As the enforcement of rules, regulations and inspections get underway at food production facilities, we are faced with maintaining production rates while looking for infinitesimal pathogens and cleaning to non-detectible levels. This clearly sets demand on the plant for new and creative methods to control and mitigate pathogens pre-production, during production and post production.
As this occurs, the term clean takes on new meaning: What is clean, and how clean is clean? Swab and plate counts are now critically important. What method is used at the plant, who is testing, what sampling procedure is used, and how do we use the results? As we look at the process from start to finish, we must keep several key questions in mind: What are harboring points in the process, and what are the touch-point considerations to the product? Let’s review the overall processing progression through the factory (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The progression of processing of a food product through a facility.
Now consider micro pathogen contamination to the product, as we look deeper in the process for contamination or critical control points as used in successful HACCP plans. Consider contamination and how it may travel or contact food product. It is understood through study and research of both pathogens and plant operations that contamination may be introduced to the plant by the front door, back door, pallet, product, or by a person. In many cases, each of these considerations leads to uncontrolled environments that create uncontrolled measurements throughout, which lead to cleaning procedures based on time rather than science. This is certainly not to say that creating a preventive maintenance schedule based on a calendar is a bad thing. Rather, the message is to consider a deeper look at the pathogens and how they live and replicate. From the regulatory and control measures this should be a clear message of what food-to-pathogen considerations should be taken at the plant level as well as measurement methods and acceptable levels (which is not an easy answer, as each product and environment can change this answer). A good example to consider is public schools and children. Health organizations work to help the schooling system understand what immunizations children should have based on the current health risk tolerance levels. In food production, the consideration is similar in an everchanging environment. As we see contamination levels change the methods, techniques and solutions to proper food production must account for the pathogens of concern.
Contamination, Risk tolerance, Opportunity for Growth
Contamination, risk tolerance, and opportunity for growth are the considerations when looking at a plant design or a plant modification. Modification to modernization should be a top-of-mind critical quality control measure. If there are a few things we know, it is how to produce food at high rates of speed, measure and value production rates, and delays or failures can be measured by equipment and personnel performance. In the case of quality control, we must review, comprehend, and protect process risk. From a management or non-technical viewpoint, quality control can be very difficult to understand. When discussing pathogens, our concerns are not visible to the human eye—we are beyond a dirty surface, weare looking at risk tolerance based on pathogen growth in logarithmic measurement. When combining quality control and production, the measurement control and mitigation measures complement the effort. The use of quality control is expected and should coordinate with production to ensure the product is produced at the expected quality level.
Between 1996 and 2016, sprouts have been responsible to 46 outbreaks in the United States, which has led to nearly 2500 illnesses and three deaths, according to FDA. They have presented a consistent challenge to operators, because sprouts are most often produced in conditions that are ideal for bacteria growth.
Today FDA issued a draft guidance to assist sprout operators in complying with the FSMA Produce Rule, which requires “covered sprout operations take measures to prevent the introduction of dangerous microbes into seeds or beans used for sprouting, test spent sprout irrigation water (or, in some cases, in-process sprouts) for the presence of certain pathogens, test the growing, harvesting, packing and holding environment for the presence of the Listeria species or Listeria monocytogenes, and take corrective actions when needed.”
Large sprout operators must comply with the Produce Rule (applicable provisions) by January 26. Small business must comply by January 26, 2018 and very small businesses by January 28, 2019.
Attend the Food Safety Supply Chain Conference, June 5–6, 2017 in Rockville, MD | LEARN MOREThe global complexity of the food supply chain is only increasing the amount of adverse issues that can occur. In an effort to help the industry mitigate the various risk factors and reduce the incidence of food scares, researchers from UK-based University of Surrey have developed a new system for classifying these “food scares” across the food chain. In a recent report, Food scares: a comprehensive categorization, published in the British Food Journal, a food scare is defined as “the response to a food incident (real or perceived) that causes a sudden disruption to the food supply chain and to food consumption patterns.” The term also takes into consideration consumer distrust in the food supply chain.
