Contamination, Adulteration Remain Highest Priority

By Maria Fontanazza

Increased media attention and consumer awareness of verifying ingredients, detecting allergens and effectively tracing the source of outbreaks has placed much higher scrutiny on food processors and manufacturers. With the anticipated FSMA final rule on intention adulteration (Focused Mitigation Strategies to Product Food Against Intentional Adulteration) expected in late spring, having the ability to effectively detect and address product contamination and adulteration will be of significant importance to manufacturers. In preparation for the upcoming Food Labs Conference March 7–8, Food Safety Tech sat down with Craig Schwandt, Ph.D., director of industrial services at McCrone Associates, to learn how contamination is currently affecting food companies and what they should be doing to protect their products and ensure consumer safety.

Craig Schwandt will be presenting “Contaminant Particle Identification: Establishing Provenance and Complying with FSMA” at this year’s Food Labs Conference | March 7–8 | LEARN MOREFood Safety Tech: What are the big issues facing the food industry related to product contamination?

Craig Schwandt: I think the biggest issue facing the food safety industry is realizing that FSMA, in its final ruling, comes with requirements to ensure food safety from farm to table. In the past, many [ingredients] were GRAs, or generally recognized as safe, so when there was a contaminant, [food companies] had a lot of liberty in disposing of the batch and weren’t too concerned about where it came from.

FSMA is going to require that [food companies] keep records of what contaminants are found, how they address it and whether it’s a recurring problem, and [that they] have a procedure in place to track back and [conduct] forensic analysis. In the analytical services industry we call it investigational analysis, which is a description of what actually takes place for ascertaining what the contaminant is and how it got there. That information is provided to clients so they can track back in their production process—all the way to the raw materials and then ascertain where the contaminants came from in that production chain.

The big challenge will be in recognizing that they have to start keeping records and then actually doing the investigation to determine what contaminants are there and determine where they’re coming in.

FST: Are companies taking the right steps to detect and identify contaminants in food?

Schwandt: Some of them do and some don’t. At last year’s Institute of Food Technologist’s conference in Chicago, there was a session on FSMA in which there were representatives from FDA, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and a major food company. I was a little bit shocked by the food company’s position. They felt they didn’t need to take all of the steps required by FSMA because they dealt directly with producers from all over the world. They felt removing intermediaries from their supply chain sufficiently protected their products from adulteration. This seems to be oversimplifying the production and supply chain process. Even though they may directly deal with farmers, there’s still opportunity from the time food stuff is harvested to being dried, placed in containers, and shipped from overseas to the U.S.—there are several steps where unintentional contaminants can arise. So to say they didn’t need to look at the potential for contamination because they dealt directly [with farmers] is a bit oversimplified. I think this perspective typifies some of the industry’s viewpoint at the moment.

The Foreign Supplier Verification Program specifically addresses this concern. Even companies that deal directly with producers and supplies in the country of the product’s origin will be required to demonstrate that they tested it and verified it as uncontaminated.

The understanding and recognition by suppliers of these new regulations is the biggest issue facing the food industry right now—especially now that the final rulings have been issued and we’re in the grace period before compliance with the regulation is required.

FST: What technologies are helping in the effort to fight product adulteration, especially as it relates to FSMA compliance?

Schwandt: Handheld instrumentation is making headway at identifying, at a gross scale, screening capabilities—handheld x-ray fluorescence instrumentation and handheld infrared spectroscopy, to identify things at the bulk level. Mass spectrometry methods and chromatography are exceptional at their ability to do really fast general screening for chemical adulterants. I think many of the food laboratories and food companies have in-house laboratories and screen in that general way.

In terms of some of the solid phase contaminants, I think there’s a lack of in-house capability at the moment where one can use simpler [methods] like optical microscopy and another microscopy-based methods to identify the physical solid phase contaminants.

A good example is the use of magnetometers. Many companies use large-scale process line magnetometers to highlight the presence of metal pieces in their product. A magnetometer tells you that there are metal contaminants in your product, it does not provide a specific alloy identification. Whether one needs to go further to use additional methods and actually ascertain the composition of the alloy, is the question. That’s a new requirement—to identify what it is and then to try and assess where in the process it may have occurred. Using a microscopy-based method is advantageous because metal pieces are easily isolated and identified. Once food industry clients have an idea of what the alloy is, they can compare it to the metal alloys that make up their machinery along the way, whether it’s packaging or sorting machinery, [and] essentially establish where the particles enter into the food process.

