Tag Archives: detection

baby

Keeping Baby Food Safe: Sensitive Pesticide Residue Quantitation Beyond Maximum Residue Levels Using GC-MS/MS

By Paul Silcock
No Comments
baby

There are more than 1000 different pesticides in use around the world. While these chemicals are designed to target insects, weeds and other pests, residual amounts can remain on food that is subsequently eaten by consumers. The effects of pesticides on the population can be acute or chronic depending on the exposure. Acute over-exposure can cause poisoning and result in long-term effects such as cancer or reproductive issues. Chronic, lower dose exposure to pesticides has been associated with health issues such as respiratory problems, skin conditions, depression, birth defects, cancer and neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.

People who face the greatest risk for adverse health outcomes from pesticide exposure are those in agricultural roles, who are more likely to come into direct contact with these chemicals. However, developing fetuses, infants and children, as well as pregnant and nursing mothers and women of childbearing age are at increased risk of experiencing negative health effects due to the presence of unsafe levels of pesticides in food. Exposure throughout a child’s development¬–including in the womb, infancy, early childhood, and puberty–can be particularly dangerous, affecting hormone regulation and brain development.

To minimize adverse health effects, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Union (EU) impose strict regulations on the amount of pesticides that can be applied to a crop, in order to limit the residue exposure downstream. Pesticides are assigned maximum residue levels (MRLs) depending on their toxicity, with the majority typically set at 10 µg/kg. However, due to the greater risk of certain compounds affecting the healthy development of infants and young children, some pesticides are controlled further: For instance, in the EU, specific pesticides are restricted in baby foods with MRLs of between 3–8 µg/kg.

Triple Quadrupole GC-MS/MS: Meeting the Needs of Pesticide Analysis

In order to test foods for pesticide residues at these very low levels, food safety laboratories require sophisticated analyte detection technologies. Gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) is a powerful analytical technique that offers the sensitivity and selectivity required to detect and identify pesticide residues at levels that often go beyond those mandated by regulatory authorities, even in complex sample matrices such as baby food. Indeed, GC-MS/MS can detect multiple residues within samples at levels as low as 0.025 µg/kg, much lower than the MRLs of regulated pesticides.

The sensitivity of the latest triple quadrupole GC-MS/MS systems is enabling levels of detection so low that many food testing laboratories have been able to adopt more efficient and universally-applicable sample preparation procedures based on QuEChERS (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged and Safe) methods. Combining these modern GC-MS/MS systems with QuEChERS sample preparation techniques allows food samples to be analyzed directly, significantly reducing workflow complexity. Furthermore, the specificity of triple quadrupole GC-MS/MS can easily compensate for the additional matrix components or residual acetonitrile carried over from sample preparation.

EU SANTE Criteria for Pesticide Residue Quantitation

When it comes to the detection of pesticides in baby foods, workflows must comply with rigorous quality control and method validation standards. The EU SANTE/11813/2017 criteria outline three specific requirements that pesticide residue analysis methods must satisfy to achieve compliance.

Firstly, a minimum of two product ions must be detected for each pesticide with a peak signal-to-noise ratio greater than 3 (or in case noise is absent, a signal must be present in at least five subsequent scans), and the mass resolution for precursor ion isolation must be equal to or better than unit mass resolution. Secondly, the retention time of an analyte within a sample must not differ by more than 0.1 minutes compared with standards in the same sequence. Finally, the relative ion ratio for each analyte must remain within 30% of the average of calibration standards from the same sequence.

Fortunately, modern triple quadrupole GC-MS/MS systems are ensuring food safety testing laboratories comply with these criteria. In terms of peak detection and resolution, the specificities achieved using the latest triple quadrupole instruments meet or exceed the EU SANTE requirements by providing consistent data points regardless of sample preparation approach or matrix type. Precise detection at the ultra-low concentrations required for pesticide residue quantitation is routinely achieved using modern triple quadrupole GC-MS/MS systems, with analyses offering qualitative identification of each analyte among a large group of residues. Furthermore, the latest systems deliver stable ion ratios that are well within the required 30% range at the default 10 µg/kg MRL across multiple injections.

Ultra-low-level Quantification of Pesticides Using Triple Quadrupole GC-MS/MS

In a recent study that put the capabilities of the latest triple quadrupole GC-MS/MS systems to the test, samples of baby food (carrot/potato and apple/pear/banana) spiked with a mixture of more than 200 pesticides at three concentrations (1.0, 2.5 and 10.0 μg/kg) were analyzed using the Thermo Scientific TSQ 9000 triple quadrupole GC-MS/MS system fitted with an Advanced Electron Ionization (AEI) source. Prior to injection into the instrument, the homogenized spiked samples were prepared for analysis using a QuEChERS method that included an acetonitrile extraction step, a clean-up step involving primary secondary amine (PSA) and dispersive solid phase extraction (dSPE), followed by acidification with 5% formic acid in acetonitrile.

The triple quadrupole GC-MS/MS system met all SANTE criteria at the three spiking concentrations in both food matrices. More than 97% of the target pesticide residues in the 1 μg/kg spiked sample had recoveries in the range of 70%–120%, highlighting the broad applicability of the method. The recoveries of the target pesticides from the apple/pear/banana sample spiked at 10 μg/kg are shown in Figure 1.

