Tag Archives: contamination

Perdue, organic chicken sausage, recall

Perdue Recalls 2000+ Pounds of Chicken Sausage

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Perdue, organic chicken sausage, recall

How secure is your supply chain? Learn more at the Food Safety Supply Chain Conference | June 5–6, 2017Over the weekend the USDA announced a Class I Recall initiated by Perdue Foods, LLC due to potential contamination of extraneous materials. FSIS was made aware of the issue on May 5 when Perdue informed them that three consumers had complained they found plastic materials in Italian chicken sausage links. No injuries have been reported.

The Perdue Harvestland Italian Style Organic Chicken Sausages were produced on March 27, 2017 and shipped to a retail distributor in Connecticut and Maryland. Consumers are being advised to throw out the products or return them to the place of purchase.

Reduce Foodborne Illness Causing Microorganisms through a Structured Food Safety Plan

By James Cook
1 Comment

In 2011 three U.S. government agencies, the CDC, the FDA and the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) created the Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC). The development of IFSAC allowed these agencies to combine their federal food safety efforts. The initial focus was to identify those foods and prioritize pathogens that were the most important sources of foodborne illnesses.

The priority pathogens are Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes and Campylobacter. To research the most important product sources, the three agencies collaborated on the development of better data collection and developed methods for estimating the sources of foodborne illnesses. Some of this research was to evaluate whether the regulatory requirements already in effect were reducing the foodborne pathogens in a specific product matrix. The collection, sharing and use of this data is an important part of the collaboration. For example, when the FDA is in a facility for routine audit or targeted enforcement, they will generally take environmental swabs and samples of air, water and materials, as appropriate, which are then tested for the targeted pathogens. If a pathogen is found, then serotyping and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) fingerprinting is performed, and this is compared to the information in the database concerning outbreaks and illnesses. This data collection enables the agencies to more quickly react to pinpoint the source of foodborne illnesses and thereby reduce the number of foodborne illnesses.

The IFSAC strategic plan for 2017 to 2021 will enhance the collection of data. The industry must be prepared for more environmental and material sampling. Enhancement of data collection by both agencies can be seen through the FSIS notices and directives, and through the guidance information being produced by the FDA for FSMA. Some examples are the raw pork products exploratory sampling project and the FDA draft guidance for the control of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods.

Starting May 1 2017, the next phase of the raw pork products exploratory sampling project will begin. Samples will be collected and tested for Salmonella, Shiga-toxin producing E. coli (STECs), aerobic plate count and generic E. coli. In the previous phase, the FSIS analyzed 1200 samples for Salmonella for which results are published in their quarterly reports. This is part of the USDA FSIS Salmonella action plan published December 4, 2013 in an effort to establish pathogen reduction standards. In order to achieve any objective, establishing baseline data is essential in any program. Once the baseline data is established and the objective is determined, which in this situation is the Health People 2020 goal of reducing human illness from Salmonella by 25%, one can determine by assessment of the programs and data what interventions will need to take place.

The FDA has revised its draft guidance for the control of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat food, as per the requirement in 21 CFR 117 Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Foods, which is one of the seven core FSMA regulations. Ready-to-eat foods that are exposed to the environment prior to packaging and have no Listeria monocytogenes control measure that significantly reduces the pathogen’s presence, will be required to perform testing of the environment and, if necessary, testing of the raw and finished materials. Implementing this guidance document helps the suppliers of these items to cover many sections of this FSMA regulation.

The purpose of any environmental program is to verify the effectiveness of control programs such as cleaning and sanitizing, and personnel hygiene, and to identify those locations in a facility where there are issues. Corrective actions to eliminate or reduce those problems can then be implemented. Environmental programs that never find any problems are poorly designed. The FDA has stated in its guidance that finding Listeria species is expected. They also recommend that instead of sampling after cleaning and/or sanitation, the sampling program be designed to look for contamination in the worst-case scenario by sampling several hours into production, and preferably, just before clean up. The suggestion on this type of sampling is to hold and test the product being produced and to perform some validated rapid test methodology in order to determine whether or not action must be taken. If the presence of a pathogen is confirmed, it is not always necessary to dispose of a product, as some materials can be further processed to eliminate it.

