FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., announced the next steps in their approach to implement the Produce Safety Rule that was established by FSMA. During the September 12th speech at the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Dr. Gottlieb outlined new measures the FDA will be taking, including compliance dates for agricultural water standards, recognized water-testing methods, and inspections related to non-water requirements of the produce rule.
According to the press release, Dr. Gottlieb also announced steps the FDA will take to “address concerns related to the complexity and feasibility of implementing standards for agricultural water.” One proposed rule concerning agricultural water compliance dates, if finalized, would extend compliance dates by up to four years for produce other than sprouts.
The press release states the reasoning behind this change is allowing the FDA to revisit those standards, ensuring they are implementable for farmers across the country. Sprouts are an exception here because of their high risk for contamination and will remain subject to original compliance dates.
The announcement also covered key changes to produce farm inspections, water testing methods and training opportunities for producers and regulators. For more information, see the press release here and the full text of Dr. Gottlieb’s speech here.
Learn more about FSMA implementation strategy at the 2017 Food Safety Consortium | November 28–December 1FDA has released a Small Entity Compliance Guide (SECG) to help small and very small businesses comply with the Produce Safety Rule. The SECG provides assistance for farmers in determining whether they are eligible for a qualified exemption and can help them understand the modified requirements as a result.
The compliance dates under the Produce Safety rule are as follows:
Small businesses: January 28, 2019
Very small businesses: January 27, 2020
Sprout operations: January 26, 2018 (small businesses) and January 28, 2019 (very small businesses)
There are also extended compliance dates for certain agricultural water requirements
Learn more about FSMA compliance at the 2017 Food Safety Consortium | November 28– December 1 | The 60-page draft guidance addresses the use of heat treatments as a process control, providing information on understanding potential hazards, design and validation of the heat treatment, establishing and implementing monitoring procedures (and how often), verification, and record keeping.
FDA states that it intends to publish at least 14 chapters of the guidance. In just two weeks, the compliance date for the preventive controls for human food rule falls for small businesses (fewer than 500 full-time employees).
By Gregory Siragusa, Douglas Marshall, Ph.D. No Comments
This month we are happy to welcome our guest co-authors and interviewees Eric Brown, Ph.D. and Marc Allard, Ph.D. of CFSAN as we explore the FDA’s GenomeTrakr program in a two-part Food Genomics column. Many of our readers have heard of GenomeTrakr, but are likely to have several questions regarding its core purpose and how it will impact food producers and processors in the United States and globally. In Part I we explore some technical aspects of the topic followed by Part II dealing with practical questions.
Part I: The basics of GenomeTrakr
Greg Siragusa/Doug Marshall: Thank you Dr. Allard and Dr. Brown for joining us in our monthly series, Food Genomics, to inform our readers about GenomeTrakr. Will you begin by telling us about yourselves and your team?
Eric Brown/Marc Allard: Hello, I am Eric, the director of the Division of Microbiology at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Our team is made up of two branches, one that specializes in developing and validating methods for getting foodborne pathogens out of many different food matrices and the other branch conducts numerous tests to subtype and characterized foodborne pathogens. The GenomeTrakr program is in the subtyping branch as Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is the ultimate genomic subtyping tool for characterizing a foodborne pathogen at the DNA level.
Hello, my name is Marc, I am a senior biomedical research services officer and a senior advisor in Eric’s division. We are part of the group that conceived, evaluated and deployed the GenomeTrakr database and network.
Siragusa/Marshall: Drs. Allard and Brown, imagine yourself with a group of food safety professionals ranging from vice president for food safety to director, manager and technologists. Would you please give us the ‘elevator speech’ on GenomeTrakr?
Brown/Allard: GenomeTrakr is the first of its kind distributed network for rapidly characterizing bacterial foodborne pathogens using whole genome sequences (WGS). This genomic data can help FDA with many applications, including trace-back to determine the root cause of an outbreak as well providing one work-flow for rapidly characterizing all of the pathogens for which the agency has responsibility. These same methods are also very helpful for antimicrobial resistance monitoring and characterization.