GC-MS/MS system, pesticide residue analysis
Figure 1. Recovery and precision data for apple/pear/banana extractions (n=6) at a concentration of 10 μg/kg, obtained using TSQ 9000 triple quadrupole GC-MS/MS system fitted with an advanced electron ionization (AEI) source.
GC-MS/MS system
(Figure 1 continued)

Triple Quadrupole GC-MS/MS: Supporting Exceptional Limits of Detection

To determine the limits of detection of the system, baby food samples prepared by the previously-described QuEChERS method were spiked with the same mixture of pesticides at 14 concentrations ranging from 0.025 to 250 μg/kg. Using the triple quadrupole GC-MS/MS system, the SANTE criteria were met for all of the pesticides targeted at the default MRL of 10 μg/kg. Additionally, more than 90% of the target compounds had a limit of identification (LOI) satisfying all SANTE requirements below 0.5 µg/kg, and more than 60% of the target residues met these criteria below 0.1 µg/kg (Figure 2).

Pesticide residue analysis
Figure 2. Number of target residues satisfying the EU SANTE requirements (carrot/potato sample matrix). IDL, instrumental detection limit; LOI, limit of identification.

Instrumental detection limits (IDLs) were also determined for each pesticide residue by performing 10 replicate injections of the lowest matrix-matched standard of carrot/potato that met all SANTE criteria. IDLs were then evaluated using one-tailed student t-tests, taking into account the concentration and absolute peak area %RSD for each compound. The evaluated IDLs ranged from approximately 5 fg (for chlorobenzilate) to 2.0 pg (for bioallethrin), with over 95% of the residues exhibiting an IDL of less than 500 fg on the column (equivalent to 0.5 µg/kg in each sample extract). These results highlight the exceptional performance of the system, offering quantitative analysis of more than 200 pesticides over up to five orders of magnitude.

Conclusion

Enforcing regulations on the amounts and types of pesticides used is essential to limit our exposure to safe levels. The latest GC-MS/MS systems are capable of detecting and identifying pesticide residues at levels far beyond those required under regulatory standards, helping food testing laboratories efficiently ensure the food our children eat is always safe to consume.

Chelle Hartzer, Orkin
Bug Bytes

Stored Product Insects Are Costly Consumers

By Chelle Hartzer
No Comments
Chelle Hartzer, Orkin

How much can pest issues cost? The truth is, it changes based on the pest, the size of the population and the prevalence throughout your food processing facility and products. If you want to protect your bottom line, you need to know which pests are the biggest threat and take steps to prevent them. Let’s focus on one major threat to food processing facilities: Stored product insects.

Believed by some pest control providers to be the costliest pests for food manufacturing and processing businesses, stored product insects can put a huge dent in your profits. What’s worse, these pests can be tough to discover by an untrained eye, and they’re incredibly difficult to control without the help of a pest management professional.

According to the USDA and the University of Wisconsin, “stored product pests can damage, contaminate, or consume as much as 10% of the total food produced in the U.S. alone, while in developing countries that rate has been estimated at 50% or more.”

That’s an astronomical figure for such small insects! Can you imagine the impact on your bottom line if 10% of your product was ruined?

For any business in need of an updated prevention plan, the first step is to review the current integrated pest management (IPM) program to ensure a proactive approach has been implemented to monitor for, and react quickly to, any pest issues around the facility. There’s no one-size-fits-all strategy for an IPM program; each program should be customized to meet the needs of the individual business. Different geography, construction and food products being produced can all create different pest pressures.

According to another study conducted by CEBR on the impact of pests on the global food supply, disruptions caused by pest infestations resulted in $9.6 billion in operating costs in the countries surveyed and 84% of U.S. businesses reported a net impact on revenue due to pest infestation across a five-year period. Diving deeper, 28% of food manufacturers and processors reported pest-related costs associated with contamination of raw materials leading to replacement costs.

In other words, having stored product insects around is expensive. If there were ever any doubts about the value of a proactive IPM program, these statistics prove it. So, let’s take a closer look at how you can work to protect your business against stored product insect—some of the most likely and costly invaders.

Types of Stored Product Insects

The term stored product insect covers a range of insect species that can be broken up into three main subcategories: External feeders, internal developers and secondary feeders. Each category has its own distinct characteristics, which are important to know for detection and proper identification.

External Feeders

This group develops on the outside of products, including damaged grains and processed foods. As they feed, they damage product and leave behind frass (insect droppings) as they make their way through.

Some of the most common external feeders include Indian meal moths and flour beetles.

Adult Indian meal moths are roughly 9 mm long and have a wingspan of 14–20 mm. The front wings on the adults are bicolored, with two main tones: Reddish-brown at the wing tip and silver-grey at the base. If you don’t see the pest itself, you may notice a messy silk webbing spun by the larvae.

Red and confused flour beetles, two of the most common beetle species, are 3–4 mm in length and also have a reddish-brown color. They’re rectangular-shaped beetles and can often be found in grain bins infested with internal developers. This is because flour beetles like to feed on the kernels other stored product insects, like borers, have already broken up. They can also be found in processing lines and finished products.

Internal Feeders

Internal feeders lay eggs inside or outside of kernels of grain but develop entirely inside those kernels. As they develop, they hollow out the kernel, then the adults can go on to damage other kernels.