With this environmental and product/material testing data collected, it is possible to perform a trends analysis. This will help to improve sanitation conditions, the performance of both programs and personnel, and identity the need for corrective actions. The main points to this program are the data collection and then the use of this data to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness. Repeated problems require intervention and resolution. Changes in programs or training may be necessary, if they are shown to be the root cause of the problem. If a specific issue is discovered to be a supply source problem, then the determination of a suppliers’ program is the appropriate avenue to resolve that issue. Generally, this will mean performing an audit of the suppliers program or reviewing the audit, not just the certificate, and establishing whether they have a structured program to reduce or eliminate these pathogens.

Continue to page 2 below.

Pages: 1 2
Zia Siddiqi, Orkin
Bug Bytes

Stored Product Pests May Be Lurking in Your Facility

By Zia Siddiqi, Ph.D.
No Comments
Zia Siddiqi, Orkin

Pests can be sneaky. Many can compromise food products without anyone realizing they’re present. This is bad news for food processing facilities where an abundance of food products can translate into high pest pressure.

Beetles and moths are two of the main offenders in this environment and are referred to as stored product pests. These creatures can cause safety and legal concerns if they find their way into products, as they are quite adept at doing. They can damage packaging and cause product contamination or alter the taste of products when they secrete chemicals from their bodies, as many do.

This is not only a concern for your business’s reputation and bottom line, but could cost you major points on your next audit. Especially under the new FSMA regulations, prevention must be the emphasis in all U.S. facilities. This represents a shift from previous regulations as the new ones require risk-based preventive controls.

Integrate pest management
Does your company have an integrated pest management plan? Image courtesy of Orkin

The best way to prevent stored product pests and adhere to FSMA regulations is by implementing an integrated pest management (IPM) program. IPM programs focus on proactively preventing pests by inspection, monitoring and eliminating conditions that attract or harbor them using tactics like exclusion and sanitation, using chemicals only as a last resort. Under FSMA, you need to identify potential roadblocks and actively work to remove them. Showing constant improvement over time is an absolute must.

These programs also call for comprehensive documentation to monitor pest issues and ensure improvements are made over time. Auditors love to see documentation, as it shows that you are consciously working to strengthen your pest management efforts with continual improvement. If your facility doesn’t have an IPM program, it’s time to make a change sooner rather than later.

To successfully prevent stored product pests, you need to understand what they are and why they are attracted to your facility.

Types of Stored Product Pests

There are many different species of stored product pests, but they can be classified by four main categories based on their biology and habits:

  1. Scavengers: Eat just about anything, even if other pests have been there first. Pests in this category include the red flour beetle and sawtoothed grain beetle.
  2. External feeders: Feed on the exterior of cereal (grain) and kernel products and work their way inside. Pests in this category include Indian meal moths and cigarette beetles.
  3. Internal feeders: Lay eggs in the grain and feed on kernels from inside. Pests in this category include granary weevils, lesser grain borers and Angoumois grain moths.
  4. Secondary feeders: Eat from the outside in and consume moldy and damp food products. Pests in this category include spider beetles and fungus beetles.

How do you know if you have stored product pests? An infestation becomes apparent when the pests can be observed crawling or flying around. At this point, it’s important to identify the specific species that is plaguing your facility, as this will dictate the appropriate treatment method.  A trained professional can help correctly identify the species and recommend the best course of action to resolve the problem. Stored product pests reproduce quickly, so it’s critical to address any infestations before they have time to multiply and contaminate additional product.