Sponsored Content: How to Have a Strong Supplier Approval Program
Having a properly managed supplier program can help to ensure quality is met, while also reducing supplier risk. One key component to having an outstanding supplier program, however, is having a well-built and well-maintained supplier approval process. Download this eBook to learn how you can have a strong supplier approval program.
“With food scares becoming more frequent, it is important that we have a categorization system which enables efficient development of strategies to tackle such compromises to our food supply,” said report co-author Professor Angela Druckman from the University of Surrey in a press release.
“A food scare is the response to a food incident (real or perceived) that causes a sudden disruption to the food supply chain and to food consumption patterns.”
The researchers created a diagram (see Figure 1) that categorizes food scares by physical indicators such as chemical, physical or biological contamination and origin such as intentional deception, transparency and awareness issues.
Figure 1. Categorization of food scare diagram. Courtesy of the University of Surrey
The authors note the importance of identifying the cause of contamination (as seen in the diagram), as the “method through which contamination occurs is key in devising food scare prevention strategies.”
Earlier this week ConAgra Grocery Products, LLC, a subsidiary of ConAgra Foods, Inc., was sentenced to pay $11.2 million after pleading guilty to a criminal misdemeanor charge related to shipping peanut butter contaminated with Salmonella. The $8 million criminal fine and forfeiture of $3.2 million in assets is the largest fine ever paid in a food safety case, according to the Department of Justice.
“This case demonstrates companies – both large and small – must be vigilant about food safety,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division in a release. “We rely every day on food processors and handlers to meet the high standards required to keep our food free of harmful contamination.”
WATCH THE VIDEO: Stephen Ostroff, M.D., FDA deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine discussed the agency’s take on criminal liability at the 2016 Food Safety Consortium
ConAgra admitted that it introduced contaminated Peter Pan and private label peanut butter into interstate commerce (produced and shipped from the company’s facility in Sylvester, Georgia) during an outbreak of Salmonellosis in 2006. The company also admitted that it had been previously aware of the risk of Salmonella contamination in peanut butter dating back to 2004. Among the culprits of the contamination (as identified by company employees) were an old peanut roaster that did not uniformly heat the raw peanuts, a sugar silo damaged by a storm, and a leaky roof that permitted moisture to enter the facility, followed by airflow that may have pushed the contamination throughout the plant.
The company tried to address some of the issues, but the DOJ stated that ConAgra did not fully correct the situation until after the 2006–2007 outbreak. “While ConAgra did take corrective action eventually, by failing to timely recognize and rectify the problem of salmonella contamination, this company damaged the health of both public consumers and of the agricultural industry overall. I commend my staff, that of the Consumer Protection Branch of the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the investigators of the FDA, for the excellent work by all in bringing this incident to this conclusion and I hope that it will serve as a reminder to others in the industry of the high cost of failing to protect the public that relies on them to properly meet this responsibility.”
Consumers think they’re more likely to get a foodborne illness from food they consume at a restaurant versus food they prepare at home, and they’re also more worried about contamination of raw chicken or beef than contaminated raw vegetables. These and other findings were part of an annual survey, conducted by FDA in partnership with FSIS and USDA, to assess and track consumers’ understanding of food safety handling techniques, along with their feelings and behaviors surrounding food safety. The findings can help the FDA determine its education efforts to help improve consumer food safety behaviors.
Nearly 4200 Americans participated in the survey between October 6, 2015 and January 17, 2016. The questions measured food safety behaviors such as handwashing and washing cutting boards; preparing and consuming risk foods; and food thermometer use. Highlighted findings among respondents include:
Rates of consumers owning food thermometers remains constant, but usage has increased for roasts, chicken parts and hamburgers over the past 10 years.
Handwashing rates remain constant or decreased between 2010 and 2016.
New finding: Only 35% of consumers wash their hands after touching handheld phones or tablets while preparing food.
