Tag Archives: allergens

By Gabriela Lopez-Velasco, Ph.D.

Every day, food industries around the world work to comply with the food labeling directives and regulations in place to inform consumers about specific ingredients added to finished products. Of course, special attention has been placed on ensuring that product packaging clearly declares the presence of food allergens including milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, soy, sesame and mustard. (Additional food allergens may also be included in other regions.)

But labeling only covers the ingredients deliberately added to foods and beverages. In reality, food manufacturers have two jobs when it comes to serving the needs of their allergic consumers:

Fully understand and clearly declare the intentional presence of allergenic foods
Prevent the unintended presence of allergenic foods into their product

Almost half of food recalls are the result of undeclared allergens, and often these at-fault allergens were not only undeclared but unintended. Given such, the unintended presence of allergenic foods is something that must be carefully considered when establishing an allergen control plan for a food processing facility.

How? It starts with a risk assessment process that evaluates the likelihood of unintentionally present allergens that could originate from raw materials, cross-contact contamination in equipment or tools, transport and more. Once the risks are identified, risk management strategies should then be established to control allergens in the processing plant environment.
It is necessary to validate these risk management strategies or procedures in order to demonstrate their effectiveness. After validation, those strategies or procedures should then be periodically verified to show that the allergen control plan in place is continually effective.

In several of these verification procedures it may be necessary to utilize an analytical test to determine the presence or absence of an allergenic food or to quantify its level, if present. Indeed, selecting an appropriate method to assess the presence or the level of an allergenic food is vitally important, as the information provided by the selected method will inform crucial decisions about the safety of an ingredient, equipment or product that is to be released for commercialization.

A cursory review of available methods can be daunting. There are several emerging methods and technologies for this application, including mass spectroscopy, surface plasmon resonance, biosensors and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Each of these methods have made advancements, and some of them are already commercialized for food testing applications. However, for practical means, we will discuss those methods that are most commonly used in the food industry.

In general, there are two types of analytical methods used to determine the presence of allergenic foods: Specific and non-specific methods.

Specific tests

Specific methods can detect target proteins in foods that contain the allergenic portion of the food sample. These include immunoassays, in which specific antibodies can recognize and bind to target proteins. The format of these assays can be quantitative, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) that may help determine the concentration of target proteins in a food sample. Or they can be qualitative, such as a lateral flow device, which within a few minutes and with minimum sample preparation can display whether a target protein is or is not present. (Note: Some commercial formats of ELISA are also designed to obtain a qualitative result.)

To date, ELISA assays have become a method of choice for detection and quantification of proteins from food allergens by regulatory entities and inspection agencies. For the food industry, ELISA can also be used to test raw ingredients and final food products. In addition, ELISA is a valuable analytical tool to determine the concentration of proteins from allergenic foods during a cleaning validation process, as some commercial assay suppliers offer methods to determine the concentration of target proteins from swabs utilized to collect environmental samples, clean-in-place (CIP) final rinse water or purge materials utilized during dry cleaning.

ELISA methods often require the use of laboratory equipment and technical skills to be implemented. Rapid-specific methods such as immunoassays with a lateral flow format also allow detection of target specific proteins. Given their minimal sample preparation and short time-to-result, they are valuable tools for cleaning validation and routine cleaning verification, with the advantage of having a similar sensitivity to the lowest limit of quantification of an ELISA assay.

The use of a specific rapid immunoassay provides a presence/absence result that determines whether equipment, surfaces or utensils have been cleaned to a point where proteins from allergenic foods are indiscernible at a certain limit of detection. Thus, equipment can be used to process a product that should not contain a food allergen. Some commercial rapid immunoassays offer protocols to use this type of test in raw materials and final product. This allows food producers to analyze foods and ingredients for the absence of a food allergen with minimum laboratory infrastructure and enables in-house testing of this type of sample. This feature may be a useful rapid verification tool to analyze final product that has been processed shortly after the first production run following an equipment cleaning.

Non-Specific Tests

While non-specific testing isn’t typically the best option for a cleaning validation study, these tests may be used for routine cleaning verification. Examples of non-specific tests include total protein or ATP tests.

Tests that determine total protein are often based on a colorimetric reaction. For example, commercial products utilize a swab format that, after being used to survey a defined area, is placed in a solution that will result in a color change if protein is detected. The rationale is that if protein is not detected, it may be assumed that proteins from allergenic foods were removed during cleaning. However, when total protein is utilized for routine verification, it is important to consider that the sensitivity of protein swabs may differ from the sensitivity of specific immunoassays. Consequently, highly sensitive protein swabs should be selected when feasible.

ATP swab tests are also commonly utilized by the food industry as a non-specific tool for hygiene monitoring and cleaning verification. However, the correlation between ATP and protein is not always consistent. Because the ATP present in living somatic cells varies with the food type, ATP should not be considered as a direct marker to assess the removal of allergenic food residues after cleaning. Instead, an analytical test designed for the detection of proteins should be used alongside ATP swabs to assess hygiene and to assess removal of allergenic foods.

