Tag Archives: best practices

By Mahni Ghorashi

Food safety professionals often work behind-the-scenes, developing the systems and processes that keep our food supply free of harm. While a vital job, it’s often thankless work—recognition only comes when there’s a recall or an outbreak.

And yet, the food safety industry is evolving rapidly. New threats are emerging, new technologies are being deployed, and new regulations are causing changes in our fundamental infrastructure. “Good enough” pathogen detection is no longer good enough. As a result of new pressures, the food safety lab is emerging as one of the most promising centers of innovation in the entire supply chain. It’s time that the people who are driving this wave of innovation and change receive the positive recognition for their work that they deserve.

That’s why we’re starting this Q&A series—to hear the success stories, the best practices, the hurdles and the achievements from the best in the industry. We will dive deep with the experts into some of the biggest challenges and opportunities our industry faces, focused particularly on new technology that is advancing the industry by leaps and bounds—from blockchain to NGS to machine learning. As this series evolves, we hope that readers will be informed and inspired by what the future holds.

For our first interview, I had the pleasure of interviewing Bob Baker, corporate food safety science and capability director at Mars, Inc.. Bob leads the corporate food safety science strategy for Mars, Incorporated and provides leadership and consultation on food safety capability development and current and future challenges impacting global food security. Prior to his current role, Bob was responsible for the design, construction and leadership of the Mars Global Food Safety Center in Beijing, China.

Mahni Ghorashi: What are the biggest risks to our food safety infrastructure in 2018? What’s keeping you up at night?

Bob Baker: Food safety risks are increasing at an unprecedented rate, with new threats and hazards constantly emerging, changes in agricultural practices and food production, and the environment. The globalization of trade means that an issue in one part of the world often impacts the global supply chain.

To ensure safer food for all, the identification and isolation of potential and developing issues needs to happen at a much faster pace. At Mars, we believe industry has a crucial role to play in helping all stakeholders in the food supply chain identify risks and solutions, but no entity can do this alone. That’s why we have advocated for a new approach to food safety, one rooted in knowledge sharing and collaboration. That’s why we launched our Global Food Safety Center (GFSC) in 2015.

GFSC is conducting original research and collaborating in a number of areas that we see as critical—mycotoxin management, rapid detection and identification of pathogens, raw material and product authenticity, operational food safety optimization and transforming food safety through data integration.

Although we see improvements in some areas, some of them are becoming more complex. Mycotoxins are a prime example of that. Food fraud is another area of growing concern, and addressing that is going to take a focus on technology, regulation and enforcement and a number of other areas to deliver transparency, to verify sourcing, and ultimately ensure that customers and consumers are purchasing and consuming safe food.

Ghorashi: What are you most excited about? What’s changing in a good way in the food safety sector?

Baker: What’s encouraging is we’re seeing is a willingness to share information. At Mars we often bring together world experts from across the globe to focus on food safety challenges. We continue to see great levels of knowledge sharing and collaboration.

There are also new tools and new technologies being developed and applied. Something we’re excited about is a trial of portable ‘in-field’ DNA sequencing technology on one of our production lines in China. This is an approach that could, with automated sampling, reduce test times.

We’re also excited about the IBM-Mars Consortium for Sequencing the Food Supply Chain—early signs have been very encouraging. This is an approach that could change the nature of food safety management, taking us from testing for a specific pathogen, to a situation where we could map the entire makeup of an environment and predict food safety issues based on changes within that environment.

Ghorashi: If you take a look at the homepage of any of the food safety trade publications, all you see is recall after recall. Are transparency and technological advancement bringing more risks to light, and are things generally trending towards improvement?

Baker: At Mars, quality is our first principle and we take it seriously—if we believe that a recall needs to be made in order to ensure the safety of our consumers then we will do it. We also share lessons from recalls across our business to ensure that we learn from every experience.

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a safe place for businesses to share such insights with each other. So although we are seeing more collaboration in the field of food safety generally, critical knowledge and experience from recalls is not being shared more broadly which may be having an impact.