67% wash raw chicken parts before cooking; 68% wash whole chicken or turkeys before cooking. “This practice is not recommended by food safety experts since washing will not destroy pathogens and may increase the risk of contaminating other foods and surfaces,” according to FDA.
65% of respondents had not heard of mechanically tenderized beef (Labeling required as of May 2016).
Recalls are an inevitable reality of working in the food industry. Indeed, hardly a day goes by without one food company or another announcing a recall. According to the USDA, 150 food products were recalled in 2015. From large national brands like Tyson Foods and McCormick to smaller local manufacturers, no food company is immune from recalls.
Recovering from the sometimes devastatingly expensive recall process can be difficult, so it’s obviously best to avoid problems whenever possible. Understanding the top three reasons for food recalls is the first step toward greatly reducing how frequently they affect your food company.
1. Cross Contamination
Many food manufacturers process multiple products in a single factory. This can lead to cross-contamination issues involving foods to which people are commonly allergic, namely milk, wheat, soy and peanuts. Because cross contamination is sometimes unavoidable, manufacturers are permitted to sell cross-contaminated food, provided the potential contaminants are declared as allergens on the label. According to the USDA’s report, undeclared allergens accounted for 58 of the 150 food recalls in 2015, and milk has been identified as the number one offender.
How to Prevent Cross Contamination. Food is often contaminated because machinery isn’t properly cleaned between uses. Therefore, the most effective way to prevent it is to thoroughly clean equipment after processing food that contains common allergens. Visually inspecting the equipment following cleaning is important, but unseen residue can linger.
To overcome this, in-plant allergen testing of equipment, post cleaning, is recommended. Some tests utilize quick, non-allergen-specific colorimetric tests to identify sugars, proteins and other indicators that an allergen is present. More expensive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits are more sophisticated and may be a better choice if cross contamination plagues your food manufacturing plant.
Other tips to prevent a recall caused by allergen contamination include:
Establishing spill-cleanup protocols
Training personnel on allergen management
Designing equipment with sanitary principles in mind, including self-draining equipment, smooth edges and rounded corners
Carefully inspecting product labels for accuracy
2. Pathogens
Recalls from pathogen-contaminated products are highly damaging because they affect all consumers, not just those with specific allergies. Listeria, E. coli and Salmonella are the most common—resulting in a combined 17 food recalls in 2015, according to the USDA’s report. Several foods have been identified as being most at risk for carrying these pathogens:
Deli meats, soft cheeses and other foods that usually aren’t cooked
Poultry, eggs, undercooked beef, and unpasteurized milk or juice
Raw fruits and vegetables
Raw or undercooked shellfish
Home-canned foods with low-acid content — including asparagus, corn, green beans and beets
How to Prevent Pathogens. As with avoiding cross contamination, the best way to prevent a pathogen outbreak is to implement hygienic manufacturing practices. Four specific techniques apply here:
Separate raw products from cooked/ready-to-eat products. Your efforts should even go as far as separating employees who work in each area. They should use divided washing facilities, locker rooms and cafeterias.
Control the temperature and moisture level to reduce bacteria and mold growth. Anywhere condensation forms or moisture is left to pool, micro-organisms can potentially grow and create a contamination issue. Ventilation and air conditioning can help tremendously with this, as can air dryers used to sap moisture from steamy air.
Implement pest-control techniques. Rats, flies and cockroaches are significant carriers of Listeria, Salmonella, Vibrio cholera and other bacteria. Effective pest-control techniques include disposing of garbage properly, sealing pest entry points, and using air curtains and screens to keep flies out.
Choose durable, easily cleanable equipment for your manufacturing plant and wash all surfaces regularly. Mold and bacteria can start growing within a matter of hours, so keeping surfaces clean is essential. Proper hygiene among plant personnel is critical as well.
3. Physical Contamination
When non-food items are found in food products, a recall is inevitable. Metal, plastic, wood and even insect body parts are examples of physical contaminants. Food is also considered physically contaminated if it’s chemically or biologically tainted. According to a Food Standards Agency report, of the 107 physical contamination incidents in 2012, the most common malefactors were metal (37), pests (23) and plastic/glass (10 each).