February 18, 2016

Next-Generation DNA Sequencing Finds Unexpected Contaminants

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

With more regulatory and consumer scrutiny being placed on the authenticity of food products, companies must use technologies that can verify products and ingredients, and detect contaminants. NSF International recently acquired AuthenTechnologies, a testing laboratory that provides DNA-species identification services to improve authenticity, safety and quality of natural products. Using shorter segments and validated reference materials, AuthenTechnologies employs a DNA sequencing method that can identify “almost any” species and detect contaminants that cannot be distinguished morphologically or chemically. The method also screens for allergens, GMOs, fillers and filth.

“As the food supply chain becomes more complex and regulations continue to evolve and become more rigorous, this technology is becoming essential to achieving regulatory compliance and brand protection while preventing issues associated with fraud, mislabeling and adulteration,” said Lori Bestervelt, Ph.D, international executive vice president and chief technology officer at NSF, in a company release. AuthenTechnologies’ co-founder Danica Harbaugh Reynauld, Ph.D., adds, “We’ve developed a more highly specific DNA methodology capable of identifying a single organism to a complex blend of unlimited ingredients.” Reynauld, who will join NSF as global director of scientific innovation, will lead the NSF AuthenTechnologies center of excellence with NSF’s global network of labs.

In comparison to DNA barcoding, next-generation DNA sequencing is highly specific and can identify species in highly processed materials and complex mixtures. DNA barcoding is unable to differentiate between closely related species and is less suitable in detecting extracts as well.

February 17, 2016

GFSI and the Road to FSMA

By Maria Fontanazza

No Comments

Many companies certified to a GFSI scheme appear to have a leg up on preparing for FSMA, especially in the area of documentation and record keeping. During a quick chat with Food Safety Tech, Bob Butcher, group operations manager at Ipswich Shellfish Company, explained how GFSI has helped the seafood processor get ready for FSMA. Do you agree? Sound off in the comments section.

Food Safety Tech: What common challenges do companies experience when managing compliance with a GFSI scheme?

Bob Butcher: Every time there’s a new regulation it’s a matter of understanding how that regulation applies to us. The seafood industry has been regulated by FDA mandatory HACCP requirements for years now. Some of the items that are covered under FSMA have already been covered by the seafood regulations. Our facilities have also undergone third-party audits for a number of years and three are already SQF certified—so in order to meet those certifications, we comply with all the FSMA requirements at this point. That being said, there’s always a challenge or opportunity to make sure we comply with all the regulations and above that, make sure that the quality [of the product] we send to our customers meets both their standards and our standards.

FST: Has being certified to a GFSI scheme helped your company better prepare for FSMA compliance?

Butcher: Because we’re SQF certified and are meeting most of the requirements of the seafood industry, we’re well ahead of meeting FSMA requirements. Maintaining the GFSI requirements put us in great shape for FSMA.

GFSI covers so many areas. [Regarding] vendor compliance, we critically examine the seafood that comes in every day and it’s a very perishable commodity, but every plant is a little different in the talent they have and the number of people. We’ve been able to focus on making sure that the product meets the same criteria at each of the facilities no matter who is receiving it and documenting it accordingly. And whether [complying with] GFSI or FSMA, documentation is important.

We’ve gone the extra step in automating so we can better track how each of the plants and suppliers are performing. We started rolling it out at one plant two years ago and then extended it to all plants. All of our facilities have been under it for a year.

I think more and more companies are acknowledging the need to automate. With paper forms it’s difficult to make sure the employee has the correct and latest version, and the filing and recovery of that document [is difficult]. If it’s digital, you can get your hands on the latest version any time you want. Plus, you can analyze digital information and easily look for trends.

However, the seafood industry isn’t like a number of other industries—the margins are low, and so cost is absolutely a factor. If it’s a single facility, having paper forms, depending on the extent of the operation, may be acceptable. But if you get into multiple locations, it’s a whole different challenge all together.

FST: What are the broader issues that the seafood industry is currently facing?