Some of the most commonly encountered internal developers are lesser grain borers and rice, maize and granary weevils. Weevils measure about 5 mm in length and are usually brown in color with a distinct elongated “snout.” Lesser grain borers, the most common internal feeder across the United States infesting wheat, are a bit smaller and don’t have the snout that weevils do. Both weevils and lesser grain borers have pitted patterns on their bodies, and all can fly except the granary weevil. As the larvae and pupae develop inside grain kernels, damage becomes especially evident when the adult chews out and leaves a distinctive perfectly round hole.

Secondary Feeders

This group typically eats from the outside in and feeds on the mold and fungus that can grow on out-of-condition grain and damp product.

Two of the most common secondary feeders are the foreign grain beetle and sawtoothed grain beetle. Foreign grain beetles love mold, and resemble flour beetles in size and color. To tell them apart, look for two “bumps” on the top corners of the thorax. Eliminating molds and damp conditions that facilitate mold growth is generally enough to help prevent infestations from secondary feeders.

Sawtoothed grain beetles can feed on many types of products and while they can’t physically penetrate packaging, the adults will find holes less than 1 mm in diameter, lay eggs, and the larvae will squeeze through the tiny openings to get to the product. They prefer processed food products like bran, chocolate, oatmeal and even pet foods, but will feed on whatever they can access. Sawtoothed grain beetles are smaller than flour beetles (3 mm) and have distinctive “teeth” on the margins of the thorax.

Prevention, Monitoring & Detection, and Removal

The best way to protect a facility from stored product insects is to employ numerous different tactics. Specifically, it’s important to proactively mitigate pest attractants, monitor for activity in key areas around the facility, and establish thresholds and action plans when pests are detected.

First and foremost, educate all employees about the pests most common around your facility and what to do should they spot one. Your pest sighting log is a great tool, but only if people use it! Have a clear escalation plan for any pest issues spotted. In addition, create a sanitation schedule to ensure all areas and equipment are cleaned to remove food and moisture buildup attractive to pests on a regular basis. While you can’t possibly eliminate all food (you are of course storing and processing food!), the aim is to minimize the amount and the access these insects have to that food source.

Next, make sure all incoming shipments and packages are inspected closely in a sealed off unloading area away from other products. Make sure employees know to check for signs of damage, especially holes caused by boring pests. Taking the time to inspect anything entering your facility in this way will give you a chance to spot pests before they have the chance to spread to your other products. Use the first-in, first-out (FIFO) approach for all goods to ensure older product doesn’t sit. The longer product sits, the more chance it can be infested and it may start deteriorating, and this is especially attractive to stored product insects.

For ongoing monitoring, talk to a pest management professional about deploying pheromone traps strategically around your facility. Pheromone traps are the best tool to monitor for stored product insects, as they will give you an idea of which pests are present, in what numbers, where they are, and they can help you track trends in pest activity over time. If any stored product insects are ever spotted, contact your pest management professional immediately. If there’s a chance of having stored product insects on your product, you absolutely should have pheromone trap monitoring in place.

The Total Cost of Stored Product Pest Problems

The impact of pest issues caused by stored product insects isn’t limited to the cost of paused operations and replacing contaminated product. These pests are tough to spot, and could be passed along to partners further down the supply chain. Naturally this could hurt the trust between supply chain partners, which is never a good thing!

If your facility gets a reputation of having problems with stored product insects, it’s going to hurt your brand—and that’s going to be another knock to your bottom line. Stored product insects can spread quickly between products placed closely together. So, if pests are mistakenly shipped to a partner’s facility or a store and then on to a customer, now THEY are going to have to deal with stored product insects, too. Being proactive is the best approach, and careful documentation can help you and your supply chain partners track pest issues to the source so they can be resolved quickly and minimize the impact on profits.

It becomes easy to see stored product insects can cause both short-term and long-term effects on the profitability of a business. Don’t let that be your facility and your reputation! Be proactive and partner with a pest management provider to help ensure your facility operations run smoothly and your customers stay happy.

Karen Everstine, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

A Look at the Latest Targets

By Karen Everstine, Ph.D.
No Comments
Karen Everstine, Decernis

Recent food fraud news includes the seizure of a million bags of fraudulently labeled and expired rice in Kenya, fraudulent spices found in a warehouse in India, and a U.S. grocery store chain sued for selling manuka honey that wasn’t 100% manuka. In Spain, tuna intended for canning was dyed and diverted to be sold as fresh and in China, 8,000 bottles of counterfeit wine were seized by the local food and drug administration. In Greece, 17 teenagers became ill after drinking alcoholic beverages containing methanol. Recently published journal articles on detection methods have looked at adulteration of honey with sugar syrups, meat adulteration with other species, authentication of products containing truffles, and Arabica coffee authenticity. One group of researchers evaluated a method to authenticate the botanical and geographic origin of hops.

Vanilla prices have been high, increasing the incentive to substitute natural vanilla extracts with similar flavors. A search of the Food Fraud Database shows a range of fraudulent adulterants associated with vanilla extract: Coumarin, ethyl maltol, ethyl vanillin, maltol, vanillic alcohol, and vanillin (natural or synthetic). Recently published authentication methods include GC-VUV and analysis of stable isotopes of carbon and hydrogen (with GC-IRMS).

