “Substances Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS). The rule outlines what kind of scientific evidence can be used to demonstrate safety, along with the role of publications in assessing whether scientific evidence of safety is “generally available and accepted”, according to an FDA release. “The GRAS criteria require that the safe use of ingredients in human and animal food be widely recognized by the appropriate qualified experts.”

GRAS substances are not subject to FDA premarket approval but must meet the same safety standards as approved food additives. The agency “strongly encourages” companies to tell FDA of GRAS conclusions through the notification procedure found in the final rule, because the procedure provides the agency with important food safety monitoring information. The document will be published on the Federal Register on Wednesday, August 17.

August 11, 2016

IBM Research Uses Data to Accelerate Source of Contamination During Outbreaks

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

Using electronic retail scanner data from grocery stores, IBM Research scientists may have found a faster way to narrow down the potential source food contamination during an outbreak. Researchers from the firm conducted a study in which they were able to show that, using just 10 medical exam reports of foodborne illness, it is possible to pinpoint an investigation to 12 food products of interest in a only a few hours. A typically investigation ranges from weeks to months.

The study, “From Farm to Fork: How Spatial-Temporal Data can Accelerate Foodborne Illness Investigation in a Global Food Supply Chain”, demonstrated a new way to accelerate an outbreak investigation. Researchers reviewed the spatio-temporal data (i.e., geographic location and potential time of consumption) of hundreds of grocery products, and analyzed each product for shelf life, consumption location and the probability that the product harbored a pathogen. This information was then mapped to the known location of outbreaks.

“When there’s an outbreak of foodborne illness, the biggest challenge facing public health officials is the speed at which they can identify the contaminated food source and alert the public,” said Kun Hu, public health research scientist, IBM Research – Almaden in a press release. Rsearchers created a system to devise a list that ranked products based on likelihood of contamination, which would allow health officials to test the top 12 suspected foods. “While traditional methods like interviews and surveys are still necessary, analyzing big data from retail grocery scanners can significantly narrow down the list of contaminants in hours for further lab testing. Our study shows that big data and analytics can profoundly reduce investigation time and human error and have a huge impact on public health,” said Hu.

The researchers point of out their method isn’t a substitute for proven outbreak investigation tools but rather serves as a faster way to identify contaminated product(s). According to the study, researchers assert that their methodology could significantly reduce the costs associated with foodborne illness, outbreaks and recalls. Thus far IBM Research’s approach has been applied to a Norweigan E. coli outbreak in which there were 17 confirmed cases of infection. Public health officials used the method to devise a list of 10 potential contaminants from the grocery scanner data of more than 2600 products. From there, lab analysis traced the contamination source to batch and lot numbers of sausage.

The study was published in the Association for Computing Machinery’s Sigspatial Journal.

August 9, 2016

How Safe Is Your Facility from Threats?

By Maria Fontanazza

No Comments

Vulnerability assessments are a key provision of the FSMA final rule, Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration. With this requirement comes the “identification of vulnerabilities and actionable process steps” that must be taken to mitigate potential threats. During the IAFP annual meeting Lance Reeve, senior risk management consultant for food safety and defense at Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co., reviewed the important and sometimes-overlooked areas that companies should be looking at when conducting vulnerability assessments.

Inside the Plant

To start, vulnerability assessments should be conducted at different times of the day, and the process should involve a team approach, said Reeve. Food defense cannot effectively be managed by a single person within a facility: It needs to involve all departments, from human resources to IT to production to warehousing, and extend to outside suppliers and vendors. How is the flow of employees and visitors around the facility managed? Do staff members wear color-coded badges? Some companies have a color-coding plan to prevent contamination, but it is also a useful tool to ensure that unauthorized employees, outside contractors and visitors aren’t in restricted areas. For example, the maintenance shop may contain deadly food contaminants—do you really want general employees to be able to get into this area? Consider using electronic technology such as biometric access control to limit access based on employee/security credentials.