Factors for Using One Test Versus Another

For routine testing, the choice of using a specific or a non-specific analytical method will depend on various factors including the type of product, the number of allergenic ingredients utilized for one production line, whether a quantitative result is required for a particular sample or final product, and, possibly, the budget that is available for testing. In any case, it is important that when performing a cleaning validation study, the method used for routine testing also be included to demonstrate that it will effectively reflect the presence of an allergenic food residue.

Specific rapid methods for verification are preferable because they enable direct monitoring of the undesirable presence of allergenic foods. For example, they can be utilized in conjunction with a non-specific protein swab and, based on the sampling plan, specific tests can then be used periodically (weekly) for sites identified as high-risk because they may be harder to clean than other surfaces. In addition, non-specific protein swabs can be used after every production changeover for all sites previously defined in a sampling plan. These and any other scenarios should be discussed while developing an allergen control plan, and the advantages and risks of selecting any method(s) should be evaluated.

As with all analytical methods, commercial suppliers will perform validation of the methods they offer to ensure the method is suitable for testing a particular analyte. However, given the great diversity of food products, different sanitizers and chemicals used in the food industry, and the various processes to which a food is subjected during manufacturing, it is unlikely that commercial methods have been exhaustively tested. Thus, it is always important to ensure that the method is fit-for-purpose and to verify that it will recover or detect the allergen residues of interest at a defined level.

November 6, 2018

Allergen Alley

Five Steps to Creating a Successful Validation Study

By Gabriela Lopez-Velasco, Ph.D.

No Comments

Manufacturing large volumes of food product that must be safe for human consumption with finite resources is, simply put, a demanding responsibility. For many food brands, having dedicated production lines is not always an option, so lines are often shared amongst a variety of food products. A potential problem arises when products containing allergenic foods are manufactured on the same equipment as other products, and those allergenic foods are not meant to be declared in the product label. As a result, residues of the first product manufactured may move to the next product. Known as direct cross-contact contamination, this issue can have a severe adverse impact on allergic consumers.

Cross-contact contamination can occur at various stages of production, but it’s direct food cross-contact in shared production lines that is often found as a particularly significant food safety hazard. Addressing cross-contact through effective cleaning procedures is one of the most critical allergen management activities in establishing preventive controls and minimizing the potential of unintentional presence of food allergens. Allergen cleaning validation enables food manufacturers to evaluate that their cleaning procedure is adequate when it comes to removing ingredients from direct food contact surfaces.

Cleaning validation consists of generating data to demonstrate that allergenic foods are removed from direct food contact areas to a pre-defined acceptable level. A basic cleaning validation design consists of determining the residual level or presence of allergenic food before cleaning (baseline), and then assessing the level of the allergenic food after cleaning.

If the cleaning procedure exists in several steps (i.e., more than one rinse or purge, as with dry cleaning) additional testing to assess the level of allergens between cleaning stages and in the final product can also be incorporated. It is important to remember that a single validation study may not be applicable for an entire site operation. Different production lines within a food production site may require an individualized validation analysis. This determination will depend on the cleaning process as well as the formulation of the products being manufactured.

There are five important considerations for establishing a successful validation study:

Set up a team and assign a leader to carry out the design of the validation. Involving relevant personnel with knowledge in the product formulation, manufacturing process, equipment design and cleaning and sanitation regimes may provide valuable insight to identify processes that should be included in the validation. It may also bring to light critical sampling points in the equipment that should be considered.
Determine the scope of the study. This is where you describe and justify which equipment, utensils, cleaning regime and production processes will be validated. It may be wise to group different processes or select the worst-case scenario. For example, you might choose to focus on food production equipment regarded as hard to clean or equipment that contains the highest concentration of the allergenic food.
Design a sampling plan. This is a critical prerequisite before starting a validation study. The plan should be clearly defined, with critical sampling points and locations prescribed to challenge the effectiveness of the cleaning regime and to find evidence of allergenic food presence. In both open equipment and equipment that will be dismantled as part of the cleaning regime, it is important to select sites where food can get trapped, as well as other sites that are hard to clean. Also consider other surfaces that can be a source of direct cross-contact like protective clothing and utensils. For clean-in-place (CIP) systems, wash water should be collected from the onset of cleaning and then at intervals leading up to the final rinse water. This helps to demonstrate that allergen food levels are diminishing, thereby validating the use of CIP analysis as a verification method. Note that it is important to consider that the sampling plan for the validation should also reflect the sampling plan that will be used during routine verification. Support from a statistician may facilitate the decision to define how many samples and type of samples (swabs, CIP or final product) should be collected for the validation and how many cleaning runs should be performed to demonstrate validity.
Select a method of analysis. Validation and verification involve the use of a specific method to detect allergenic foods. The selected method should be validated as well, an undertaking most often done by the commercial supplier. Then it should be verified by the food processor that the method is fit for purpose, such that the allergenic food will be recovered and detected under the conditions in which samples are routinely collected. This ensures there will not be interference due to the food itself or due to cleaning chemicals. There are a variety of different analytical methods; most are based in technologies designed to detect proteins. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and immune-based lateral flow devices (LFDs) offer detection of specific protein targets (i.e., egg proteins, milk proteins, peanut proteins) and are ideal for a validation study. ELISA can provide quantitative data from pre-cleaning, at various intervals during the cleaning process, at post-cleaning and at final product, offering a measurable level of the allergenic food during the cleaning process. Rapid detection through LFDs also allows food processors to assess the presence or absence of a specific protein or group of proteins, but different from ELISA, the result is only qualitative. In either case, these rapid tests may be used for both validation and routine verification. In addition, there are non-specific tests that can detect total protein that may be selected for a cleaning validation study. These tests do not provide specific information about the allergen to be managed, and thus may be more suitable for routine verification. During a cleaning validation study, it is important to include the test that will be utilized for verification and ensure it is also fit for purpose and detects the allergenic food to an appropriate pre-defined sensitivity. This is particularly important if the test is different from the analytical method chosen for cleaning validation.
Establish acceptance criteria. Proteins from allergenic foods may cause an adverse reaction at very low levels. To date, there are very few regions in the world in which threshold or permitted levels for allergens in food are established. Each individual food manufacturer should define a criterion to establish when a surface is clean from allergens after routine cleaning. The limits that are set up should be practical but also measurable and verifiable, thus it is important to define a level with knowledge of the sampling and analytical method selected. The sensitivity of the analytical methods currently available may be used as a criterion to verify that levels of an allergen are under control if they fall below the limit of detection of the analytical method.

Once a cleaning regime has been validated and documented, routine allergen cleaning verification should be performed as part of a monitoring program to demonstrate that the cleaning process in place is effective and that the risk of direct cross-contact is consequently being controlled. The validation should be repeated at defined intervals, often once a year. However, it is expected that a cleaning verification will be performed after each production run and cleaning procedure in order to reflect that the validated cleaning process is still effective. Cleaning verification, along with other allergen management activities, strengthens implemented food safety programs and helps to protect consumers.

October 8, 2018

Meat Recall Roundup: Listeria, Salmonella and Allergens the Culprits

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

The meat industry has been on alert over the past few days, much of which has been due to Salmonella and Listeria concerns. The following are the Class I recalls that have hit:

JBS Tolleson, Inc. recalls 6,937,195 pounds of raw non-intact beef products over concerns of Salmonella Newport contamination. According to the CDC, there are currently 57 reported cases across 16 states. No deaths have been reported. A traceback investigation involving store receipts and shopper card numbers enabled FSIS to trace the reported illnesses to JBS “as the common supplier of the ground beef products”.
Johnston County Hams recalls more than 89,000 pounds of RTE deli loaf ham products over concerns of adulteration with Listeria monocytogenes. The CDC and other health agencies are monitoring the outbreak, which has thus far infected four people, and one death has been reported. Recalled products were produced between April 3, 2017 and October 2, 2018. Also connected to this event is the recall of Callie’s Charleston Biscuits, which may contain ham from Johnston County Ham.
Canteen/Convenco recalled more than 1700 pounds of RTE breaded chicken tenders with BBQ sauce and hot sauce. The products were misbranded, as they may contain milk, and this was not declared on the finished product label. Thus far there have been no reported cases of adverse reactions due to consuming the products.
Ukrop’s Homestyle Foods has recalled more than 18,200 pounds of RTE meat and poultry deli-sliced products over concerns of product adulteration with Listeria monocytogenes. The products were produced and packaged from September 14–October 3, 2018. No confirmed illnesses have been reported to date.

October 1, 2018

Allergen Alley

Allergen Detection & Control: Challenges & Strategies

By Jessica Burke

No Comments

While global market demand for “free-from” food products is increasing, undeclared and mislabelled allergens, sulphites and gluten, throughout the supply chain, continue to be the number one cause of consumer product recalls. This is of major concern since the number of individuals affected by life-threatening allergies is on the rise, especially in children. Unfortunately, there is no cure for a food allergy; avoidance of allergenic food(s) is the only way to prevent an allergic reaction.

It is clear that allergen recalls negatively affect the consumer, however, they also result in huge financial implications and loss of brand credibility to all organizations involved. Businesses and brands may take a significant hit to their reputation since consumer perception plays a key role in the success of a business. With the increased use of the internet and social media, it is even more important to stay out of the spotlight and avoid recalls.