In 2004 (another period of high vanilla prices), a company that sourced vanilla beans from Indonesia for use in manufacturing vanilla extract identified mercury contamination in two lots of beans they had received. Mercury was presumably added to increase the weight of the beans. The company quarantined all beans and products that had been manufactured from them. They also had to shut down flavor production to clean and decontaminate the processing equipment.

Due to their high value and physical form (they are often sold in ground or liquid extract form), herbs and spices have a long history of fraudulent adulteration. Many countries have publicly reported being affected by food fraud in herbs and spices over the past 10 years.

Food Fraud incidents, spices
Incidents of food fraud reported in the Food Fraud Database for the past ten years in the category “Herbs, Spices, and Seasonings” (68 total).1

Mitigation measures for products at high risk for fraud include putting in place raw material specifications that include authenticity criteria, implementing analytical surveillance, establishing strong supplier relationships and audit programs, and increasing supply chain transparency.

Resource

  1. The Decernis Food Fraud Database is a continuously updated collection of food fraud records curated specifically to support vulnerability assessments. Information is gathered from the scientific literature, regulatory reports, media publications, judicial records, and trade associations from around the world and is searchable by ingredient, adulterant, country, and hazard classification.
X-ray systems

Production and Inspection: What to Do When Contamination Occurs

By Chris Keith
1 Comment
X-ray systems

As much as food manufacturers take precautions to avoid all types of contaminants, there can still come a moment when you realize that your best efforts have failed. Maybe you find a broken blade or a missing wire during a sanitation break, but the product has already gone through your inline inspection machines—and nothing was detected.

This is the freak-out moment that no plant manager or quality assurance manager wants to have. Knowing that there’s possible contamination of your food product (and not knowing where that contaminant might be) creates a hailstorm of possibilities that your plant works hard to avoid. And you’re probably wondering how this could have happened in the first place.

X-ray systems
In addition to metal, X-ray systems can find glass, plastic, stone, bone, rubber/gasket material, product clumps, container defects, wood and missing components at 0.8 mm or smaller.

Understanding How Contaminants Get Past Detection

To prevent physical contamination from occurring, it’s important to understand the reasons why it happens. In-house inspection systems often fail to detect contaminants for the following reasons:

  • The equipment isn’t calibrated to detect contaminants to a small enough degree, or the contaminants are materials that aren’t easily detected by the in-house machinery (glass, rubber, plastic, etc.)
  • The machines aren’t constantly monitored
  • The speed of the production line doesn’t allow for detecting small particles

Metal detectors are the most commonly used inline inspection devices in food manufacturing, and they depend on an interference in the signal to indicate there is metal contamination in the product.
Despite the fact that technology has progressed to deliver fewer false positives, the machines can still be deceived by moisture, high salt contents and dense products that could provide interference in the signal. When that continues to occur, it’s common for manufacturers to recalibrate the machine to get fewer false positives—but that also decreases its effectiveness.

Another limitation of the metal detector is that, as the name indicates, it can only find metal. That means contaminants like plastic, glass, rubber and bone won’t be found through a metal detector, but will hopefully be discovered through some other means before the product is shipped out.

Oftentimes, contamination or suspected physical contamination is discovered when a product, such as cheese or yogurt, goes through a filtration system, or when a piece of machinery is inspected during a sanitation break.
If the machinery is found to be missing a part, such as a bolt or a rubber gasket, the manufacturer then has to backtrack to the machinery’s last inspection and determine how much, if any, of the product manufactured during that time has been contaminated.

X-ray inspection
X-ray inspection can find what other forms of inspection cannot, because it’s based on the density of the product, as well as the density of the physical contaminant. In this image, you can see foreign material detected in canned goods.

What To Do When Contamination Occurs

Once a food manufacturer discovers that it may have a physical contamination problem, it must make a decision on how to handle the situation. Options come down to four basic choices, each of which comes with its own risks and benefits.

Option 1: Dispose of the full production run

The one advantage of disposing of a full production run is that it entirely eliminates the possibility of the contaminated product reaching consumers.

However, this is an expensive solution, as the manufacturer has to pay for the cost of disposal in a certified landfill and absorbs the cost of packaging, labor and ingredients. It also presents the risk of lost revenue by having a product temporarily out of stock.

Option 2: Shut down your production lines for re-inspection/re-work

Running the product through inline inspections a second time may result in finding the physical contaminant, but there’s also a risk that the contaminant won’t be found—and now the company has lost money through overtime pay and lost productivity.

If the inspection equipment was not sensitive enough to find the contaminant the first time around, it may not find it the second time, which puts the manufacturer back at square one. The advantage to this method is that the manufacturer maintains complete accountability and control over the process, although it may not yield the desired results.

Option 3: Risk it and ship the product to retailers

There’s always a chance that a missing bolt didn’t make its way into the product. Sometimes, if a metal detector goes off and the manufacturer can’t find any contaminants upon closer examination, they will choose to ship the product and take their chances.

The advantage for them is that, on the front end, this is the least expensive option—or it could be the costliest choice of all if a consumer finds a physical contaminant in their food. In fact, the average cost of a food recall is estimated at $10 million; lawsuits may push that cost even higher and result in a business being closed for good.