The most common stored product pests are:

  • Sawtoothed Grain Beetle. Can burrow directly through boxes and packaging, so even sealed foods are at risk. They prefer processed food products like bran, chocolate, oatmeal, sugar and macaroni.
  • Indian Meal Moths. One of the most common pests for food processing facilities, the larva feeds on a large variety of different products. Some distinctive signs of an infestation are silk webbing and frass near the surface of the product.
  • Cigarette and Drugstore Beetles. Also able to chew through packaging, these beetles prefer pet food, spices, tobacco and any packaged food.
  • Granary and Rice Weevils. Prefer whole grains or seed products like popcorn, birdseed and nuts. They are recognizable by a snout protruding from their head and their reddish-brown bodies. Grains infested by weevils will be hollow and have small holes.
  • Spider Beetles. Similar to small spiders in appearance, they prefer grains, seeds, dried fruits and meats. They often accompany a rodent infestation because they prefer grain products that are old and moist.

Prevention Tactics

To help prevent stored product pests, incorporate the following tactics as part of your IPM program:

  • Closely inspect incoming shipments and packages. Look for the signs of stored product pests, like webbing, larvae and live adult insects. Check for signs of damage, especially for holes that can be caused by boring pests. To monitor for pests entering in this way, a quality assurance sample should be placed in a closed, labeled plastic container for later observations to see if any activity is noticed. This will give you a better idea if pests are present and what types may be being introduced via the incoming shipment.
  • Use of pheromone traps. These are the best tool to monitor the pest activity. These traps can also be placed in transportation vehicles to see if the trucks have a resident stored product pest population.
  • Use temperature as a repellant. Most stored product pests cannot live in extreme temperatures. If storage rooms can be maintained at 60°F or lower, stored product pests won’t be able to establish themselves inside.
  • Practice the first-in, first-out (FIFO) approach for products. Deteriorating products are an invitation to stored product pests, so make sure that older products go first and remove any with damages. It is also best to store products off the floor and more than 18 inches from walls, as it makes it easier to clean the surrounding area.
  • Create a sanitation schedule. Keeping a facility free of food debris will go a long way in eliminating attractants for pests. Clean up product spills immediately, and vacuum and wipe down everything on a regular basis. Don’t forget the cracks and crevices!

Keep in mind that being proactive is an important part of this entire process. If you see something, say something. Resolving pest issues as quickly as possible will be beneficial in the long run, as infestations are naturally more difficult to remove and could cost your facility dearly during an audit. A pest management professional will be able to point out the hot spots around a facility and can help to ensure that proactive prevention tactics are in place before anything gets out of hand. If any products are compromised, discard them immediately.

Pest Management: A Team Effort

The stakes are high in the food processing environment, which means pest control must be a priority. The most successful pest control programs are a team effort. Form a strong partnership with your pest management provider and work closely with them throughout the year to proactively prevent pest problems. Reach out to them early and often if you suspect any issues.

It’s also important that your entire staff is aware of pest management initiatives and tactics, which is why many pest management providers offer free staff training courses upon request. Take advantage of the resources available through your provider.

Working with a pest management provider to create a customized, IPM plan will help prevent pests and in turn protect the quality of your products and your business.

Sean Crossey, arc-net
FST Soapbox

5 Problems Facing the Global Food Supply Chain

By Sean Crossey
No Comments
Sean Crossey, arc-net

The food we eat is a lot less secure than we would like to imagine. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, food fraud is estimated to be a $40 billion a year problem, with instances of fraud becoming worryingly frequent—from wood shavings discovered in our parmesan to the 2013 horsemeat scandal in the UK.1-3 Not only do these incidents damage the faith consumers have in their food, but as seen in the 2009 salmonella peanut butter outbreak, which resulted in the death of 9 Americans and sickening of 714, they can have fatal consequences.4 Indeed, the World Health Organization estimates that nearly 1 in 10 people become ill every year from eating contaminated food.5

While it may be uncomfortable to imagine our food supply can be susceptible to such high profile attacks, what is more unsettling is that our food supply chain has grown so complex that it has become almost impossible for food producers to guarantee the provenance of their products—meaning consumers can never entirely trust in the food they eat. In this article I will identify five main issues the global food supply chain faces, and what steps can be taken to address them.