Butcher: Supply and sustainability—making sure that you have a handle on the sustainability of the species and are able to explain that to your customers. That ties into record keeping—getting the right product, when it’s an MSC [Marine Stewardship Council] or ASC [Aquaculture Stewardship Council] chain of custody, or whether it’s having the right relationship with the vendors so you know your source. Cost is a concern, along with quality and inventory levels.

There are a lot of very small companies and a lot of them aren’t GFSI certified. A lot of them don’t even have any type of third-party audits, so I’m not sure how ready they are. It’s always a challenge for a small company to get up to speed.

FST: Does compliance with a GFSI scheme help address these issues to some extent?

Butcher: As we started working on GFSI or FSMA, and even HACCP many years ago, we started looking at products differently. You’re documenting more and gaining information—and once you have that information, you can focus on cost factors and inventory. So from that standpoint, it has been very helpful. At this point, we’re SQF Level, and we plan to go Level 3, which involves more quality parameters and certification. That will greatly impact the product and the profitability as well.

FST: What are your tips for companies in terms of being audit ready?

Butcher: The software program we use helps us maintain our facilities to be as audit ready as we can from a documentation standpoint. With SQF there will be unannounced audits, and it’s always been FDA’s practice or the state inspector’s practice to pop in anyway, so you have to be ready for that inspection at any time. The whole principle of HACCP is to make sure you’re documenting what you’re doing. And whether it’s an auditor or an inspector, they’re coming in at any time and can look at records for the past two years, so you should be in compliance and be able to prove that.

February 16, 2016

PCR Assay Detects Listeria in Dairy, Produce, RTE Products

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

The AOAC Research Institute approved a method extension of Performance Test Method #030502 to include the DuPont BAX System X5 PCR Assay for Genus Listeria. The assay has been validated as a reliable method for detecting the pathogen in frankfurters, smoked salmon, spinach, and cheese, as well as from environmental surfaces. Using the system, automated PCR-based DNA amplification and automatic pathogen detection can be conducted on 32 samples simultaneously within a smaller and more lightweight unit. The system is also validated by AOAC-RI for detecting Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes in good and environmental samples.

Gary Smith, Eurofins’ Food Safety Systems

February 15, 2016

FSMA Mandates Employee Training. Are You Prepared?

By Maria Fontanazza

No Comments

Training plays a huge role in the effective implementation of FSMA. The preventive controls for human food final rule calls out areas in which training is now obligatory, namely ensuring that employees involved in the manufacturing, processing, packaging and holding of food are properly educated on food safety and food hygiene (mandated under Current Good Manufacturing Practices). FDA has initiated an extensive training strategy, part of which includes establishing a National Coordination Center (the agency awarded a $600,000 grant to the International Food Protection Training Institute in October), along with several collaborative efforts with other federal agencies and industry partners.

Although many food companies have been conducting training as part of their standard procedures, preparing employees for the implementation phase of FSMA may be more complicated than they anticipated. In a Q&A with Food Safety Tech, Gary Smith, director of food safety services at Eurofins Scientific, shares insights on some of the hurdles that industry is encountering (including manufacturers in the animal food arena) related to training and FSMA compliance.

Food Safety Tech: How has FSMA changed the landscape of employee training?

Gary Smith: There are a couple of updates that are very important to note for the industries as a whole. First, employee training is now mandatory for both human food facilities and, probably even more importantly, animal food facilities. Many of the human food folks may have been asked by customers or by other entities via corporate internal procedures to do training of employees and to have a training program in place. For a lot of the pet food and animal feed manufacturers, having a comprehensive training program for all employees is significantly different than what has been requested and expected of them in the past.

Second, the preventive controls rule for both human food and animal food specifically requires that animal food and human food manufacturers conduct training of all their employees on at least food safety and food hygiene topics. Now, what does that mean? We’re interpreting that to mean basic GMPs as well as common food safety hazards. Realistically, this will probably be a 30 to 60-minute training session in which everyone in the facility will have to attend, and FDA doesn’t state specifically that it has to be done more than at least once. There is no frequency for re-training. However, once the compliance dates are effective, it’s mandatory that the training has been completed. This is a new concept for the majority of industry who may have had corporate training programs or customer-driven training programs, but never a mandated regulatory requirement for training.

FST: What challenges do food companies face in ensuring that employees are prepared for the implementation phase?

Smith: There’s the challenge of putting together the training, which, in the big picture of FSMA, shouldn’t be that big of a deal.