Working with the human resources department is a critical part of protecting a facility. Does your company have the capability to conduct thorough background checks on all employees? In addition, with all the different types of contractors and vendors who enter your facility it’s important to find out whether your contracting companies are doing the same level of background checks as your organization when they hire employees. And finally, examine how the culture within the organization. Do employees challenge the presence of visitors who shouldn’t be on the premises?

Outside the Facility

In many cases, companies will look at the inside of their facility for potential hazards and vulnerabilities, but what about the perimeter? How are you controlling the people who are coming onto company property? While this may seem obvious, Reeve recommended physical objects to establish authority: Fences (establish physical border), signs (establish where control begins), and CCTV cameras (establishes security). And when looking at the outside of the building itself, how secure is the roof? What access does a potential attacker have into the facility via the roof? How often are security checks conducted here (if at all)?

Throughout any given day, a company can receive several cargo shipments from a variety of different suppliers. Are you familiar with the food safety programs of your suppliers? They play a critical role in food defense strategies. And when your company receives shipments, Reeve advised that companies go beyond looking at the seals on trucks and examine the transportation system itself. Is cargo removed in a secure area? Is an authorized employee supervising the process or is it left in the hands of the third-party driver?

And finally, a critical part of your mitigation strategy should be to challenge the system. Once you think you may have found all the vulnerabilities, conduct penetration testing.

August 8, 2016

Lack of Resources, Negative Attitudes Barriers in Training

By Maria Fontanazza

No Comments

Part I of the Q&A: New Workers Means New StrategiesFood safety culture has been a part of several industry initiatives over the past year, from employee training in preparation of FSMA implementation to GFSI’s technical working group. In part three of a Q&A series with Food Safety Tech, Laura Nelson, vice president of business development at Alchemy Systems, shares some thoughts about current industry efforts surrounding employee education and food safety culture.

Food Safety Tech: How does employee education tie into instilling a food safety culture within a company?

Part II of the Q&A: Go Beyond the Classroom to Improve Training PerformanceLaura Nelson: In the global food safety training survey we conduct with Campden [BRI] and other industry leaders—for the fourth year in row, food safety professionals confirmed that the number one goal for food safety training is to improve their food safety culture. Effective employee training is foundational to a robust food safety culture. And yet we have feedback on why we as an industry are challenged to achieve this goal—lack of resources is identified as the biggest challenge for almost half of the total survey respondents. Additional challenges identified include negative employee attitudes, lack of effective communication, the multicultural workforce, high turnover, and just complete lack of awareness of culture. The good news is that more awareness and best practices are emerging to help organizations improve their food safety culture. As a member of the GFSI Food Safety Culture Technical Working Group, we are actively working on guidance to help meet the identified needs of the industry. The focus on the importance of food safety culture to an organization is growing. We know that FDA investigators are going through food safety culture training to better recognize companies that have an effective food safety culture and those that may not have an effective one. GFSI is shining a light with its working group. BRC is introducing their voluntary “Culture Excellence: Food Safety Culture Module” to help companies assess their food safety culture. Research is ongoing with the development of new food safety culture assessments and best practices. All of these efforts are in agreement that effective employee training is a key factor in developing and maintaining a robust food safety culture.

Maria Fontanazza and Laura Nelson discuss food safety culture and employee empowerment at IAFP 2015. WATCH THE VIDEO

Given that employee training is so important to a healthy food safety culture, we need to resource this effort accordingly. We asked survey respondents to tell us how many hours of food safety training they’re conducting for employees. The responses ranged from less than four hours (a little more than 20%) to more than 35 hours annually. In that wide continuum, there’s a large disparity between the focus on food safety for those employees receiving less than four hours of food safety training versus those employees receiving over 35 hours of food safety training. Our business is complex and recruiting and training new employees on our critical operational programs is challenging. Those companies who are still utilizing their legacy classroom-only food safety training program will continue to struggle to mature their food safety culture. Innovative companies are finding new ways to overcome time and resource limitations. We asked: How are you keeping food safety top of mind? The innovative companies who are using digital signage, newsletters, email communications, posters, team meetings, huddle talks, etc., those who are trying to immerse their employees into their food safety culture using all the different touch points are having more success in making food safety top of mind.