Regarding the role of technological advancement, the hope is that as better tools and more advanced technology become available, it will be easier to pinpoint issues in the food supply chain much more effectively and much earlier than before which can only be a good thing.

Ghorashi: Do you see 2018 as the year when NGS technologies will find widespread adoption for food-safety testing applications? What can government and industry do to help accelerate adoption?

Baker: Next-generation sequencing has a lot of potential, but it may take time to be adopted fully.

We are very pleased to see the U.S. government continue to view food safety as a priority. The FDA and the CDC are already moving from single-cell cultures and single genes to mixed genomics and metagenomics. At Mars, we see metagenomics as the future of food safety because it may help identify sentinels of food safety and predict potential issues through microbiome shifts.

The key to the development and adoption of any successful technology is sharing knowledge so that all parties from the government, industry and NGOs can build on it. Early results from the IBM-Mars Consortium for Sequencing the Food Supply Chain have been encouraging and we are actively sharing these initial insights via publications and scientific forums.

Ghorashi: What are some new technology processes on the horizon for 2018, and where should industry and government be investing its time and resources?

Baker: Food safety challenges are increasing, and we need to collaborate and share insights if we are to ensure safe food.

One major area is informatics and how we can enable better application of data mining, more applied bioinformatics and statistics. How can key players –regulators, industry, NGOs—get together and share data? How do you better mine data to move to a predictive model? This is an area that could benefit from a more focused approach between government and industry.

Ghorashi: What is your #1 goal for the industry in 2018? Fewer recalls? New tech implementation? Better regulatory oversight?

Baker: We’d like to see progress in all of the above, and we will continue to work with a range of stakeholders to move the needle on food safety.

That said, the food safety challenges facing us all are complex and evolving. Water and environmental contaminants are areas that industry and regulators are also looking at, but all of these challenges will take time to address. It’s about capturing and ensuring visibility to the right insights and prioritizing key challenges that we can tackle together through collaboration and knowledge sharing.

June 13, 2017

Industry Experts Discuss FSMA Supply Chain Challenges

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

Last week a panel of industry authorities gathered to share their perspectives on the importance of transparency in the supply chain and the challenges that food companies experience in managing different aspects, from their suppliers to once product reaches retailers.

“Understand that food safety today has changed significantly and will continue to change. It’s a dynamic field and regulations have only accelerated,” said Jorge Hernandez, chief food safety officer at The Wholesome Company. “You need to be more proactive internally and externally.”

Moderated by John Wadie, U.S. marketing operations manager for 3M Food Safety, the other panelists were Melanie Neumann, president of Neuman Risk Services, LLC and Terry Levee, Senior Director, Giant Eagle.

The panel is being rebroadcast as a free webinar, “Challenges Seen in Implementing and Executing Supply Chain Management”, on Tuesday, June 20 at 1 pm CT. It is part two of the 3M Food Safety FSMA Webinar Series: From Rules to Tools. Register here

March 3, 2017

Three Practices for Supply Chain Management in the Food Industry

By Kevin Hill

1 Comment

While building an effective logistics strategy, the end goal of supply chain management (SCM) needs to be kept in mind (i.e., allowing each member of the supply chain to achieve efficient inventory management as well as reach its customer service goals). To this end, it’s important to share information that will help each member achieve success. This includes data relating to demand forecasts, anticipated lead times and safety stock quantities. Let’s look at SCM best practices for food manufacturing and supply, and how this information plays a role.

Effective SCM: Best Practices for the Food Industry

Here’s an overview of SCM best practices in food supply and manufacturing:

Learn more about managing your supply chain at the Best Practices in Food Safety Supply Chain conference | June 5–6, 2017 | LEARN MOREDemand Forecasts. This is generally based on demand, sales or usage patterns in the past. However, future demand can be affected by changing situations such as:

Gaining/losing customers
Increased/decreased product popularity
Introduction of new products
Short-term increase in demand through promotions, etc.