Some of the biggest challenges companies face (especially in trying to get ahead of the game and be proactive) is the identification of the preventive controls qualified individual. Is it an internal person? Is it a consultant? Do they have to go through a specific training class? The answer is yes, they do. How do they deal with foreign suppliers? A lot of folks are really confused about the concept of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program rule and what it means. Do they need to audit [their suppliers]? Do they need to be GFSI certified? There are a lot of questions concerning the importation of ingredients from outside the United States—what’s the requirement? This is probably the biggest area in which people seek clarity.

Another [challenge] is internal supplier approval, because the new rule talks about supplier approval as one of the preventive controls that has to be in place. Again, who can do those audits? When do we have to conduct an audit? What does the audit have to cover? A lot of folks are struggling with this area as well.

The last challenge: A lot of folks have HACCP, whether they are human or animal food manufacturers, and this has been required or requested by customers for a while. But how do we transition from having a HACCP plan to a food safety plan that meets the preventive control requirements in addition to the HACCP requirements? How do I build in allergen management as a preventive control? How do I build in sanitation as a preventive control? How do I build in supplier approval as a preventive control? There are a lot of questions surrounding whether companies should scrap their HACCP plan and start over, or whether they have to add on to it.

FST: Eurofins offers an extensive training schedule for the first half of 2016. How do these offerings play into FSMA’s compliance requirements?

Smith: Eurofins is now offering the highly anticipated 2.5-day training created by the FDA’s Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance (FSPCA). The standardized curriculum is designed to meet the training requirements under Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 117.115 for the “preventive control qualified individual” who conducts certain Food Safety Plan activities. In addition, Eurofins offers core courses such as Environmental Monitoring, Internal Food Safety Auditing and HACCP to help support the development and implementation of a company’s food safety plan.

February 12, 2016

Part of FDA FY 2017 Budget Request to Hold Food Importers Accountable

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

UPDATE 2/22/2016 – According to an updated FDA alert, the FY2017 budget requests include an increase of $25.3 million of new budget authority to implement FSMA, with FDA focusing on two main areas:

National Integrated Food Safety System ($11.3 million). Support state capacity to implement the produce safety rule via education and technical assistance to farmers and on‑going compliance support and oversight

New Import Safety Systems ($14.0 million). Implementing the FSVP rule, which makes importers responsible for ensuring that the foods they bring in from other countries are produced in a manner that is consistent with U.S. food safety standards

– END UPDATE –

FDA wants 8% more money for its FY 2017 budget, requesting a total of $5.1 billion. Part of this $14.6 million net increase in budget authority will go toward FSMA implementation. Specifically related to food safety, FDA is asking for more than $18.4 million in budget authority and more than $193.2 million in user fees. According to an FDA press release, the agency will be using the budget to support federal and state efforts related to enforcing safety standards on produce farms. In addition, FDA wants to use the money “to hold importers accountable for verifying that imported food meets U.S. safety standards, as well as conduct food safety audits of foreign food facilities”.

FDA is also requesting more than $3 million for building and facilities funding, and more than $600,000 to support other areas to improve the agency’s infrastructure. The fiscal request is for October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017.

February 9, 2016

X-Ray Detector Technology Heightens Sensitivity

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

A new X-ray detector technology features a 0.4-mm high-sensitivity detector that enables the integration of a 100-W X-ray generator. The technology, provided by Mettler Toledo, offers improved detection levels with a 20% power reduction under standard operating conditions.

The Safeline X-ray system includes software that “lends itself especially to ‘difficult’ or ‘busy’ images which contain varied density distribution, and is especially valuable for inspecting multi-textured foods and products that have a tendency to move around inside the packaging, such as boxes of cereal or bags of mixed nuts. In fact, detection sensitivity is unaffected by any type of packaging thus improving false rejection rates,” according to a company press release. The system enables the removal of contaminants before products leave a factory.

February 8, 2016

USDA Poultry Standards Could Reduce Illnesses by 50,000 Annually

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

The USDA has finalized federal standards to lower the incidence of Salmonella and Campylobacter in ground chicken and poultry (including raw chicken breasts, legs and wings, which comprise about 80% of the chicken that American’s purchase). FSIS updated its microbial testing schedule at poultry facilities and will also start posting food safety performance about companies online.