Siragusa/Marshall: From the FDA website, GenomeTrakr is described as “a distributed network of labs to utilize whole genome sequencing for pathogen identification.” We of course have very time-proven methods of microbial identification and subtyping, so why do we need GenomeTrakr for identification and subtyping of microorganisms?
Brown/Allard: If all you want to know is species identification then you are correct, there are existing methods to do this. For some applications you need full characterization through subtyping (i.e., Below the level of species to the actual strain) with WGS. WGS of pathogens provides all of the genetic information about an organism as well as any mobile elements such as phages and plasmids that may be associated with these foodborne pathogens. The GenomeTrakr network and database compiles a large amount of new genetic or DNA sequence data to more fully characterize foodborne pathogens.
GenomeTrakr and WGS are a means to track bacteria based on knowing the sequence of all DNA that comprises that specific bacterium’s genome. It can be called the “ultimate identifier” in that it will show relationships at a very deep level of accuracy.
Siragusa/Marshall: Is it an accurate statement that GenomeTrakr can be considered the new iteration of PulseNet and Pulse field gel electrophoresis (PFGE)? Will PulseNet and PFGE disappear, or will PulseNet and GenomeTrkr merge into a single entity?
Brown/Allard: PulseNet is a network of public health labs run by the CDC, with USDA and FDA as active participants. The network is alive and well and will continue subtyping pathogens for public health. The current and historical subtyping tool used by PulseNet for more than 20 years is PFGE. It is expected that CDC, USDA and FDA’s PFGE data collection will be replaced by WGS data and methods. That transformation has already begun. GenomeTrakr is a network of public health labs run by the FDA to support FDA public health and regulatory activities using WGS methods. Starting in 2012, this network is relatively new and is focused currently on using WGS for trace back to support outbreak investigations and FDA regulatory actions. CDC PulseNet has used WGS data on Listeria and collects draft genomes (i.e., unfinished versions of a final genome are used for quicker assembly) of other foodborne pathogens as well, and USDA’s FSIS has used WGS for the pathogens found on the foods that they regulate. All of the data from GenomeTrakr and Pulsenet are shared at the NCBI Pathogen Detection website (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Siragusa/Marshall: Does an organism have to be classified to the species level before submitting to GenomeTrakr?
Brown/Allard: Yes, species-level identification is part of the minimal metadata (all of the descriptors related to a sample such as geographic origin, lot number, sources, ingredients etc.) required to deposit data in the GenomeTrakr database. This allows initial QA/QC metrics to determine if the new genome is labeled properly.
Siragusa/Marshall: After an isolate is identified to the species level, would you describe to the reader what the basic process is going from an isolated and speciated bacterial colony on an agar plate to a usable whole genome sequence deposited in the GenomeTrakr database?
Brown/Allard: The FDA has a branch of scientists who specialize in ways to isolate foodborne pathogens from food. The detailed methods used ultimately end up in the Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) of approved and validated methods. Once a pathogen is in pure culture then DNA is extracted from the bacterial cells. The DNA is then put into a DNA sequencing library, which modifies the DNA to properly attach and run sequencing reactions depending on the specific sequencing vendor used. The sequence data is downloaded from the sequencing equipment and then uploaded to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Pathogen Detection website. The database is publicly open to allow anyone with foodborne pathogens to upload their data and compare their sequences to what is available in the database.
Siragusa/Marshall: Suppose a specific sequence type of a foodborne bacterial pathogen is found and identified from a processing plant but that the plant has never had a positive assay result for that pathogen in any of its history of product production and ultimate consumption. If an outbreak occurred somewhere in the world and that same specific sequence type were identified as the causative agent, would a company be in anyway liable? Could one even make an association between the two isolates with the same sequence type isolated at great distances from open another?