How to Prevent Physical Contamination. Foreign objects often enter food products when malfunctioning equipment or human error breaks down the production process. Safeguards such as X-ray scanning, metal detection and filtration/sieving processes help catch foreign objects before they’re shipped, but these aren’t foolproof methods. You should also only work with trustworthy suppliers and take the time to examine raw materials before using them.
The general public expects food manufacturers to produce safe, untainted food. By following these tips, you help uphold your brand and avoid the expensive, reputation-damaging effects of food recalls.
The 2016 Food Safety Consortium features a Listeria Detection & Control Workshop | Don’t miss this event two day event, December 7–8 in Schaumburg, IL | LEARN MOREOver the past few days there have been at least four recalls over Listeria concerns in ice cream products. On Monday, Blue Bell Ice Cream voluntarily recalled all of the products made with a cookie dough ingredient from one of its suppliers, Aspen Hills. “Although our products in the marketplace have passed our test and hold program, which requires that finished product samples from a batch test negative for Listeria monocytogenes before the batch can be released, Blue Bell is initiating this recall out of an abundance of caution,” according to a release on FDA’s website. Other recalls include:
Food production facilities are facing greater scrutiny from both the public and the government to provide safe foods. FSMA is being rolled out now, with new regulations in place for large corporations, and compliance deadlines for small businesses coming up quickly. Coverage of food recalls is growing in the era of social media. Large fines and legal prosecution for food safety issues is becoming more commonplace. Improved detection methods are finding more organisms than ever before. Technologies such as pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) can be used to track organisms back to their source. PFGE essentially codes the DNA fingerprint of an organism. Using this technology, bacterial isolates can be recovered and compared between sick people, contaminated food, and the places where food is produced. Using the national laboratory network PulseNet, foodborne illness cases can be tracked back to the production facility or field where the contamination originated. With these newer technologies, it has been shown that some pathogens keep “coming back” to cause new outbreaks. In reality, it’s not that the same strain of microorganism came back, it’s that it was never fully eradicated from the facility in the first place. Advances in environmental monitoring and microbial sampling have brought to light the shortcomings of sanitation methods being used within the food industry. In order to keep up with the advances in environmental monitoring, sanitation programs must also evolve to mitigate the increased liability that FSMA is creating for food manufacturers.
Paul Lorcheim of ClorDiSys Solutions will be speaking on a panel of Listeria Detection & Control during the 2016 Food Safety Consortium, December 8 | LEARN MOREPersistent Bacteria
Bacteria and other microorganisms are able to survive long periods of time and become reintroduced to production facilities in a variety of ways. Sometimes construction or renovation within the facility causes contamination. In 2008, Malt-O-Meal recalled its unsweetened Puffed Rice and Puffed Wheat cereals after finding Salmonella Agona during routine testing of its production plant. Further testing confirmed that the Salmonella Agona found had the same PFGE pattern as an outbreak originating from the same facility 10 years earlier in 1998. This dormant period is one of the longest witnessed within the food industry. The Salmonella was found to be originating from the cement floor, which had been sealed over rather than fully eliminated. This strategy worked well until the contamination was forgotten and a renovation project required drilling into the floor. The construction agitated and released the pathogen back into the production area and eventually contaminated the cereal product. While accidental, the new food safety landscape looks to treat such recurring contaminations with harsher penalties.