Option 4: Use third-party X-ray inspection

X-ray inspection is the most effective way to find physical contaminants. In addition to metal, X-ray systems can find glass, plastic, stone, bone, rubber/gasket material, product clumps, container defects, wood and missing components at 0.8 mm or smaller.

When a food manufacturer has a contamination issue, it can have the bracketed product inspected by a third-party X-ray inspection company and only dispose the affected food, allowing the rest of the product to be distributed. This option allows the manufacturer to maintain inventory and keep food deliveries on schedule while still eliminating the problem of contamination.

X-ray inspection can find what other forms of inspection cannot, because it’s based on the density of the product, as well as the density of the physical contaminant. When X-ray beams are directed through a food product, the rays lose some of their energy, but will lose even more energy in areas that have a physical contaminant. So when those images are interpreted on a monitor, the areas that have a physical contaminant in them will show up as a darker shade of gray.
This allows the workers monitoring machines to immediately identify any foreign particles that are in the food, regardless of the type of material.

Detection is Key to Avoiding Contamination Issues

Handling contamination properly is vital to every food manufacturing company. It affects the bottom line and the future of the company, and just one case of a physical contaminant reaching the consumer is enough to sideline food companies of any size. As X-ray technology continues to evolve, it remains an effective and efficient form of food inspection.

Educating plant managers and quality managers on what to do if inline inspection machines fail to detect contaminants should include information on how X-ray technology can be a food company’s first line of defense. While physical contaminants can’t always be avoided, they can be detected—and the future of your company may depend on it.

food safety tech

Food Hazards Web Seminar Addresses Detection, Mitigation and Control

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
food safety tech

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

Critical Elements for a Successful Pathogen Environmental Monitoring Program

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

Allergen Detection & Control

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

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

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

Pathogen Mitigation: Sanitary Design in Facilities and Sanitation Methods

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

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

Campylobacter Enrichment Broth

3M Launches New Molecular Method to Detect Campylobacter

No Comments
Campylobacter Enrichment Broth

3M Food Safety has launched the 3M Molecular Detection Assay 2 – Campylobacter with 3M Campylobacter Enrichment Broth. Poultry producers now have a complete solution for simultaneous monitoring of poultry for both Salmonella and Campylobacter. It can perform up to 96 tests of multiple types in a 60-minute run.

The Enrichment Broth requires just five steps and eliminates the need for microaerophilic incubation, supplements, blood, organic solvents or autoclaving the broth, only requiring the addition of sterile water.

For more information, visit 3M’s product website.

Glen Ramsey, Orkin
Bug Bytes

Using Monitoring Devices to Protect Products from Pests

By Glen Ramsey
No Comments
Glen Ramsey, Orkin

They’re sneaking in through your windows, crawling through your front door when nobody is looking and squeezing through tiny openings to steal your food. They’re tough to catch, and even tougher to spot.

Naturally, we’re talking about pests. They come in all shapes and sizes, but have the same goal: To find a reliable, safe place to call home where they have abundant access to food, water and shelter. Unfortunately, food processing facilities offer pests all three of these things, making them susceptible to infestations that can compromise products and hurt the bottom line.

You probably already have an integrated pest management (IPM) program in place to mitigate the risk of pests inside your facility. While these programs are great for offering proactive, preventive solutions that use chemical solutions as a last resort, they shouldn’t be the beginning and end of your pest management efforts.

First and foremost, facility staff should always be familiar with the warning signs of pest issues and what to do if they spot something crawling around the building. Most pest management companies will offer complimentary training sessions for you and your staff, which is a great first step. Then, during your weekly/monthly staff meetings, let your employees know which pests are most likely to cause a problem and include some images of warning signs. Empower them to call out problems, explain the risks of pest damage to your products, and you’ll have a better chance of catching pest problems early.

But your staff can’t be expected to spot everything, and there are always pests that slip through the cracks.

That’s why pest management professionals frequently recommend using a variety of tools to closely watch pest activity and detect emerging hot spots around facilities. Tools like IR thermometers, moisture meters and telescoping cameras help pest management professionals identify these high-risk areas. Once these areas have been identified, your pest management professional can take the next step in advanced detection using monitoring devices to paint the picture of pest activity around your facility.

Monitoring devices make it easier to see where pests are traveling and give an idea for how many may be present. These devices capture pests for identification, assist in early detection and will help to mitigate the risk of infestation through early warning. If you’re particularly worried about an upcoming audit or the recent enforcement deadlines for FSMA, these devices will give you a better chance of scoring well and can help you demonstrate compliance by shifting your pest management plan to a more proactive approach as mandated by these new regulations.

There could be quite a few of these monitoring devices you’d like to start using around your facility today.

Fly Lights

A popular device found in many food processing facilities, fly lights attract flying pests by emitting strong UV lights that draws insects in, at which point they become trapped on a sticky glue board in the back of the light—out of sight and away from your products. They work best when placed inside near doorways and windows where pests might be able to squeeze inside, but they’re effective just about anywhere. Discuss placement with your pest management provider.

Why does it work?

The leading theory on why flying pests are attracted to lights has to do with their reliance on the sun and moon as navigational guides. In the past, insects could use the sun and moon as a guide because it stayed at a constant angle, allowing them to move in a consistent direction. However, artificial light confuses them and causes them to circle around the light source. Insects that move towards light in this way are called positively phototactic, while pests like cockroaches who move away from light are called negatively phototactic.