August 2, 2016

Pathogens, Partnerships and FSMA: Where FDA Is Headed

By Maria Fontanazza

No Comments

This year is a big year for food safety at FDA. All seven of the FSMA rules have been finalized, and the first compliance date is right around the corner (compliance with the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule starts in September for large companies). Stephen Ostroff, M.D., just took the helm from Michael Taylor as the agency’s deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine. And finally, FDA is taking a hard line in both improving the tools and methods used to detect outbreaks as well as working with the Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement actions against companies that introduce adulterated foods into the supply chain.

Yesterday Ostroff provided an update on FDA’s recent initiatives and its plan of action to achieve success in FSMA implementation and pathogen detection at the IAFP annual meeting in St. Louis. Ostroff highlighted several tenets of FSMA:

Keys to FSMA success will be dependent upon achieving high rates of compliance
Domestic and import parity
Education before and while regulating (establishment of training and education networks)
Taking a risk-based approach to inspection and planning
Partnerships are critical

Industry can expect three more rulemakings as required by FSMA in the areas of lab accreditation, a reportable food registry and product tracing. In addition, FDA is working on guidances related to the preventive controls, produce, and foreign supplier verification program rules. “We’re tantalizingly close so stay tuned,” Ostroff said.

Expect to see more program alignment with the Office of Regulatory Affairs as well. The inspection and compliance staff will be trained as specialists and there will be horizontal integration of programs between field activity and agency headquarters. Although the next fiscal year will be a transition year, Ostroff is hopeful that changes that need to be made at the agency, along with program alignment, will be in place by fiscal year 2018.

Other notable actions at FDA over the past year include:

In response to the OIG’s conclusion that FDA’s food recall program is not efficient or effective, the agency is ramping up its use of the strategic CORE (Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation) network in order to examine recalls that might not be moving as smoothly or quickly as the agency prefers. FDA is also leveraging greater application of whole genome sequencing (WGS).
GenomeTrakr network and WGS. More than 50,000 genome sequences have been added to the database (largely Salmonella). Ostroff called WGS a game changer that holds the opportunity to more quickly identify problems and detect outbreaks while they’re still quite small. In partnership with the CDC, FDA set up a successful module for WGS of Listeria and the agency hopes to expand the model for use with other pathogens.
Nutrition (Not just what consumers are eating, but how much of it): The move that declared partially hydrogenated oils as no longer GRAS with compliance required by 2018. The agency also issued a final guidance on menu and vending labeling in May, issued levels for arsenic in infant rice cereal, made determination for folic acid fortification in corn/masa, made revisions to nutrition facts labels that takes effect in 2018, issued a draft guidance on voluntary sodium reduction, and will continue to exam the terms “natural” and “healthy”.
Genetic engineering. FDA approval of GE salmon following one of the longest reviews in the history of FDA (20-year review), along with issuing voluntary labeling guidance.
Monitoring antimicrobial resistance through NARMS (National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System). FDA will be collecting antimicrobial sales by species and, in cooperation with USDA, hopes to release farm-based data about antimicrobial use at the farm level.

Ostroff emphasized FDA’s strategic 10-year plan, released this year, pointing to public health as a first priority, maintaining partnerships as a key to success (including re-establishing overseas offices), continuing research as a foundation, and maintaining transparently.

July 28, 2016

Massive Flour Recall Expanded, Again

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

As a result of four additional confirmed illnesses, General Mills has added four more production dates to its flour recall (production dates through February 10, 2016). The initial recall was announced May 31, with an expanded recall taking place earlier this month.

“At this time, it is unknown if we are experiencing a higher prevalence of E.coli in flour than normal, if this is an issue isolated to General Mills’ flour, or if this is an issue across the flour industry. The newer detection and genome sequencing tools are also possibly making a connection to flour that may have always existed at these levels,” according to a company release on FDA’s website.