Exchange knowledge about managing your supply chain at the Best Practices in Food Safety Supply Chain conference | June 5–6, 2017 | LEARN MORE1. Consumer demand for traceability

Traceability is no longer a request from consumers, but a demand, and one that is only growing stronger. A recent transparency survey found that consumers want to see everything from a complete ingredient breakdown to sourcing information, with 94% of respondents saying they are likely to be more loyal to a brand that offers complete transparency.6 While a new study discovered that more than half of Canadians are concerned about food fraud.7

If we take seafood products as an example, almost half (46%) of respondents to an independent research survey conducted by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) agreed that they trust brands that use ecolabels (a form of third-party certification) more than those that do not.8 The survey also found that 66% of respondents felt that traceability of the product was the primary factor determining seafood purchasing decisions.

This kind of consumer driven, high-quality information opens up a world of possibilities for companies that recognize the significance of its demand. Brand protection, demand forecasting and consumer loyalty all becomes possible for early adapters who show themselves to be taking practical steps to guarantee the authenticity of their products.

2. Lack of communication between actors

One of the biggest challenges preventing full traceability of our food is the fragmented nature of the supply chain. For even the most seemingly simple of food items there can be a huge number of actors involved that are spread around the globe with little to no knowledge of one another’s actions.

For instance, to trace your hamburger from farm to fork may involve tracing your lettuce back to the farm in which it was grown (but not what happens to it before it reaches your supermarkets shelves), tracing the beef back to the cattle (with no guarantee, as seen with the horsemeat scandal, that the end product is 100% beef) and any number of logistical barriers.

It is vital then that stakeholders within the chain prioritize communication with their suppliers, either through the implementation of traceability solutions, or the commitment to engage only with suppliers they know they can trust. Not only is this beneficial to the end consumer, but to the food producers themselves, allowing them to ensure that their organizational reputation remains solely their responsibility and not left in the hands of unknown and uncontrollable third parties.

3. Influence of organized crime

When one thinks of the Mafia, it’s rare that olive oil is the first thing that comes to mind. Currently, however, it is the fraudulent manufacture of this and many other Italian exports (cheese, wine, etc.) that is fueling organized crime and ending up on our shelves.9

High-scale food fraud is not a naturally occurring phenomenon but rather exists as a result of highly organized criminal activity. In his 2014 UK government report, Professor Chris Elliot notes that “food fraud becomes food crime when it no longer involves random acts by “rogues” within the food industry, but becomes an organized activity by groups that knowingly set out to deceive and or injure, those purchasing food”.10

This is not just a problem for Italy; counterfeit food and drink occurs on a massive scale throughout the whole of Europe. A joint initiative by EUROPOL and INTERPOL last year led to the largest ever seizure of fake and adulterated projects. This project, known as OPSON V resulted in 11,000 tons and 1,440,000 liters of hazardous fake food and drink seized across 57 countries.11

In order to combat the growing threat organized crime has on our food supply, it is vital that governments devote resources to organizations with the sole responsibility of identifying food crime. In response to the horsemeat scandal, the UK government launched its National Food Crime Unit within the Food Standards Agency in London, while the FDA has a special focus on food defense.

The establishment of these organizations is important, as police forces traditionally have struggled to combat food fraud, either through a lack of time, resources, or simply understanding of the complexities of how fraud affects the supply chain. The creation of specialist taskforces not only legitimizes the fight against food fraud, but allows for easier intelligence share.

4. Lack of transparency throughout the supply chain

In her work on trust for the digital age, Racheal Botsman tells us that trust has evolved from an institutional based system to a distributed system. Nowhere has this more potential than with our food supply.

In such a complex system it becomes necessary to consider how the food industry can begin to move away from traditional systems of centralized trust. As Botsman points out, “institutional trust is not designed for the digital age”, the emergence of new technologies, most notably the blockchain, highlights the potential to introduce more trust in our food.12

Originally the technology underpinning Bitcoin, the blockchain has wide ranging applications beyond the world of FinTech. Blockchain is a transformative tool in the fight against food fraud, allowing an open and transparent ledger of our food products journey. This allows unalterable trust to be introduced into an untrustworthy system, ensuring every actor in the chain records and shares their interactions with our food.