Among the reasons allergens hold the #1 position for product recalls may be lack of knowledge, insufficient supplier and raw material information, packaging errors, and accidental cross-contact. Cross-contact may be the result of poor cleaning practices, inadequate handling and storage procedures, employee traffic, and improper identification and assessments of risks. In addition, from a regulatory perspective, priority allergen lists and ingredient labeling laws vary from country to country, causing confusion for both manufacturers and consumers.

The good news is, implementing a strong allergen control plan can help to prevent recalls, protecting consumers and your business.

It starts with conducting a thorough risk assessment of each step in your process to determine where procedures and controls need to be implemented. A process flow diagram is very useful in understanding where allergenic ingredients and foods exist in the plant and where they are introduced into the process.

Control measures must be implemented even before raw materials enter the facility. The importance of understanding the incoming ingredients, inputs and suppliers cannot be overstated. The allergen status of every raw material handled or present in a food business needs to be identified and effective risk assessment tools applied. This involves identifying and documenting the food allergens present in each raw material, including non-food items like maintenance and cleaning chemicals. It’s imperative to recognize suppliers and backup suppliers’ vulnerabilities to ensure the success of the program. This should include identifying all allergens handled in the facility, as this might not be obvious based on ingredient declarations or product specification documents. Ensure supplier ingredient specification documents are current and routinely reviewed so accurate assessments can be made about the level of allergen risk.

Ensure there is segregation of allergenic foods or ingredients at every step of the process, from receiving raw materials through to shipping finished product. It is important to review labels at receiving to confirm the allergen status of raw materials. This serves as verification that ingredients have not been modified and the allergen status is still accurate. It also provides the basis upon which to determine storage and handling requirements. Visual tools are great for displaying the allergen status of each raw material. This can be done through applying color coded stickers or tape, unique tags or some other method, and should be done immediately at receiving. To avoid the potential for cross contamination from one ingredient to another, each allergen and/or group of allergens should have its own designated storage area or space. In addition, never store allergenic ingredients above ingredients that do not contain the same allergen.

Controlling allergen risk throughout processing can be a major challenge since there are so many opportunities for cross contact. Ideally, physically segregate production of foods containing allergens from the production of non-allergenic foods. When physical segregation is not possible, dedicated production lines and equipment is best practice. Barring this, scheduling production runs appropriately can reduce the risk of cross contact and minimize sanitation and changeover activities. Where possible, schedule non-allergenic production before processing allergen-containing products. In addition, dedicate and identify tools and utensils for allergenic ingredients and products. Providing a visual aide can help ensure appropriate practices, and one way to do this is through color coding. Similarly, use dedicated employees on non-allergenic production lines and/or allergenic production lines. Make the employees easy to identify by implementing colored uniforms, hairnets or smocks. Identify allergenic materials by labelling or color coding throughout the manufacturing process. This should include rework, which should only be added to work in progress containing the same allergens.

Control of allergens does not stop at processing; the Maintenance department also plays a big role. Sanitary design needs to be considered when purchasing any piece of equipment. The equipment must be easily and fully washable to ensure proper sanitation. Positioning of equipment is also important in terms of cleanability and the potential of cross contact from an allergenic production line to a non-allergenic production line. Airflow and the potential for contamination of air borne allergenic dust to non-allergenic ingredients, products and equipment also should to be considered. Lastly, maintenance procedures must be put in place to prevent cross contact. This includes processes for repairing or maintaining equipment, cleaning tools and changing work apparel between repairs, as appropriate.

Consumers rely heavily on ingredient declarations and allergen statements on packaging to make purchasing decisions. “For those living with the medical condition of food allergy, the simple act of eating is complicated; avoiding their allergen is the only tool they have to manage the risk of a potential allergic reaction. These consumers require accurate labeling information to help them stay safe while still having sufficient food choices,” states Jennifer Gerdts, executive director at Food Allergy Canada. As such, it is imperative that the information on finished product labels and packaging is accurate. A solid allergen control program includes processes for reviewing labels for new and modified products to ensure they are reflective of the ingredients in the product. Labels and packaging should also be verified for accuracy prior to receipt, and at the beginning of a production run or at changeover. Outdated labels and packaging should be discarded immediately to prevent the chance of accidental usage. Inventory control procedures and label/packaging reconciliation is imperative to ensure the correct labels/packaging have been applied to the appropriate finished product.

It is crucial to develop and implement robust procedures for effectively cleaning equipment, utensils, food contact surfaces and non-food contact surfaces. This must include cleaning between batches of allergenic and non-allergenic production and responding to allergen spills. Carefully consider the tools and cleaning chemicals used for each the task, as this can make a significant difference in the success of the sanitation program. Verification and validation of cleaning practices must be undertaken to confirm that cleaning activities are effective in removing the allergens in the facility. This can be done through visual inspections, swabbing after sanitation and trending results.

One of the most important tools for ensuring the success of any allergen control program is educated employees. All foods handlers, regardless of their position, should undertake training in food allergens. Employees are the eyes and ears of the plant floor, the more knowledgeable they are, the more likely proper procedures will be followed, and potential risks identified.