Brown/Allard: The genetic evidence from WGS supports the hypothesis that the two isolates shared a recent common ancestor. If, for example, the isolate from the processing plant and the outbreak sample where genetically identical across the entire genome, the prediction is that the two samples are connected in some way that is currently not understood. The genetic matches guide the FDA and help point investigations to study the possible connections. This might include additional inspection of the processing plant as well as linking this to the typical epidemiological exposure data. Sometimes due to the indirect nature of how pathogens circulate through the farm to fork continuum and the complex methods of trade, no connection is made. More commonly, these investigative leads from genetic matches help the FDA establish direct links between the two bacterial isolates through a shared ingredient, shared processing, distribution or packaging process. The genetic information and cluster helps the FDA discover new ways that the pathogens are moving from farm to fork. We are unaware of any example where identical genomes somehow independently arose and were unrelated. This is counter to molecular evolutionary theory anyway. Genetic identity equals genetic relatedness and the closer two isolates are genetically to each other, the more recent that they shared a common ancestor. With regard to liability, this is a topic beyond the scope of our group, but genomic data does not by itself prove a direct linkage and that is why additional investigations must follow any close matches.
Siragusa/Marshall: We know that SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms or single base pair differences in the same location in a genome) are commonly used to distinguish clonality of bacteria with highly similar genomes. Are there criteria used by GenomeTrakr bioinformaticists that are set to help define what is similar, different or the same?
Brown/Allard: As the database grows with more examples of diverse serotypes or kinds of foodborne pathogens, the FDA WGS group is observing common patterns that can be used as guidance to define what is same or different. For example, closely related for Salmonella and E. coli are usually in the five or fewer SNPs, and closely related for Listeria is 20 or fewer SNPs using the current FDA validated bioinformatics pipeline. These values are not set in stone but should be considered more like guidance for what FDA and GenomeTrakr have observed already from earlier case studies that have already been collected and examined. Often, a greater number (e.g., 21-50) of SNP differences have been observed between strains isolated in some outbreaks. Any close match might support or direct an outbreak investigation if there is evidence that suggests that a particular outbreak looks most closely like an early case from a specific geographic location. WGS data helps investigators focus their efforts toward and international verses domestic exposure or possible country of origin. Even more divergent WGS linkages, when SNPs are greater than 50-100, often connect to different foods or different geographic locations that would lead investigators away from the source of an outbreak as the data provides both inclusivity as well as exclusivity.
When two strains have more than 50–100 SNPs, different food or geographic sources of those strains can be incorrectly linked resulting in investigators pursuing an incorrect source.
Siragusa/Marshall: Can SNPs be identified from different agar-plate clones of the same strain (i.e., Different colonies on the same plate)?
Brown/Allard: Since understanding the natural genetic variation present in foodborne pathogens is the basis to understanding relatedness, the FDA conducted validation experiments on growing then sequencing colonies from the same plate, colonies from frozen inocula, thawing and plating, as well as running the same DNAs on different instruments and with different sequencing technicians. The FDA’s work with Salmonella enterica Montevideo sequencing as well as ongoing proficiency testing among laboratories shows that the same isolate most often has no differences, although some samples have 1-2 SNP differences. Genetic differences observed in isolates collected by FDA inspectors all related to a common outbreak generally have more genetic differences, and this appears to be dependent on the nature of the facility and the length of time that the foodborne pathogen has been resident in the facility and the selective pressure to which the pathogen was exposed to in a range from 0–5 SNPs different.
Siragusa/Marshall: Regarding the use of WGS to track strains in a particular processing plant, is it possible that within that closed microenvironment that strains will evolve sufficiently so that it becomes unique to that source?
Brown/Allard: Yes, we have discovered multiple examples of strains that have evolved in a unique way that they appear to be specific to that source. Hospitals use the same practice to understand hospital-acquired infections and the routes of transmission within a hospitals intensive care unit or surgery. Food industry laboratories as well as FDA investigators could use WGS data in a similar way to determine the root cause of the contamination by combining WGS data with inspection and surveillance. The FDA Office of Compliance uses WGS as one piece of evidence to ask the question: Have we seen this pathogen before?