This represents a huge opportunity for those companies who see the advantage of early adoption of blockchain infused traceability systems. Indeed by 2022, Gartner estimates an innovative business built on a blockchain will be worth $10 billion.13

5. Need for strong legislation

Steps have already been made in legislation to allow for earlier prevention of food safety incidents occurring, such as FSMA. While it is important that lawmakers are proactive in their response, the focus has primarily been on food safety, and there is still a difficulty in treating food fraud as its own separate entity.

Legislation regarding food labelling could also be more stringent, especially in Europe. At present only olive oil, fish (unless it’s canned or prepared), beef (fresh, chilled, frozen or minced), fresh or frozen poultry of non-EU origin, wine, most fresh fruit and vegetables, honey and eggs are required to be labelled. This means that origin information is largely missing on foods such as meat products (e.g., ham and sausages), yogurts and cheese, kitchen staples (e.g., oil, flour, sugar and pasta), biscuits and confectionery, or ready-meals.

Tighter legislation, leading to significant punitive measures taken against actors found to be committing fraud, would be a vital catalyst in ensuring that food in our supply chain is as secure as possible.

Conclusion

The growth of the global food supply chain may bring with it complexity and challenges, but also great opportunities. If actors can interject their processes with the kind of joined up thinking outlined above, with the help of technological tools that are becoming more and more accessible, the benefits will be significant, not just for them, but for all of us.

Resources

  1. PWC. (2016). Fighting $40bn food fraud to protect food supply [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://press.pwc.com/News-releases/fighting–40bn-food-fraud-to-protect-food-supply/s/44fd6210-10f7-46c7-8431-e55983286e22
  2. Mulvany, L. (February 16, 2016). The Parmesan Cheese You Sprinkle on Your Penne Could Be Wood. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-16/the-parmesan-cheese-you-sprinkle-on-your-penne-could-be-wood
  3. Grierson, J. (August 26, 2016). Three men charged over UK horsemeat scandal. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/26/three-men-charged-over-uk-horsemeat-scandal
  4. Andrews, J. (April 16, 2016). 2009 Peanut Butter Outbreak: Three Years On, Still No Resolution for Some. Retrieved from http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/2009-peanut-butter-outbreak-three-years-on-still-no-resolution-for-some/#.WD7tE6KLTpJ
  5. World Health Organization. (2015). WHO’s first ever global estimates of foodborne diseases find children under 5 account for almost one third of deaths [Press Release] Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/foodborne-disease-estimates/en/
  6. Label Insight (2016). The 2016 Label Insight Transparency ROI Study. Retrieved from https://www.labelinsight.com/hubf /2016_Transparency_ROI_Study_Label_Insight.pdf?t=1486676060862
  7. Sagan, A. (February 21, 2017). Study finds 63 per cent of Canadians are concerned about food fraud. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/study-finds-63-per-cent-of-canadians-are-concerned-about-food-fraud/article34094664/
  8. MSC (2014). MSC Consumer Survey 2014. Retrieved from https://www.msc.org/newsroom/news/new-research-shows-increasing-appetite-for-sustainable-seafood
    Bacchi, U. (February 21, 2017). Italian police break mafia ring exporting fake olive oil to U.S. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-crime-food-idUSKBN1602BD
  9. HM Government (2015) Elliot Review into Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350726/elliot-review-final-report-july2014.pdf
    EUROPOL (2016) largest ever seizures of fake food and drink in INTERPOL-EUROPOL operation [Press Release]. Retrieved from https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/largest-ever-seizures-of-fake-food-and-drink-in-interpol-europol-operation
  10. Botsman, R. (October 20, 2015). The Changing Rules of Trust in the Digital Age. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/10/the-changing-rules-of-trust-in-the-digital-age
  11. Panetta, K. (October 18, 2016) Gartner’s Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for 2017. Retrieved from http://linkis.com/www.econotimes.com/Zk8mh
High processing pas