Complete regular reviews of the allergen management program to ensure that it remains current, effective, and continues to assist in the production of a safe and legal food product. The program should be reviewed, at a minimum, whenever a customer complaint is received regarding allergic reactions, there is a change to raw materials or suppliers, there is a change in manufacturing processes, there has been an introduction of new machinery, or there is a change to cleaning practices and procedures.

An important aspect of an allergen control program is allergen testing. Testing can be used to confirm the allergen status of raw materials at receipt, to verify cleaning processes, and to evaluate finished products. An array of test methods exist for this purpose, including but not limited to, immunochemical methods such as ELISA or lateral flow devices, DNA-based methods, such as Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), Mass spectrometry (MS), and other non-specific methods such as Protein tests, ATP and visual inspection to verify cleaning. The choice of test method is very important and depends on the purpose of the test, the type of sample, food matrix, processing effects, desired turn-around time, availability of equipment, skill level of person doing the analysis and cost. ELISA and lateral flow devices are often used on-site at the production facility because results can be obtained quickly, costs are relatively low, and personnel can be easily trained to use these tests. In some circumstances of highly processed samples, PCR may be a better choice. However, PCR testing requires specialized equipment and skilled technicians so is usually performed in a third-party testing lab. Mass spectrometry is yet another option but can be costly and like PCR, this method requires specialized equipment and skilled personnel to perform the analysis.

As you can see, there are many factors to consider when developing an effective allergen control program. While it may seem daunting, it is critical understand how to identify and assess all allergen risks and develop a plan to control, verify and validate each one. The upfront work may be challenging, however once implemented, an effective allergen control program will protect allergenic consumers from the potentially life-threatening effects of inadvertently consuming and allergenic product, and will protect your business from financial loss and a tainted brand reputation.

May 16, 2018

Food Hazards Web Seminar Addresses Detection, Mitigation and Control

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

On June 1, Food Safety Tech is hosting a web seminar (also penned a “virtual conference”) about food hazards in the realm of pathogens and allergens. “Food Hazards: Detection, Mitigation & Control” begins at 11 am ET, kicking off with a presentation from Mickey Parish, Ph.D., senior science advisor at CFSAN, about the agency’s policy on Listeria monocytogenes. The following is a preview of what you’ll learn during the complimentary event (that’s right, it’s free for all attendees).

Critical Elements for a Successful Pathogen Environmental Monitoring Program

Nearly every segment of the food and pet food industries are either working on implementing pathogen environmental monitoring programs (PEMPs), or are working to optimize programs already in existence. Programs are increasing in complexity with many now covering multiple environmental pathogens, hygienic facility zones and sampling zones. Regulators and customers are stepping up requirements for aggressive, science-based PEMPs. The seven most critical elements for a successful PEMP will be discussed. These elements include: management commitment, determining the need for and stringency of the program, risk evaluation, sampling plan, sampling methods, data management and corrective actions.

Allergen Detection & Control

While global market demand for free-from food products is increasing, undeclared and mislabelled allergens, sulphites and gluten, throughout the supply chain, continue to be the number one cause of consumer product recalls.

To meet the varied regulatory landscape and protect consumers, effective preventative management systems must be implemented, verified and validated. What are the challenges, risks and opportunities for manufacturers and retailers to protect their brands? This informative session will provide insights into:

Government regulations and how management systems can align with the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and the Safe Food for Canadians Act
Successful interventions and protocols to reduce the risk of gluten and allergen related recalls
Differences between Management System/ Process and Product Third-Party Certifications

Pathogen Mitigation: Sanitary Design in Facilities and Sanitation Methods

This presentation will go into detail regarding pathogen mitigation strategies for food processing facilities. The relationship between hygienic design and sanitation as they factor into pathogen mitigation will also be discussed. The presentation will then examine various sanitation methods and how they can be applied within the food industry to help eliminate and control pathogens.

Each educational session will be followed by a technology spotlight and an interactive Q&A between attendees and speakers. Don’t miss out on this event—Register here!

April 20, 2018

Packaging Process Breakdown Causes Eataly Recall

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

Eataly USA has recalled its Eataly Artichoke Spread due to undeclared walnuts. A customer who is allergic to walnuts suffered a “light” allergic reaction after consuming the spread.

“The customer declined to fill out the Eataly incident form and just wanted to bring the seriousness of what happened to our attention.” – FDA

After investigating further, it was discovered that the issue was caused by a temporary breakdown in the packaging process, FDA stated in a safety recall.

The product was distributed at the company’s popular New York City Eataly Flatiron location.

April 12, 2018

FST Soapbox

Foodborne Illnesses and Recalls on the Rise

By Francine L. Shaw

3 Comments

The last word a manufacturer wants to hear is “recall”. During 2017, recalls involved everything from salad mix contaminated with a dead bat to hash browns infused with shredded golf balls.