One of the most discussed and documented cases of recurring contamination involves ConAgra’s Peter Pan peanut butter brand. In 2006 and 2007, batches of Peter Pan peanut butter produced in Sylvester, GA were contaminated with Salmonella and shipped out and sold to consumers nationwide. The resulting outbreak caused more than 700 reported cases of Salmonellosis with many more going unreported. Microbial sampling determined that the 2006 contamination resulted from the same strain of Salmonella Tennessee that was found in the plant and its finished product in 2004. While possible sources of the contamination were identified in 2004, the corrective actions were not all completed before the 2006–2007 outbreak occurred. Because of the circumstances surrounding the incomplete corrective actions, ConAgra was held liable for the contamination and outbreak. A settlement was reached in 2015, resulting in a guilty plea to charges of “the introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated food” and a $11.2 million penalty. The penalty included an $8 million criminal fine, which was the largest ever paid in a food safety case. While the problems at the Sylvester plant were more than just insufficient contamination control, the inability to fully eliminate Salmonella Tennessee from the facility after the 2004 outbreak directly led to the problems encountered in 2006 and beyond.
Many times, bacteria are able to survive simply because of limitations of the cleaning method utilized by the sanitation program. In order for any sanitation/decontamination method to work, every organism must be contacted by the chemical/agent, for the proper amount of time and at the correct concentration by an agent effective against that organism. Achieving those requirements is difficult for some sanitation methods and impossible for others. Common sanitation methods include steam, isopropyl alcohol, quaternary ammonium compounds, peracetic acids, bleach and ozone, all of which have a limited ability to reach all surfaces within a space, and some are incapable of killing all microorganisms.
Figure 1. Bacteria in a 10-micron wide scratch.
Liquids, fogs and mists all have difficulty achieving an even distribution throughout the area, with surfaces closer or easier to reach (i.e., the top or front of an item), receiving a higher dosage than surfaces further away or in hard-to-reach areas. Such hard-to-reach areas for common sanitation methods include the bottom, back or insides of items and equipment that don’t receive a “direct hit” from the decontaminant. Liquids, fogs and mists land on and stick to surfaces, which makes it harder for them to reach locations outside the line of sight from where they are injected or sprayed. Hard-to-reach areas also include ceilings, the tops of overhead piping lines, HVAC vents, cooling coils and other surfaces that are located at greater heights than the liquids, fogs and mists can reach due to gravitational effects on the heavy liquid and vapor molecules.
Another common but extreme hard-to-reach area includes any cracks and crevices within a facility. Although crevices are to be avoided within production facilities (and should be repaired if found), it is impossible to guarantee that there are no cracks or crevices within the production area at all. Liquid disinfectants and sterilant methods deal with surface tension, which prevents them from reaching deep into cracks. Vapor, mist and fog particles tend to clump together due to strong hydrogen bonding between molecules, which often leave them too large to fit into crevices. Figure 1 shows bacteria found in a scratch in a stainless steel surface after it had been wiped down with a liquid sterilant. The liquid sterilant was unable to reach into the scratch and kill/remove the bacteria. The bacteria were protected by the crevice created by the scratch, giving them a safe harbor location where they could replicate and potentially exit in the future to contaminate product itself.
Figure 2. Processing machinery
Processing equipment and machinery in general contain many hard-to-reach areas, which challenge the routine cleaning process. In sanitation, “hard to reach” is synonymous with “hard to clean”. Figure 2 shows processing equipment from an ice cream manufacturing facility. Processing equipment cannot be manufactured to eliminate all hard-to-clean areas. As such, even with all the sanitary design considerations possible, it is impossible to have equipment that does not contain any hard-to-clean areas. While sanitary design is essential, additional steps must be taken to further reduce the possibility of contamination and the risk that comes along with it. This means that in order to improve one’s contamination control and risk management programs, improvements must also be made to the sanitation program and the methods of cleaning and decontamination used.