Mechanical Traps

Most commonly used for rodents, mechanical traps can allow for the humane capture and removal of rats and mice. These traps sound simple, and that’s because it is; the concept hasn’t changed for years. Why? Because it’s effective! Rodent curiosity or bait can draw the rodent inside one of these stations, which have a mechanical door ready to close as soon as it enters. There is also new technology on the way that will instantly notify both customer and pest management professional when this occurs, so the creature can be removed immediately. These stations are most frequently used around the interior perimeter of a facility to keep rodents from getting further than the exterior walls.

Why does it work?
Simply put, rodents will often run along walls. They’re extremely athletic and very clever, which is why it’s never recommended to try to place traps yourself. They can learn from close calls with unsuccessful trapping techniques, which is why it isn’t worth the risk to handle rodent issues alone. With proper knowledge and placement, they can be outsmarted.

Sticky Traps and Glue Boards

Perhaps the simplest tools in the pest professional’s shed, sticky traps and glue boards are meant to reduce the population of crawling insects around a facility. Because they’re not very large, they can be used just about anywhere inside a facility.

Why does it work?

These are usually used for small population control in areas where crawling pests are already present. Sticky traps and glue boards are generally coated with a substance that attract pests, which then ensnares them when they step on the surface of the trap. These are great for catching pests like cockroaches, and give you a sense of how many pests are coming through an area over a period of time. Over time, you’ll be able to see if the population is trending downwards or if the problem is getting worse based on the number of pests captured.

Pheromone Traps

Great for combating the stored product pests that pose a huge threat to food processing facilities with large inventories, pheromone traps trick pests into getting trapped. While sticky traps can be used all over, pheromone traps are more effectively used by placing them strategically around storage areas to help monitor for any stored product pests.

Why does it work?

This type of trap uses synthetically replicated versions of insect pheromones, which are secreted chemicals that insects put out to communicate with each other. In this case, the pheromone traps lure pests out from their hiding/feeding areas. There are also probe-type pheromone traps that are best used in bulk grain storage if necessary.

Now this isn’t an exclusive list of all the monitoring devices a pest management professional can recommend around your facility, but it does give you an idea of the most common, effective devices out there. Keep in mind that sanitation and exclusion must also be a big part of any IPM program, but monitoring devices (along with detailed documentation) can take your program to the next level and give you a better feel for the pest issues your facility deals with the most.

Any time you’re using these tools and devices to detect pest hot spots, it’s important to record the results over time. Your pest management professional will keep a logbook of findings on site, and you should reference that regularly. Also, consider requesting or creating a trend map of pest activity over time to help you see which pests are plaguing your facility the most. That way, it will be easy to work towards improving the pest management program you have in place, which in turn will help protect your products from contamination and protect your bottom line.

Peas, UV light

Controlling and Mitigating Pathogens Throughout Production

By Troy Smith
1 Comment
Peas, UV light
Sampling
Product sampling

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.
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.

Pages: 1 2

8 Food Industry Trends Fueled by FSMA

By Lori Carlson
No Comments

FSMA is fostering a surge in technology solutions, analytical tools and training products marketed to the food industry in the name of achieving FSMA compliance. And while many of these products were available pre-FSMA (especially in other industries like the life sciences), FSMA’s momentum has fueled the adaptation of solutions to meet the specific needs of the food industry for achieving and maintaining regulatory compliance. This article is a summary of emerging trends in food safety management by producers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers through the application of technology, educational tools, monitoring and detection systems, and other support mechanisms.

Want to learn more about FSMA trends and compliance? Attend the 2016 Food Safety Consortium in Schaumburg, IL | December 7–8 | LEARN MOREWhether by the spark of FSMA or because it makes practical sense (and most likely, a bit of both), businesses are integrating their food safety programs with enterprise initiatives and systems for managing compliance and risk to achieve increased visibility and harmonization across the organization.  The most popular trends fueled by FSMA largely reflect technology solutions to achieve this integration.

Subsequently, solutions that support risk assessment, supply chain management, real-time monitoring, corrective action, self-assessment, traceability, and training management are most attractive and lucrative from an ROI perspective. And while it may be hard to find a one-size-fits-all technology solution depending upon the needs of the organization, technology service providers are quickly raising the bar to meet these growing needs as organizations strive to reduce risk and increase compliance. Other top trends at the periphery of technology solutions include the mobilization of food safety personnel and increased availability of on-demand training and detection tools to bring the FSMA movement full circle.

1. Software-as-a-service (SaaS) technology solutions quickly gained a following in the food industry in recent years to achieve an automated food safety and quality management system (FSQMS) solution.

The substantial management components and recordkeeping requirements of the FSMA rules has accelerated the food industry’s need for automated solutions to document program management, queue workflows and distribute notifications for corrective and preventive action (CAPA). Understanding this need, many SaaS providers evolved with FSMA to provide functionality that dovetails with new regulatory requirements.

2. Increased availability of risk and vulnerability assessment tools is of significant importance in meeting many requirements of FSMA’s rules.

The regulatory language of all FSMA rules is steeped in risk analysis to support the prevention of food safety hazards and threats. This creates a demand for user-friendly tools and training courses to help food businesses analyze and update their management systems within the context of these new requirements. Risk and vulnerability assessment tools currently available to the food industry are diverse in functionality and vary in scope and cost.