Better estimates can be achieved with an effective derived demand or a CPFR (collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment) system. This can be done through automated data collection, or by the following process:

Identifying customers who can predict future demand (i.e., what they may use or sell in the future)
Collecting demand forecasts about specific products from them
Comparing these forecasts against their actual purchases on a monthly basis
Helping them improve future predictions by sharing this data with them

Customers may overestimate demand, but you might consider offering a discount based on accurate forecasts to encourage better results. In addition, you should also consider these five elements:

Usage patterns in the past, not including CPFR data
Increasing/decreasing product popularity trends
Higher/lower seasonal usage or demand
Events/promotions in the near future
Market and industry data from sources such as management, sales, etc.

Pages: 1 2

March 13, 2015

USDA Releases Strategies to Reduce E. coli Levels at Beef Slaughterhouses

No Comments

A special Working Group has determined that a reduction in O157 could be achieved in two ways: one, by the Agency improving how FSIS inspection personnel verify plant performance of sanitary dressing procedures, and two, by improving the information available to industry on how sanitary dressing should be performed.

Reduction of E. coli O157 illnesses since the mid-1990’s has been one of the Food Safety and Inspection Service’s greatest public health successes, with illnesses having dropped by over 50 percent since 1998. While overall illnesses are down significantly, the most recently available outbreak data shows a slight increase in illnesses from this dangerous pathogen. FSIS’ Strategic Performance Working Group (SPWG) has released a six-point strategy to turn the trend back in the right direction.

The SPWG includes professionals from across FSIS, including field personnel, microbiologists, and policymakers who come together periodically to tackle serious and stubborn challenges that limit the Agency’s successful performance of its mission. The SPWG previously developed the Salmonella Action Plan, which has been the agency’s blueprint for tackling Salmonella since December 2013. Now the SPWG is also recommending a multipronged approach to address pathogenic E. coli in beef slaughterhouses.

The SPWG determined that a reduction in O157 could be achieved in two ways. First, the Agency needs to improve how FSIS inspection personnel verify plant performance of sanitary dressing procedures through better training, more correlations, and developing a standard to assess industry’s performance of sanitary dressing. Drawing on the experience of its members, the SPWG also stated that the training would be most effective if it included photographs and real-world scenarios to effectively illustrate the issues discussed in the documents.

Second, the SPWG recommended improving the information available to industry on how sanitary dressing should be performed. The SPWG said the Agency could do so by publishing a guide containing suggestions for best practices.

More detailed information about the SPWG’s findings and recommendations mentioned here can be found on the FSIS website at Strategic Performance Working Group: Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli Findings. We are confident in this approach and look forward to being able to report lower illness numbers as a result of this report and future issues that the SPWG will work to address.

This blog was originally posted on USDA.gov, by Philip Bronstein, FSIS Senior Microbiologist.

January 12, 2015

NYC Food Vendors Don’t Change Gloves Enough

No Comments

A recent study noted that 57 percent of 1,804 customer transactions observed did not involve the vendor changing gloves in between handling money and the next person’s order.

The majority of New York City mobile food vendors don’t change their gloves after exchanging money and before serving the next customer, as required by law, a new study has found.

Researchers from William Paterson University in New Jersey studied 10 food carts within 10 densely populated areas of Manhattan, a total of 100 carts. They found that 57 percent of 1,804 customer transactions observed did not involve the vendor changing gloves in between handling money and the next person’s order.

Study author Corey Basch describes the results as “eye-opening from a public health perspective” because of foodborne illness risk. “Being observant to the glove-changing behaviors of the vendors as well as overall hygiene is prudent and can reveal a great deal in a short time,” she said.

The New York City Health Code 81.13 requires that food vendors change gloves “after handling raw foods, performing tasks that do not involve food preparation or processing, handling garbage, or any other work where the gloves may have become soiled or contaminated.”