“This approach to poultry inspection is based on science, supported by strong data, and will truly improve public health,” said USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety Al Almanza in an agency press release. “The new performance standards will complement the many other proactive, prevention-based food policies that we’ve put in place in recent years to make America’s supply of meat and poultry safer to eat.”

Intended to achieve at least a 30% reduction in Salmonella illnesses, a pathogen reduction performance standard for chicken parts, ground chicken and ground turkey is being finalized by FSIS. It is doing the same to achieve a 32% reduction in illnesses from Campylobacter in chicken parts and ground chicken. FSIS estimates a low prevalence of Campylobacter in ground turkey and is thus aiming for a 19% reduction.

“Over the past seven years, USDA has put in place tighter and more strategic food safety measures than ever before for meat and poultry products. We have made strides in modernizing every aspect of food safety inspection, from company record keeping, to labeling requirements, to the way we perform testing in our labs,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in the release. “These new standards, in combination with greater transparency about poultry companies’ food safety performance and better testing procedures, will help prevent tens of thousands of foodborne illnesses every year, reaching our Healthy People 2020 goals.”

February 2, 2016

Chipotle Outbreaks Over, but Origin Remains Unknown

By Maria Fontanazza

1 Comment

The CDC has declared the Chipotle E. coli outbreaks over. As for its origin(s), we may never know. Yesterday the CDC provided its latest and final update regarding the two outbreaks, stating that investigators used whole genome sequencing to dig a bit deeper, and isolates tested from those sickened in the second outbreak (sickened five people in three states) were not genetically related to isolates from the people who fell ill in the initial outbreak (55 sickened in 11 states, with 21 hospitalizations).

“We are pleased to have this behind us and can place our full energies to implementing our enhanced food safety plan that will establish Chipotle as an industry leader in food safety,” said Steve Ells, founder, chairman and co-CEO of Chipotle in a company statement. “We are extremely focused on executing this program, which designs layers of redundancy and enhanced safety measures to reduce the food safety risk to a level as near to zero as is possible. By adding these programs to an already strong and proven food culture, we strongly believe that we can establish Chipotle as a leader in food safety just as we have become a leader in our quest for the very best ingredients we can find.”

While the outbreaks “appear” to be over, the fact that the source will remain a mystery is a bit unsettling. All the CDC can tell us is that the “likely” source was a common meal item or ingredient served at Chipotle Mexican Grill. Regulatory officials simply cannot trace a food or ingredient to the outbreak. “When a restaurant serves foods with several ingredients that are mixed or cooked together and then used in multiple menu items, it can be more difficult for epidemiologic studies to identity the specific ingredient that is contaminated,” according to the CDC’s final update on the outbreak.

The most recent reported illness started on December 1, 2015. No deaths were reported as a result of either of the outbreaks.

Today Chipotle released its Q4 2015 earnings, reporting a 6.8% decrease in revenue ($997.5 million) compared to Q4 2014. However, 2015 revenue increased 9.6% over 2014.

The problems are not over for the restaurant chain either. On January 28, Chipotle was served another subpoena that broadened the scope of the existing DOJ investigation. The company stated the following in a release, “The new subpoena requires us to produce documents and information related to company-wide food safety matters dating back to January 1, 2013, and supersedes the subpoena served in December 2015 that was limited to a single Chipotle restaurant in Simi Valley, California. We intend to fully cooperate in the investigation.”

February 2, 2016

FDA Makes FSMA Education and Training Available

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

As part of FDA’s FSMA training vision, the agency has announced two funding opportunities aimed at providing outreach, education and training on the FSMA preventive controls rules.

The Native American Tribes Outreach, Education and Training cooperative agreement will provide up to $750,000 annually for three years. “FDA anticipates that federally recognized tribes will need food safety education and training that addresses the regulatory requirements of the applicable FSMA rules and also encompasses specific cultural practices associated with produce farming and food manufacturing/processing within tribes relevant to their status as sovereign nations,” according to an FDA release.

The Local Food Producer Outreach, Education, and Training agreement will award local food producers $1.5 million this fiscal year with the potential for two more years if federal funds are available. It aims to assist small and mid-size producers/processors with particular practices related to their scale of production and management practices. The agreement will focus on those involved in local food systems while considering “account diversified, sustainable, organic and identity-preserved agricultural production and processing.”

How We Use Cookies