Thus far, illnesses have only been linked to consumers who said they ate or handled uncooked dough or ate uncooked batter made with raw flour, not with flour that was baked, cooked or handled.

July 26, 2016

New Workers Means New Strategies

By Maria Fontanazza

No Comments

Today’s workforce includes several different generations of employees and learning preferences. In part II of a Q&A series with Food Safety Tech, Laura Nelson, vice president of business development at Alchemy Systems, explains how food companies need to adjust to this new environment.

Read Part I of the Q&A: Go Beyond the Classroom to Improve Training PerformanceFood Safety Tech: Should there be different training strategies based on employee demographics?

Nelson: Yes. Our employee demographics are continuously changing and, as a result, those changes impact the effectiveness of our training program. We have five different generations, and each has a learning preference—and some are directly opposed to each other. We have employees who like to learn by reading—baby boomers like things clearly spelled out like detailed sanitation SOPs. And then we have employees who would absolutely not want to read detailed protocols but prefer learning from their fellow colleagues and their supervisor – millennials who prefer micro-burst training and learning through interactions. [Based on] our research conducted in partnership with The Center for Research and Public Policy, when we asked employees their learning preference and what works best for them, the majority (57%) said on the job with a supervisor, and (56%) said on the job with a coworker. Clearly, learning beyond the formal classroom training is taking place every day. We have to ask ourselves how consistent is the food safety program learning experience on the plant floor? Are bad habits, incorrect behaviors and short cuts being reinforced by fellow employees? In a follow-up research question, we asked how much coaching employees receive from their manager and more than 43% of the responding employees said they rarely or never receive coaching.

Our challenge as an industry is to make sure employees are learning in a consistent way through their supervisors and colleagues. It speaks to the all-important role of the frontline supervisor and the fact that we have to arm them with the knowledge and skill to effectively mentor and coach their employees and give them time and the responsibility to do it. It’s important to include soft skills training for supervisors: How do you communicate and motivate employees? How do you encourage them in a way that [facilitates] improvement and reinforces appropriate food safety behaviors?

We also have data that says the quality of onboarding training is an area for improvement—over 20% of respondents rated the quality of their onboard training not good. Some companies are still executing the ‘one-and-done’ training where you spend a full day or two trying to do all the training that the employee needs prior to starting their new job. If an employee is bombarded with food safety training—all the different sanitation information, GMPs, operational controls, SOPs, industry regulations, etc.— by the time the employee leaves for the day, the reality is that they forget more than 80% of it within 30 days. So, our challenges extend beyond the employee learning preferences and where training takes place. We have to improve our training content to really meet [employee] education level, language, and learning preferences and provide in smaller chunks to improve knowledge retention. Our critical food safety messages need to be part of a continuous rolling thunder of communication, meaning you’re not trying to train all at once but rather are building a food safety awareness program, maybe through posters, shift huddle talks or digital signage. It’s the different things you can do that don’t require additional training time but impacts employees with multiple touch points to reinforce these key food safety messages.

July 19, 2016

Next-Generation Sequencing Targets GMOs

By Maria Fontanazza

1 Comment

As the movement among consumers for more information about the products they’re purchasing and consuming continues to grow, the food industry will experience persistent pressure from both advocacy groups and the government on disclosure of product safety information and ingredients. Top of mind as of late has been the debate over GMOs. “Given all of the attention on GMOs on the legislative side, there is huge demand from consumers to have visibility and transparency into whether products have been genetically modified or not,” says Mahni Ghorashi, co-founder of Clear Labs.

Mahni Ghorashi, Clear Labs — Mahni Ghorashi, co-founder of Clear Labs

Today Clear Labs announced the availability of its comprehensive next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based GMO test. The release comes at an opportune time, as the GMO labeling bill, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week, heads to the desk of President Obama.

Clear Labs touts the technology as the first scalable, accurate and affordable GMO test. NGS enables the ability to simultaneously screen for multiple genes at one time, which could companies save time and money. “The advantage and novelty of this new test or assay is the ability to screen for all possible GMO genes in a single universal test, which is a huge change from the way GMO testing is conducted today,” says Ghorashi.