Chlorine Dioxide Gas
Food safety attorney Shawn K. Stevens recently wrote that “given the risk created by the FDA’s war on pathogens, food companies should invest in technologies to better control pathogens in the food processing environments.”1 One method that is able to overcome the inherent difficulties of reaching all pathogens within a food processing environment is chlorine dioxide gas (ClO2 gas). ClO2 gas is a proven sterilant capable of eliminating all viruses, bacteria, fungi, and spores. As a true gas, ClO2 gas follows the natural gas laws, which state that it fills the space it is contained within evenly and completely. The chlorine dioxide molecule is smaller than the smallest viruses and bacteria. Combined, this means that ClO2 gas is able to contact all surfaces within a space and penetrate into cracks further than pathogens can, allowing for the complete decontamination of all microorganisms with the space. It also does not leave residues, making it safe for the treatment of food contact surfaces. It has been used to decontaminate a growing number of food facilities for both contamination response and contamination prevention in order to ensure sterility after renovations, equipment installations and routine plant shutdowns.
Conclusion
“If food companies do not take extraordinary measures to identify Lm in their facilities, perform a comprehensive investigation to find the root cause or source, and then destroy and eliminate it completely, the pathogen will likely persist and, over time, intermittently contaminate their finished products,” wrote Stevens.1 Environmental monitoring and sampling programs have been improved in terms of both technology and technique to better achieve the goal of identifying Lm or other pathogens within a food production environment. The FDA will be aggressive in its environmental monitoring and sampling under the food safety guidelines required by FSMA. Food production facilities will be closely monitored and tracked using PulseNet, with contaminated product being traced back to their source. Recurring contamination by a persistent pathogen will be viewed more severely. While there are many reasons that pathogens can persist within a food manufacturing environment, insufficient cleaning and decontamination is the most common. Traditional cleaning methods are incapable of reaching all surfaces and crevices within a space. In order to eliminate the risk of pathogens re-contaminating a facility, the pathogens need to be fully eliminated from their source and harbor locations. ClO2 gas is a method capable of delivering guaranteed elimination of all pathogens to maintain a pathogen-free environment. With the new era of food safety upon us, ensuring a clean food production environment is more important than ever, and ClO2 gas is uniquely situated to help reduce the risk and liability provided by both the government and the public.
In the summer of 2015, multiple ice cream manufacturers were affected by Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Part two of this article will detail one such company that utilized ClO2 gas to eliminate Listeria from its facility.
Companies are under more pressure to analyze food samples for pathogens, but not all of them have the expertise to handle the complexity involved in laboratory analysis. In addition, companies don’t want to risk contamination throughout their facility. As a result, many are outsourcing these services to contract labs.
Strategic Consulting, Inc. recently conducted a study of food processors and the trends in outsourcing their laboratory testing work to food contract laboratories. The firm spoke with 100 food processors nationwide in 15 food processing categories, including protein, dairy, vegetables and packaged foods, inquiring about the types of samples they collect, how many are collected on a daily and monthly basis, their target analytes, and where they have the analysis performed (an in-plant lab, central company lab or an outsourced food contract laboratory); the firm also spoke with folks at leading food companies and a number of large food contract labs.
Bob Ferguson, managing director at Strategic Consulting, shared his insights with Food Safety Tech about the survey, the details of which will be presented at the Food Safety Consortium in December.
Food Safety Tech: What were some of the major findings?
Bob Ferguson: Food processors continue to outsource more and more of their lab analysis. This is a trend that we outlined in our Food-8 market report in 2014, and it is clearly continuing and growing. The impact is particularly acute in microbiology testing, especially when analysis is for pathogens. Of the companies we surveyed, 87% did some amount of routine microbiology testing and 67% of those analyzed the samples at an in-house lab. But when asked about pathogens, 77% of the companies analyze samples for pathogens but only 34% analyze the samples at an in-house lab. Clearly there is a higher level of concern in handling pathogens at in-house labs.
Food Safety Tech: What are the processors’ concerns regarding pathogens?
Ferguson: I would say that their concerns fall into two major categories: Technical and operational. From a technical perspective, there is always a risk when working with pathogens in a food processing facility. Microbiologists understand how easily bacteria can travel through a facility—being carried on employees, their clothing, or equipment, through air currents, or even through penetration connections such as drains. And most diagnostic tests not only require handling pathogen samples but also enriching the samples prior to analysis. The presence of food samples with high concentrations of pathogens can present a risk for the spread of contamination into production areas.