For example, FDA’s free online tool, FDA-iRISK 2.0, assesses chemical and microbiological hazards in foods through process models, which quantify risk across scenarios and predict the effectiveness of control strategies.  Commercially available food hazard assessment tools based on HACCP/ HARPC principles include Safefood 360° and EtQ, which provide risk assessment modules as a part of their SaaS platform.

Universities, trade associations, and commercial risk management and consulting firms came together to produce two very different food fraud vulnerability tools to support the industry. SSAFE by the University of Wageningen RIKILT, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is a free online tool and mobile app, which guides users through a decision tree and assessment questionnaire to determine fraud opportunities, motivators and gaps in existing controls. EMAlert by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and Battelle is a subscription-based online tool to assess vulnerability from economically motivated adulterants (EMA’s). Individuals conducting vulnerability assessments are recommended to periodically access food risk databases such as the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention’s (USP) food fraud database to stay informed of historical and emerging threats to the supply chain.

And in support of FSMA’s Food Defense rule, the FDA developed a free food defense software tool, Food Defense Plan Builder (FDPB), to help food businesses identify vulnerability to intentional adulterants and terrorist attacks on the food supply chain.

3. SaaS platforms, app-friendly assessment tools and FSMA recordkeeping requirements are creating a natural pathway for the increased use of mobile devices and electronic recordkeeping and verification.

From supply chain management to effective traceability to regulatory compliance, efficient document management and on-demand data retrieval is a must have of the modern FSQMS. Food businesses recognize the inherent obstacles of paper-based systems and increasingly trend towards rugged mobile devices and electronic recordkeeping to make better use of personnel resources, technology solutions and data. FSMA is helping leverage this trend two-fold through increased requirements for documentation and verification of food safety management activities and by not requiring electronic records to additionally meet the provisions of 21 CFR part 11 (electronic recordkeeping).

4. An increased demand for more effective, frequent and accessible training must be met across an organization to maintain an adequately trained workforce responsible for implementing FSMA.

To keep up with this demand—as well as the training demand imparted by GFSI schemes and fact that a company’s FSQMS is only as good as those who develop and operate it—food businesses are turning to online and blended learning courses to increase training frequency and effectiveness. In Campden BRI’s 2016 Global Food Safety Training Survey, 70% of food processors and manufacturers responded that they received training deficiencies during audits as the result of a lack of refresher training and/or lack of employee understanding.

In an effort to help close this gap and meet new implementation requirements of FSMA, food safety training providers are increasing offerings of eLearning courses, which provide targeted content in shorter duration to meet users’ needs in an interactive (and often multilingual) format. Shorter and more frequent targeted training is proven to increase knowledge retention and job performance. E-Learning training solutions can be found through dedicated training service providers as well as universities, trade associations, regulatory agencies, scheme owners, certification bodies, and other compliance organizations.

Depending upon the training provider, online training may be distributed through a learning management system (LMS) to provide additional training tools, assess training effectiveness and manage the training activities and competencies of all participants.

5. Targeted monitoring and verification activities such as product testing, environmental monitoring or water quality testing are helping to increase the demand for pathogen testing and push the frontier of improved rapid pathogen detection methods.

In a recent Food Safety Tech article, Strategic Consulting, Inc. noted more than a 13% annual increase in pathogen testing by contract food laboratories as determined by a recent industry study conducted by the group. The study additionally identified turn-around-time as the second most important factor for suppliers when choosing a contract lab. Increased access to rapid pathogen testing—and in particular, detection without time-dependent cultural enrichment—are primary needs of food businesses as regulators and customers push for enhanced monitoring and verification via testing mechanisms.

Currently, there are numerous rapid methods based on DNA, immunological or biosensor techniques. These methods can detect foodborne pathogens in relatively short amounts of time ranging from a few minutes to a few hours. But they often require pre-processing strategies to reduce matrix interference or concentrate pathogens to meet the level of detection (LOD) of the assay.1 These strategies increase the overall time of the assay and are largely the next hurdle for improved rapid detection.

6.  Food businesses are experiencing a wave of self-assessment followed by CAPA as organizations work to analyze and update their food safety systems and protocols within the context of applicable FSMA rules.

This trend has the potential to be the most beneficial to the supply chain and consumers as it provides a distinct opportunity for food businesses to reconsider previously overlooked hazards and vulnerabilities and upgrade food safety controls along with the management system. Seeing the FSQMS with fresh eyes—outside of the framework of a familiar standard—can lead to significant improvements in food safety management, product safety and quality, and even operational efficiency.

7.  For many food businesses, heightened regulation has spurned the need for dedicated staff to support compliance efforts.

Many food businesses are subject to multiple rules—some of which require a dedicated individual such as the Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI) to assume responsibility for the implementation of various provisions. And food businesses are not exempt from the acute need for qualified individuals with a food safety skill set. Across the industry, from service providers to retailers and everyone in between or at the fringe, executives understand that it takes tireless leadership and knowledgeable staff to produce safe food.

8. More than any other trend, communication on FSMA, food safety and related topics is easily the most prevalent exhibiting exponential activity over the past five years.