The PCR test method is currently the industry standard for GMO screening, according to the Non-GMO Project. “PCR tests narrowly target an individual gene, and they’re extremely costly—between $150–$275 per gene, per sample,” says Ghorashi. “Next-generation sequencing is leaps and bounds above PCR testing.” Although he won’t specify the cost of the Clear Labs assay (the company uses a tiered pricing structure based on sample volume), Ghorashi says it’s a fraction of the cost of traditional PCR tests.

The new assay screens for 85% of approved GMOs worldwide and targets four major genes used in manufacturing GMOs (detection based on methods of trait introduction and selection, and detection based on common plant traits), allowing companies to determine the presence and amount of GMOs within products or ingredient samples. “We see this test as a definitive scientific validation,” says Ghorashi. The company’s tests integrate software analytics to enable customers to verify GMO-free claims, screen suppliers, and rank suppliers based on risk.

Clear Labs, GMO, testing — Screenshot of the Clear Labs GMO test, which is based on next-generation sequencing technology.

Clear Labs isn’t targeting food manufacturers of a specific size or sector within the food industry but anticipates that a growing number of leading brands will be investing in GMO testing technology. “We expect to see adoption across the board in terms of company size, related more to what their stance is on food transparency and making that information readily available to their end consumers,” says Ghorashi.

July 18, 2016

Spoil No More: Rapid Test for Dairy Products Goes Beyond Detecting Microbes

By Maria Fontanazza

No Comments

Detecting yeast and mold is one of the most time consuming parts of the testing process for dairy products. With more pressure to move products that have a short shelf life out the door as quickly as possible, time really is money. Having a rapid, real-time test that enables companies to make immediate production decisions can provide a significant advantage. “[This technology] brings test time within the same timeframe as other microbiology tests, so a test for yeast and mold is no longer the outlier. That’s a huge savings right there,” says Phil Coombs, product specialist at Weber Scientific.

biotecon_diagnostics_starprep — Weber Scientific was one of three recipients of the Food Expo Innovation Award on July 17, 2016 at the IFT Annual Meeting in Chicago.

Coombs is referring to Weber Scientific’s recently released PCR Yeast and Mold Quantitative Test, which has been validated for finished dairy products. The company was asked by Germany-based Biotecon Diagnostics, the creator of the newly developed PCR method, to be its partner in introducing the test to the U.S. market. The technology reduces testing time for yeasts and molds from five days to four hours or less—from sample prep to the time-to-result, with no pre-enrichment required. “We make a big deal out of this, because sometimes [companies] with a pathogen test will say they have a four-hour test but it’s not truly, from start-to-finish, a four-hour test—you have to do some form of pre-enrichment, and so it’s a 24–48 hour test,” says Coombs. “When looking at fermented milk product like yogurt, it might have a shelf life of about 50 days. There’s much more time for the yeast and mold (because they’re typically slower growing organisms) to get busy and spoil the product. Yeast and mold can tolerate the lower pH, so that’s been the biggest sector of interest so far.”

One of the features of the technology is its ability to protect against false-negative results from non-viable DNA and false-positives from previous PCR test runs, which greatly reduces the chances of cross-contamination as well.

PCR Test for dairy products — The PCR Yeast and Mold Quantitative Test conducts analysis on milk powder. Image courtesy of Weber Scientific.

Achieving a shorter time-to-result means that if a company uncovers an issue, it can take immediate remedial action rather than waiting several days. This can have a big economic impact on production and warehousing, along with releasing product into commerce and distribution, especially when dealing with products that require refrigeration. In addition, the PCR test goes beyond detecting microbes that will spoil fermented milk products and offers advantages in the broader context of reducing food waste and spoilage. “It will be attractive to many companies that are developing a broad range of sustainability measures,” says Fred Weber, president of Weber Scientific. “And to cut down on food waste at the consumer level is a big deal.”

The company expects AOAC approval next year.

Inside the Plant

Outside the Facility

How We Use Cookies