Not all recalls are created equal. Both the USDA and the FDA have three classifications of recalls to indicate the relative degree of health hazard presented by the product being recalled:

Class I: A Class I recall is the most serious classification, involving a health hazard situation in which there is a reasonable probability that eating the food will cause health problems or death.
Class II: A Class II recall involves a potential health hazard situation in which there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from eating the food.
Class III: A Class III recall involves a situation in which eating the food will not cause adverse health consequences.

During 2017, there were 456 recalls recorded in the United States. The number one reason for those recalls was undeclared allergens.

Identify the weak links in your supply chain: Attend the Food Safety Supply Chain Conference | June 12–13, 2018 | Rockville, MD | Learn moreFoodborne illnesses continue to be widespread, as well. In 2017, we saw Robin Hood flour contaminated with E.coli, Soygo yogurt with Listeria, tomatoes, cantaloupe, and ground turkey tainted with Salmonella, and even shredded coconut was responsible for causing a Salmonella outbreak in the United States and Canada. Foodborne illness outbreaks can happen at restaurants, corporate events, private parties, schools and cruise ships—anywhere and everywhere food is served.

Recalls and foodborne illnesses are 100% preventable. Incidents occur because of human error, and all it takes is one weak link to cause serious—and potentially fatal—problems. That’s it. One weak link can cause the traumatic deaths and/or illnesses of customers, and cost your company billions of dollars, loss of sales, plummeting stocks, negative media coverage and a severely damaged reputation.

When there’s a recall or a foodborne illness, products must be destroyed, which is lost revenue for manufacturers, retailers, restaurants, etc. Finding the source of the contamination can be a massive undertaking. The manufacturer may need to close all of their plants for cleaning until the source is identified, which adds up to a tremendous financial burden, and also requires significant time and effort. Class 1 recalls can cost hundreds of millions of dollars or more, to identify the source of contamination, recall products, sanitize facilities, and keep consumers safe.

It takes years for companies to establish a solid reputation, and food recalls and foodborne illness outbreaks can obliterate a brand’s reputation overnight. Consumers lose confidence much faster than they gain it, and bad news travels fast (especially in this time of social media where news spreads instantly and widely). And on top of that, there may be litigation as a result of the recall, incident or outbreak, which will result in attorney fees and potential settlements that could be very significant. If the risk of massive expense and bankruptcy isn’t enough, for the past few years, the U.S. District of Justice has been issuing fines and prison terms to company leaders involved in foodborne illnesses outbreaks and food recalls.

The government, media and general public are holding companies (and their leadership) accountable now, so you’d think that recalls and foodborne illness incidents would be on the decline but, unfortunately, that’s not the case. And with advancements in technology, why are we still having so many issues surrounding the safety of our food?

Many media outlets report that foodborne illnesses have been rising considerably in the past few years. However, according to the CDC, a study showed that the six most common foodborne illnesses have actually declined in frequency by 25% over the last two decades. Having said that, though, the severity of foodborne illness outbreaks seems to be increasing, and the number of outbreaks connected to produce has risen, as well. Some experts believe the increases may be due to better reporting processes rather than an actual increase in the number of foodborne illnesses.

There are various theories as to why foodborne illnesses may be getting worse. Some government agencies indicate it has to do with farming policies. The CDC disagrees. More widely accepted beliefs are the increase in popularity of organic produce—grown with manure rather than chemical fertilizer—which can transfer bacteria to the produce. Additionally, there’s debate that the use of antibiotics can cause bacteria that causes foodborne illnesses to become resistant.

Recalls may occur for a variety of reasons. Products may be pushed beyond their shelf life by the manufacturer, or maybe the design and development around the product was insufficient (equipment, building, etc.). Is the manufacturing facility designed in a manner that can prevent contamination—structurally and hygienically? Maybe the production quality control checks failed. Did the manufacturer conduct an adequate food safety risk assessment prior to launching the new product? Profit margins are often thin—did financial incentives prevent the company from implementing a thorough food safety program?

Getting back to the basics of food safety would reduce recalls and foodborne illnesses significantly. Manufacturers must be certain about food safety as well as the integrity of the ingredients they use. They need to be honest with themselves and understand the risks of the ingredients, processes and finished products that they are handling.

Human error is a given. It’s the corporation’s responsibility to minimize the risk. Implement ongoing food safety education and training for all employees, explaining the proper food safety protocols and processes. Develop internal auditing systems, using innovative digital tools. Get rid of the pen and paper forms, where it’s more likely for errors to occur and for pencil whipping to happen. Digital solutions provide more effective internal auditing, meticulousness in corrective action systems including root cause analysis, allergen management, and controls relating to packing product into the correct packaging format—all fundamental to keeping foods, consumers and businesses healthy and safe.

July 18, 2017

Why Include Food Fraud Records in Your Hazard Analysis?