Whether in support or contention with the proposed (now final) rules, FSMA promulgates constant dialogue about food safety, what it means and how it should be implemented. The constant flurry of communication provides both benefits and deterrents to understanding the new regulations and identifying effective solutions for compliance. This dichotomy creates a significant need for authoritative and easy-to-understand information from consolidated sources within the industry such as trade associations, risk management organizations and food safety schemes. The divide has also helped fuel the need for information hubs like the Global Food Safety Resource (GFSR) that aggregate critical regulatory information, food safety solutions and best practices to reach a global community.

Reference

  1. Wang, Y. and Salazar, J.K. Culture-Independent Rapid Detection Methods for Bacterial Pathogens and Toxins in Food Matrices. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2016; 15(1): 183-205.

Changing Landscape for Selecting a Food Safety Contract Laboratory

By Bob Ferguson, Thomas R. Weschler
No Comments

A recent study of more than 100 food processing customers of food contract laboratories examined the key factors that make a commercial food laboratory competitive in the eyes of their customers. The details of this study, which was conducted by Strategic Consulting, will be presented at the Food Safety Consortium in December.

The 2016 Food Safety Consortium takes place December 5–9 in Schaumburg, IL | LEARN MOREThe volume of microbiology testing worldwide is growing annually at 6%. The study data, however, shows that the growth of microbiology testing at food contract labs is growing at twice that rate—12%—annually. This means that every year food contract labs are taking a larger share of the micro-testing market. Specific to pathogen testing, the situation is more pronounced. Two-thirds of the food processors surveyed conduct routine microbiology testing at their in-house lab, but the number willing to conduct pathogen analysis in-house has dropped to one-third. With more and more companies becoming wary about the risks and costs of analyzing pathogens in a plant lab, outsourcing continues to grow and the volume of total pathogen tests conducted at food contract labs is growing at more than 13% per year. Based on the data generated from the study, it can be deduced that, for the first time in the United States, the number of pathogen tests conducted at food contract labs now exceeds 50% of all pathogen tests conducted in the country. This is not only changing the face of microbiology testing, but it is also creating a very competitive market for laboratory services.

With this test volume now going to food contract laboratories, anyone who needs microbiology analysis has already (at least once) checked the qualifications of a food contract laboratory and validated that it has the right scope of accreditations, specific experience with product type, and proof that they can reliably meet test specifications and detection limits.

These basic qualifications, however, are “table stakes” in today’s highly competitive food safety contract laboratory market.

In the study, the most common answers to the question of the top decision criteria used when selecting a food contract laboratory for microbiology testing were, in order of importance, price, turnaround time, and dependability. When asked about testing of pathogens, most respondents reported that “accreditations” was their number one decision criteria, followed in order by the three previous factors of price, turnaround time and dependability.

A key distinction to understand in this analysis is the term “accreditations” was certainly used to describe formal lab accreditations, but it was also commonly used interchangeably with “expertise.”  In detailed conversations with buyers, it was clear that specialization and competence in pathogen testing was of primary importance and, in many cases, specific experience with the specific pathogen in which they were interested, and in most cases, experience with their specific product type (e.g., meat, dairy, processed foods, etc.).

Interestingly, although proximity to the plant ranked last of the six most common selection criteria, greater than 70% of the plant personnel interviewed reported that they use a food contract lab for pathogen testing that is within 100 miles of their production location. Based on the interviews it was clear that proximity was very important (and linked to turnaround time), but it also revealed that all of the major customers reported that all of the labs they would even consider had locations within a 100-mile radius of their plant. Of these labs, 60% offered a courier service to collect samples at the plant and deliver them to the lab. It is clear that proximity and a sample collection service, while once a point of differentiation, is now seen less as key selection criteria and more of a “table stake” for being considered at all.

Food processors, of course, run samples for testing for parameters other than microbiology. In this study, 78% of the companies surveyed ran tests for nutritional chemistry and, of those, 42% used an in-plant lab. In addition, 81% of the companies test for contaminants (e.g., pesticides, drug residues, metals) and of those, 55% run the tests in an in-plant lab. Of the companies that use a food contract lab for either types of tests, 60–65% (depending on the parameter) report sending samples to a lab that is more than 100 miles from their plant.

It is clear from this data that food processors are far more comfortable analyzing samples for nutritional parameters, contaminants and routine microbiology in an in-plant lab, but fewer are comfortable running pathogen tests in-plant. And while proximity is important for pathogen tests, it was not a top qualifier for nutritional or contaminant testing. As more and more pathogen samples are outsourced to food contract labs, however, it remains to be seen if the samples will “drag” samples for these other parameters along with them to the closer proximate labs. But it is clear that the contract labs with a network of locations that place them close to their customer’s locations and who have expertise in pathogens as well as a full range of other analyses will likely have an advantage.

The role of food contract laboratories will continue to grow, creating great business opportunities. The dynamics of this market, however, are clearly changing the ground rules and presenting companies with new risks and opportunities. Understanding this changing landscape will be of paramount importance to food contract labs, and their  success or failure will depend on their strategic decisions and how well they navigate these changing conditions.

These business environment changes are also essential for food processors to understand. As market conditions change, pricing, turnaround times, and add-on services available from food contract labs will also change, presenting risks and opportunities for processors. Food processors that understand these changes will also be able to take advantage and improve their testing programs.