Sangita Viswanathan, Former Editor-in-Chief, FoodSafetyTech

March 20, 2014

How a Global Snack Powerhouse Follows Supply Chain Best Practices

By Sangita Viswanathan

No Comments

Known for its global brands such as Oreo, Ritz, Cadbury, Toblerone, Trident and Tang, Mondelēz International is a global snacks powerhouse, with products marketed in 165 countries.

The company, which was created in October 2012 with spin-off of Kraft Foods Group, earned net revenues of $35 billion in 2012, and is the No. 1 in biscuits, chocolate, candy and powdered beverages; and No. 2 in gum and coffee. Mondelēz also employs approximately 110,000 people and works with nearly 3000 raw material suppliers.

Against this background, the primary goal for the company is to provide Food that is Safe to Eat, described Peter Begg, Sr. Director, Global Quality Programs, Mondelēz International.

Talking about Global Supply Chain Best practices at the recent Global Food Safety Conference, Begg described that his company ensures that its consumers and customers can trust the products that they manufacture and provide by:

“Having a comprehensive Food Safety program that meets or exceeds regulatory requirements and ensures global consistency;
Benchmarking annually to ensure the robustness of our food safety program including 3rd party audits (GFSI);
Continuously evolving our global strategies on Food Safety, with goals to drive further progress; and
Leveraging Supply Chain initiatives to support the Food Safety program.”

At Mondelēz, food safety management occurs at multiple levels, said Begg: “The International Board of Directors Level reviews food safety management; the Executive Team level assesses company risk profile and management programs; food safety and quality senior management establishes food safety policy, control programs, and compliance mechanisms; business units implement company food safety policies and programs, and ensure regulatory compliance; and the Special Situations management team assesses and proactively manages issues, issues prevention, and communication of lessons learned.”

Begg stressed that “companies need to make food safety culture personal, so people don’t bypass it. Mondelēz has had 0 incidents, 0 defects and 0 losses – and this will not be possible without 100 percent employee involvement.”

He described an Integrated Quality Management Approach that focuses on systems across key factors in the supply chain: “Risk categories (covering chemical, microbiology and physical risks) are addressed along several steps (Design, Procure, Covert, Distribute, Trade and Consumer) using various quality risk prevention programs such as design safety analysis; HACCP; allergen management; supplier QA; material monitoring; continuous improvement; traceability, complaint management, process capability/ Six Sigma; warehouse controls and labeling.”

Begg described Mondelēz’ quality and food safety programs that help assess, manage, and mitigate risk:

Risk Assessment:

Supplier approval and management: determines suppliers risk profile and ability to meet MDLZ standards before use and on an ongoing basis;
Design Safety Analysis: new/changed product concepts are evaluated to design out potential physical hazards;
Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) – focused on prevention, identifies conversion risks, controls, and monitoring compliance; and
Third Party Validation – validation of key systems; Design, HACCP, Micro, Allergen, Supplier, Auditing.

Risk Management:

Auditing – risk based approach to assesses compliance to policy and execution of programs leading to corrective/ preventive actions;
Material Monitoring – incoming material testing program to verify the effectiveness of preventative programs;
Training – drives awareness of policies, programs, roles & responsibilities and enhances organizational competency;
Traceability – programs to manage and trace materials thru finished goods;
Spec Management – specification development and change management process for materials, processes, and finished goods; and
Contingency Planning for single/ sole source and regionally isolated ingredients.

Risk Mitigation:

Special Situations Management – defined company-wide process for proactive and effective management of issues minimizing potential impact to the business.

Mondelēz has made a strong commitment to the Global Food Safety Initiative. According to Begg, the company has asked its nearly 3000 raw material suppliers globally to get certified under a GFSI benchmarked standard by 2015. All internal manufacturing facilities will have a GFSI certification (FSSC 22000) by the end of 2015 as well (currently 80 percent of facilities are certified). The company is also promoting GFSI to its external partners including joint ventures and external manufacturers.

Effective SCM: Best Practices for the Food Industry

How We Use Cookies