HPP: Achieve High Standards of Food Safety Without Compromising Food Quality

By Mark Duffy
3 Comments
High processing pas

As food companies analyze and modify their production processes to ensure FSMA compliance, many are finding that traditional food processing technologies aren’t ideally suiting their needs. Conventional pasteurization technologies like heat pasteurization have been relied on to protect the safety of the food supply over the years, but they aren’t without their downsides. For example, sometimes they negatively impact the flavor, texture, nutrients and color of food products. Additionally, many traditional food processing methods require chemical additives to be integrated to preserve quality and taste. In a market where consumers are more frequently appreciating, if not demanding, cleaner labels with simple ingredients, these solutions are often becoming less attractive options for some companies.

This new demand for a higher level of food safety combined with an emphasis on food quality has led some producers of refrigerated foods to turn to an increasingly popular alternative: High pressure processing.

How HPP Works

High pressure processing, or HPP, is an effective technique that uses pressure rather than heat or chemicals to disable pathogens in food. After packaging, food products composed of some degree of water activity (Aw) are placed into a machine that applies incredibly intense water pressure to food—sometimes as much as 87,000 psi.

High pressure processing
How high pressure processing works. Graphic courtesy of Universal Pasteurization & Universal Cold Storage

This process interrupts the cellular function of the microorganisms both on the surface and deep within the food and can serve as a critical control point (CCP) in a HACCP program. Research studies on a wide range of refrigerated food products and categories confirm that HPP technology inactivates vegetative bacteria like Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, E. coli 0157:H7, and Campylobacter as well as yeasts and molds. Additionally, because pressure is applied after the food is packaged, HPP drastically reduces any chance of recontamination.

Besides its food safety benefits, HPP offers food producers added benefits over traditional methods. Because the pressure inactivates spoilage organisms along with pathogens, many foods see a substantial increase in shelf life after undergoing HPP, sometimes even twice as long. Processors use this shelf-life extension to increase their distribution reach and reduce food waste.

In a recent survey, 57% of respondents in the food and beverage industry characterized their companies’ use of HPP as substantial or growing. Survey respondents also scored HPP’s ability to make food safer by eliminating pathogens above a 4 on a 5-point scale, one of the highest of any food processing technology.

However, HPP isn’t right for every product. It isn’t effective on some enzymes and bacterial spores, like Clostridium botulinum. Producers need to tap into other techniques to address concerns not affected by HPP. The process also requires foods to be packaged in fairly flexible packaging to allow for an even application of pressure. Glass bottles or particularly hard plastics will not be suitable.

HPP can also be daunting to implement for some companies. Purchasing an HPP machine is a major investment, typically seven-figures, without factoring in specific facility requirements or staffing needs. In the same survey of food and beverage producers, the most commonly cited concerns had nothing to do with the efficacy or value of the technology, but rather with the cost of purchasing and staffing the equipment.

For businesses that don’t want to make that kind of capital expenditure commitment but want to take advantage of high pressure processing, HPP outsourcing providers offer a more affordable solution. These companies own and operate HPP machines on behalf of clients. That way, food brands don’t have to purchase expensive HPP machines and regularly maintain their own equipment.

Is HPP right for you? The answer and the nuances are highly variable, but HPP is a fast-growing food preservation technology offering many benefits, including food safety benefits, across a broad product spectrum.

strawberries

The 2017 Dirty Dozen List Unveiled: How Contaminated Is Produce?

By Food Safety Tech Staff
1 Comment
strawberries

Every year the Environmental Working Group (EWG) releases its “Dirty Dozen”, a list of 12 produce items that contain the highest loads of pesticide residues. This year the organization analyzed tests conducted by the USDA, finding that nearly 70% of samples of 48 types of produce were contaminated with one or more pesticide residues, which remained even after the produce were washed (and peeled, in some instances). 178 pesticides and pesticide breakdown products were found on the samples that the USDA researchers analyzed.