By Karen Everstine, Ph.D.

2 Comments

Food fraud is a recognized threat to the quality of food ingredients and finished food products. There are also instances where food fraud presents a safety risk to consumers, such as when perpetrators add hazardous substances to foods (e.g., melamine in milk, industrial dyes in spices, known allergens, etc.).

FSMA’s Preventive Controls Rules require food manufacturers to identify and evaluate all “known or reasonably foreseeable hazards” related to foods produced at their facilities to determine if any hazards require a preventive control. The rules apply both to adulterants that are unintentionally occurring and those that may be intentionally added for economically motivated or fraudulent purposes. The FDA HARPC Draft Guidance for Industry includes, in Appendix 1, tables of “Potential Hazards for Foods and Processes.” As noted during the recent GMA Science Forum, FDA investigators conducting Preventive Controls inspections are using Appendix 1 “extensively.”

The tables in Appendix 1 include 17 food categories and are presented in three series:

Information that you should consider for potential food-related biological hazards
Information that you should consider for potential food-related chemical hazards
Information that you should consider for potential process-related hazards

According to the FDA draft guidance, chemical hazards can include undeclared allergens, drug residues, heavy metals, industrial chemicals, mycotoxins/natural toxins, pesticides, unapproved colors and additives, and radiological hazards.

USP develops tools and resources that help ensure the quality and authenticity of food ingredients and, by extension, manufactured food products. More importantly, however, these same resources can help ensure the safety of food products by reducing the risk of fraudulent adulteration with hazardous substances.

Incidents for dairy ingredients, food fraud — Geographic Distribution of Incidents for Dairy Ingredients. Graphic courtesy of USP.

Data from food fraud records from sources such as USP’s Food Fraud Database (USP FFD) contain important information related to potential chemical hazards and should be incorporated into manufacturers’ hazard analyses. USP FFD currently has data directly related to the identification of six of the chemical hazards identified by FDA: Undeclared allergens, drug residues, heavy metals, industrial chemicals, pesticides, and unapproved colors and additives. The following are some examples of information found in food fraud records for these chemical hazards.

Undeclared allergens: In addition to the widely publicized incident of peanuts in cumin, peanut products can be fraudulently added to a variety of food ingredients, including ground hazelnuts, olive oils, ground almonds, and milk powder. There have also been reports of the presence of cow’s milk protein in coconut-based beverages.

Drug residues: Seafood and honey have repeatedly been fraudulently adulterated with antibiotics that are not permitted for use in foods. Recently, beef pet food adulterated with pentobarbital was recalled in the United States.

Heavy metals: Lead, often in the form of lead chromate or lead oxide which add color to spices, is a persistent problem in the industry, particularly with turmeric.

Industrial Chemicals: Industrial dyes have been associated with a variety of food products, including palm oil, chili powder, curry sauce, and soft drinks. Melamine was added to both milk and wheat gluten to fraudulently increase the apparent protein content and industrial grade soybean oil sold as food-grade oil caused the deaths of thousands of turkeys.

Pesticides: Fraud in organic labeling has been in the news recently. Also concerning is the detection of illegal pesticides in foods such as oregano due to fraudulent substitution with myrtle or olive leaves.

Unapproved colors/additives: Examples include undeclared sulfites in unrefined cane sugar and ginger, food dyes in wine, and tartrazine (Yellow No. 5) in tea powder.

Adulteration, chili powder, skim milk powder, olive oil — Time Series Plot of Records for Chili Powder (blue), Skim Milk Powder (green), and Olive Oil (orange)

Continue to page 2 below.

Pages: 1 2

Suresh Neethirajan, University of Guelph

June 20, 2016

In the Food Lab

Identifying Peanut and Other Allergens Outside the Lab

By Suresh Neethirajan, Ph.D

1 Comment

Judging the nature and suitability of items we put in our mouths is a task we perform daily, whether it’s due to different taste preferences, being on a diet, or from particular foods not agreeing with our metabolisms. Some foods can trigger mild reactions such as an upset stomach, or more serious skin rashes and outbreaks, from shortness of breath to even death.

Many of us have been somewhere where someone with a peanut allergy has been brought to everyone’s attention. The situation may have been publicized before boarding a plane, at a school where parents are asked to refrain from giving their children any food containing peanut products, or restaurants that clearly indicate which dishes are peanut-free on their menu, or that the kitchen is absent of the legume.

The number of people with food allergies continues to rise, and although many theories have been provided for the increase, the exact cause is unknown. Many foods are documented as being able to produce an allergic reaction—milk, eggs, soy and shellfish, to name a few—but peanuts and gluten are highlighted as major offenders. Canadian government regulations require that manufacturers label products that contain certain allergens, even if they are made in a facility where allergens are in another product.