From an operational standpoint, running a food analysis lab is becoming increasingly more complex. Analytical methods continue to get more sensitive and sophisticated, and this requires more expertise and a greater focus on instrument service and calibrations. Requirements for accreditation of food testing laboratories are also raising the bar for in-plant labs. Finally, running a food lab requires recruiting and hiring skilled analysts. More food processors are coming to the conclusion that none of these functions are part of their core competencies and are electing to outsource that work to a contract lab.
Robert Ferguson, managing director, Strategic Consulting, Inc., will discuss the results of the survey at the 2016 Food Safety Consortium in December | LEARN MORE
Food Safety Tech: What does this mean for food contract labs?
Ferguson: This could become a significant business growth opportunity for food contract laboratories. As we indicated in our Food Contract Laboratory market report, microbiology is one of the largest business areas for most food contract laboratories, comprising, on average, approximately 52% of lab revenues and growing on average at 12% annually. The average lab also reports pathogen testing growth at more than 13%. This is remarkable in that the overall growth in sample volume is only growing 6%, so labs are clearly gaining a greater share of samples.
Food Safety Tech: Is this good news for the food contract laboratory companies?
Ferguson: Well, I would say that this will dramatically change the nature of competition and will be good news for some lab companies, namely those who can best adapt to the changing market conditions, but certainly not all. Our analysis shows, for example, that about 70% of pathogen samples outsourced are sent to a lab within 100 miles of the food processing facility. This bodes well for labs with a robust national network of locations. Single-location or limited-location labs may have trouble competing and will be acquired or otherwise may not survive. Also, as more samples get outsourced, the most efficient laboratories will have a competitive advantage. Our data also shows that outsourcing does not occur uniformly across all types and sizes of food processing companies, and laboratories may be at more or less risk depending on their customer mix or concentration in a particular food processing segment. Food contract laboratories that understand these factors will be in a better position to compete and thrive as the market changes.
Using electronic retail scanner data from grocery stores, IBM Research scientists may have found a faster way to narrow down the potential source food contamination during an outbreak. Researchers from the firm conducted a study in which they were able to show that, using just 10 medical exam reports of foodborne illness, it is possible to pinpoint an investigation to 12 food products of interest in a only a few hours. A typically investigation ranges from weeks to months.
The study, “From Farm to Fork: How Spatial-Temporal Data can Accelerate Foodborne Illness Investigation in a Global Food Supply Chain”, demonstrated a new way to accelerate an outbreak investigation. Researchers reviewed the spatio-temporal data (i.e., geographic location and potential time of consumption) of hundreds of grocery products, and analyzed each product for shelf life, consumption location and the probability that the product harbored a pathogen. This information was then mapped to the known location of outbreaks.
“When there’s an outbreak of foodborne illness, the biggest challenge facing public health officials is the speed at which they can identify the contaminated food source and alert the public,” said Kun Hu, public health research scientist, IBM Research – Almaden in a press release. Rsearchers created a system to devise a list that ranked products based on likelihood of contamination, which would allow health officials to test the top 12 suspected foods. “While traditional methods like interviews and surveys are still necessary, analyzing big data from retail grocery scanners can significantly narrow down the list of contaminants in hours for further lab testing. Our study shows that big data and analytics can profoundly reduce investigation time and human error and have a huge impact on public health,” said Hu.
The researchers point of out their method isn’t a substitute for proven outbreak investigation tools but rather serves as a faster way to identify contaminated product(s). According to the study, researchers assert that their methodology could significantly reduce the costs associated with foodborne illness, outbreaks and recalls. Thus far IBM Research’s approach has been applied to a Norweigan E. coli outbreak in which there were 17 confirmed cases of infection. Public health officials used the method to devise a list of 10 potential contaminants from the grocery scanner data of more than 2600 products. From there, lab analysis traced the contamination source to batch and lot numbers of sausage.
The study was published in the Association for Computing Machinery’s Sigspatial Journal.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.