“New federal data shows that conventionally grown spinach has more pesticide residues by weight than all other produce tested, with three-fourths of samples tested contaminated with a neurotoxic bug killer that is banned from use on food crops in Europe.” – EWG

For the following items that made this year’s list, EWG recommends always buying organic. Each food tested positive for several different pesticide residues, along with having higher concentrations of pesticides compared to other produce.

  1. Strawberries
  2. Spinach
  3. Nectarines
  4. Apples
  5. Peaches
  6. Pears
  7. Cherries
  8. Grapes
  9. Celery
  10. Tomatoes
  11. Sweet bell peppers
  12. Potatoes

EWG also released a Clean 15 list, produce that was found to have “relatively few” pesticides and a low concentration of residue.

However, there are groups that dispute EWG’s list, because the ranking of produce has been found to have a negative effect on the consumption of produce, whether conventional or organic, especially among low-income consumers. “EWG’s list has been discredited by scientists, it is not based upon risk and has now been shown to potentially discourage consumption of healthy and safe organic and conventional fruits and vegetables,” said Teresa Thorne, Executive Director of the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF) in a press release. She referred to analysis conducted by a toxicologist with the University of California’s Personal Chemical Exposure Program, which found that a child could eat excessive amounts of produce daily without any negative consequences from the pesticide residues. “For strawberries, a child could eat 181 servings or 1,448 strawberries in a day and still not have any effects from pesticide residues,” Thorne said. AFF also lists some of the regulations regarding pesticide use [http://safefruitsandveggies.com/regulations/organic] on its website.

I.M. Healthy SoyNut Butter, recall

Latest Count: 16 Ill, 8 Hospitalized in E. Coli Outbreak Linked to SoyNut Butter

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
I.M. Healthy SoyNut Butter, recall

According to the latest numbers from the CDC, 16 people have been infected with E. coli O157:H7 after reportedly consuming I.M. Healthy brand SoyNut Butter. 14 of the 16 people infected in the multi-state outbreak are younger than 18 years old; 8 people have been hospitalized, five of which developed hemolytic uremic syndrome; and no deaths have been reported.

Yesterday The SoyNut Butter Co. expanded its recall to all varieties I.M Healthy Soynut Butters and Healthy Granola products.

“Epidemiologic evidence indicates that I.M. Healthy brand SoyNut Butter is a likely source of this outbreak. I.M. Healthy brand SoyNut Butter may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 and could make people sick.” – CDC

Illnesses began on January 4, 2017 and continued to February 21, 2017. The CDC notes that it can take two to three weeks for a person to become ill, thus any illnesses that occurred after February 13 may not be reported yet. The center is advising consumers to throw out all of the recalled products and that childcare centers, schools and institutions refrain from serving these products.

Listeria

How One Company Eliminated Listeria Using Chlorine Dioxide Gas

By Kevin Lorcheim
No Comments
Listeria

The previous article discussed the various decontamination options available to eliminate Listeria. It was explained why the physical properties of gaseous chlorine dioxide make it so effective. This article focuses on one company’s use of chlorine dioxide gas decontamination for both contamination response and for preventive control.

The summer of 2015 saw multiple ice cream manufacturers affected by Listeria monocytogenes. The ice cream facility detailed in this article never had a supply outage, but ceased production for a short amount of time in order to investigate and correct their contamination. After a plant-wide review of procedures, workflows, equipment design and product testing, multiple corrective actions were put into place to eliminate Listeria from the facility and help prevent it from returning. One such corrective action was to decontaminate the production area and cold storage rooms using chlorine dioxide gas. This process took place after the rest of the corrective actions, so as to decontaminate the entire facility immediately before production was set to resume.

Responsive Decontamination

The initial decontamination was in response to the Listeria monocytogenes found at various locations throughout the facility. A food safety investigation and microbiological review took place to find the source of the contamination within the facility in order to create a corrective action plan in place. Listeria was found in a number of locations including the dairy brick flooring that ran throughout the production area. A decision was made to replace the flooring, among other equipment upgrades and procedural changes in order to provide a safer food manufacturing environment once production resumed. Once the lengthy repair and upgrade list was completed, the chlorine dioxide gas decontamination was initiated.