The Threat of Gluten and Peanuts

Gluten contained in wheat has become a widely avoided food substance, although the reason for this might has more to do with health concerns than allergies. The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) estimates that 400,000 U.S. school children have a peanut allergy, with many of those also having other food allergies. According to the ACAAI, many children will eventually outgrow most food allergies, but only 20% of those who have a peanut tolerance will outgrow it.

The charity organization Food Allergy Canada states that 2.5 million people suffer from a food allergy in Canada, while 2 in 100 children are susceptible to peanuts causing a reaction. There isn’t a cure for food allergies, so governments and food inspectors have the weighty task of ensuring that commercially produced products are packaged or served with proper labeling and information to protect consumers. This requires constant checking and testing of products that may have come in contact with peanuts or gluten.

New Tool for Food Inspectors

To provide regular analysis, the procedure has been lengthy and expensive, but scientific researchers at Canada’s University of Guelph have developed an apparatus that can identify allergens in a much shorter time span while being considerably more cost effective. The new allergen detector could expedite allergen reporting and possibly reduce the number of allergic reactions through more timely results.

Biosensor, University of Guelph — Schematic of the biosensor for the rapid detection of food allergens. Image courtesy of BioNanoLab, University of Guelph.

Based on the ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) platform that is widely used in diagnostic labs to identify allergens, the new apparatus provides comparable accuracy. The technology has been miniaturized so that equipment is portable, about the size of an audiocassette case, and tests can be conducted on location instead of relying on a lab that may be far away.

An Allergen that Glows

In the case of peanuts, the scientists focused on a prominent allergen named Ara h 1, because it can be identified through non-radioactive fluorescence. Although there are other allergens in peanuts, they don’t share the same property by which they can be identified, as does Ara h 1.

The process requires a small amount of the suspected food to be liquefied in a suspension so that it can be injected using a filter syringe into a silicon-based plate, or chip, of microcapillaries. As the sample passes through tiny tubes of the microfluidic chip using capillary action, it travels through a beam of light from a LED source that is monitored by a specialized camera, which is also a product of the scientists’ work.

The image captures Ara h 1 protein particles that fluoresce when they come in contact with the chemical properties of the suspension. Currently, the camera records the data and sends it to a computer to be analyzed and deciphered with a result being provided within 20 minutes, compared to a conventional lab test that takes up to four hours after a sample has been received.

In a modification to provide an extremely portable system, research is underway to develop an app to enable results via a smartphone. Testing foods in the near future will be as convenient and prompt as holding the detector in one hand and a smartphone in the other so that a restaurant owner, for example, will be assured that dishes are allergen-free before being served to customers.

Imitating the Human System for Detection

To enable the allergen to fluoresce, the compound graphene oxide (GO) was utilized in combination with a bio-sensing component, known as an aptamer. The aptamer acts similarly to antibodies that identify and attach themselves to foreign and hostile elements that enter our blood system. Once a GO-aptamer mixture is attached to the allergen, the light source allows the protein particle to be detected and its image captured electronically.

By altering an aptamer’s composition to identify other allergens, such as gluten, the detector is a versatile piece of scientific equipment for identifying potentially hazardous food ingredients. The developers of the technology are confident that their discovery will change the future of identifying potentially hazardous food components. The final step in the allergen detector’s development seems to be fine tuning the detection process for certain processed foods, such as roasted peanuts, that can alter the composition of Ara H 1 making it less obvious to be identified.

May 25, 2016

FDA’s Annual Food Registry Report Finds Listeria and Allergens as Top Issues

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

Yesterday FDA released its Reportable Food Registry (RFR) and cited Listeria monocytogenes as generating the greatest number of reports (223), along with undeclared milk (27), in Year Five (from September 8, 2013–September 7, 2014).

FDA defines a reportable food as “an article of food/feed for which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, such article of food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.” The purpose of the registry is to allow FDA to track patterns of food and feed adulteration in order to help the agency focus its already limited inspection resources.

Year Five saw 909 reportable food entries, including 201 primary reports regarding safety concerns with food or animal feed and 464 subsequent reports from suppliers or recipients of food or feed that was the subject of the primary reports, and 244 amended reports. The following food safety hazards were identified within the 201 primary reports in Year Five: Drug contamination, pathogenic E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, nutrient imbalance, lead, Salmonella, undeclared allergens and undeclared sulfites. In addition, Salmonella, Listeria and undeclared allergens made up about 88% of the total primary entries for all five years of the RFR.

The report’s complete breakdown of the RFR submissions by year, along with identified commodities and hazards, is available on FDA’s website.

Specific tests

Non-Specific Tests

Factors for Using One Test Versus Another

Critical Elements for a Successful Pathogen Environmental Monitoring Program

Allergen Detection & Control

Pathogen Mitigation: Sanitary Design in Facilities and Sanitation Methods

The Threat of Gluten and Peanuts

New Tool for Food Inspectors

An Allergen that Glows

Imitating the Human System for Detection

How We Use Cookies