The facility in question was approximately 620,000 cubic feet in volume, spanning multiple rooms as well as a tank alley located on a different floor. The timeline to complete the decontamination was 2.5 days. The first half-day consisted of safety training, a plant orientation tour, a meeting with plant supervisors, and the unpacking of equipment. The second day involved the setup of all equipment, which included chlorine dioxide gas generators, air distribution blowers, and a chlorine dioxide gas concentration monitor. Gas injection tubing was run from the chlorine dioxide gas generators throughout the facility to approximately 30 locations within the production area. The injection points were selected to aid its natural gaseous distribution by placing them apart from one another. Gas sample tubing was run to various points throughout the facility in locations away from the injection locations to sample gas concentrations furthest away from injection points where concentrations would be higher. Sample locations were also placed in locations known to be positive for Listeria monocytogenes to provide a more complete record of treatment for those locations. In total, 14 sample locations were selected between plant supervisors and the decontamination team. Throughout the entire decontamination, the gas concentration monitor would be used to continuously pull samples from those locations to monitor the concentration of chlorine dioxide gas and ensure that the proper dosage is reached.

As a final means of process control, 61 biological indicators were brought to validate that the decontamination process was effective at achieving a 6-log sporicidal reduction. 60 would be placed at various challenging locations within the facility, while one would be randomly selected to act as a positive control that would not be exposed to chlorine dioxide gas. Biological indicators provide a reliable method to validate decontamination, as they are produced in a laboratory to be highly consistent and contain more than a million bacterial spores impregnated on a paper substrate and wrapped in a Tyvek pouch. Bacterial spores are considered to be the hardest microorganism to kill, so validating that the process was able to kill all million spores on the biological indicator in effect also proves the process was able to eliminate Listeria from surfaces. The biological indicators were placed at locations known to be positive for Listeria, as well as other hard-to-reach locations such as the interior of production equipment, underneath equipment and inside some piping systems.

In order to prepare the facility for decontamination, all doors, air handling systems, and penetrations into the space were sealed off to keep the gas within the production area. After a safety sweep for personnel, the decontamination was performed to eliminate Listeria from all locations within the production area.

Click page 2 to continue reading.

Pages: 1 2
Hank Lambert, Pure Bioscience

Tech Spotlight: How Chipotle Fights Norovirus

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Hank Lambert, Pure Bioscience

Watch another video: Antimicrobial Technology Mitigates Pathogen Risk Throughout the Supply ChainChipotle was plagued with several foodborne illness outbreaks in 2015. Norovirus was one of them. As part of the company’s commitment to addressing its food safety issues, it enlisted the help of technology from Pure Bioscience. In the following video, Hank Lambert, CEO of Pure Bioscience, explains how and where Chipotle is using the Pure Hard Surface technology in its establishments to mitigate the risk of norovirus.

Alert

Is Your Condensation Under Control?

By Food Safety Tech Staff
4 Comments
Alert

“Drop the Mop! Take a Clean New Look at Condensation Control in Food Processing Facilities” is available on-demand Little beads of water on overhead surfaces can cause big problems. Remember the Listeria contamination that affected Blue Bell Creameries? FDA investigators spotted condensation dripping right into food and food contact surfaces. In a response to an FDA Form 483, Blue Bell wrote “As part of our internal review, we are extensively reconfiguring lines and equipment to eliminate the potential for condensation forming on pipes above processing equipment”.

Condensation can form on overhead surfaces during sanitation processes, which poses potentially serious issues. During an upcoming webinar, “Drop the Mop! Take a Clean New Look at Condensation Control in Food Processing Facilities”, experts from the University of Nebraska, Maple Leaf Foods, General Mills, Smithfield Foods, and 3M Corporate Research Materials Laboratory will discuss tips on how to manage condensation, along with the challenges associated with condensation.