Siragusa/Marshall: The number of sequences in the GenomeTrakr database is approaching 120,000 (~4,000 per month are added). Are the sequences in the GenomeTrakr database all generated by GenomeTrakr Network labs?
Brown/Allard: The sequences labeled as GenomeTrakr isolates at the NCBI biosample and bioproject databases are the WGS efforts supported by the U.S. FDA and USDA FSIS. GenomeTrakr is a label identifying the FDA, USDA FSIS and collaborative partner’s efforts to sequence food and environmental isolates. Additional laboratories, independent and beyond formal membership in the GT network, upload WGS data to the NCBI pathogen detection website of which GenomeTrakr is one part. CDC shares WGS data on primarily clinical PulseNet isolates and USDA FSIS shares WGS foodborne pathogens for foods that they regulate. Numerous international public health laboratories also upload WGS data to NCBI. The NCBI pathogen detection website includes all publicly released WGS data for the species that they are analyzing, and this might include additional research or public health data. The point of contact for who submitted the data is listed in the biosample data sheet, an example of which can be seen here.
Siragusa/Marshall: Once sequences are deposited into the GenomeTrakr database, are they also part of GenBank?
Brown/Allard: The majority of the GenomeTrakr database is part of the NCBI SRA (sequence read archive) database, which is a less finished version of the data in GenBank. GenBank data is assembled and annotated, which takes more time and analysis to complete. Once automated software is optimized and validated, NCBI likely will place all of the GenomeTrakr data into GenBank. Currently, only the published WGS data from GenomeTrakr is available in GenBank. All of the GenomeTrakr data is available in SRA both at GenomeTrakr bioprojects and in the NCBI pathogen detection website.
Readers, look for the Part II of this column where we continue our exploration with Drs. Brown and Allard and ask some general questions about the logistics surrounding GenomeTrakr. As always, please contact either Greg Siragusa or Doug Marshall with comments, questions or ideas for future Food Genomics columns.
About the Interviewees
Marc W. Allard, Ph.D.
Marc Allard, Ph.D. is a senior biomedical research services officer specializing in both phylogenetic analysis as well as the biochemical laboratory methods that generate the genetic information in the GenomeTrakr database, which is part of the NCBI Pathogen Detection website. Allard joined the Division of Microbiology in FDA’s Office of Regulatory Science in 2008 where he uses Whole Genome Sequencing of foodborne pathogens to identify and characterize outbreaks of bacterial strains, particularly Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. He obtained a B.A. from the University of Vermont, an M.S. from Texas A&M University and his Ph.D. in biology in from Harvard University. Allard was the Louis Weintraub Associate Professor of Biology at George Washington University for 14 years from 1994 to 2008. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology.
Eric W. Brown, Ph.D.
Eric W. Brown, Ph.D. currently serves as director of the Division of Microbiology in the Office of Regulatory Science. He oversees a group of 50 researchers and support scientists engaged in a multi-parameter research program to develop and apply microbiological and molecular genetic strategies for detecting, identifying, and differentiating bacterial foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella and shiga-toxin producing E. coli. Brown received his Ph.D. in microbial genetics from The Genetics Program in the Department of Biological Sciences at The George Washington University. He has conducted research in microbial evolution and microbial ecology as a research fellow in the National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and as a tenure-track Professor of Microbiology at Loyola University of Chicago. Brown came to the Food and Drug Administration in 1999 and has since carried out numerous experiments relating to the detection, identification, and discrimination of foodborne pathogens.
In an effort to determine the prevalence of Salmonella, Listeria and E. coli O157:H7 in sprouts, FDA conducted a large sampling study of sprouts, the results of which were released last week.
The agency collected 825 samples from 37 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia and found 14 positive samples at eight of the 94 growers (10 samples came from four growers). Samples were collected from three production process points: Seeds, finished product and spent irrigation water, and tested for contamination. FDA found the following contamination:
Salmonella on 2.35% of seed samples, 0.21% in finished sprouts and 0.53% in spent irrigation water
Listeria monocytogenes on 1.28% of finished sprouts
No positive E. coli O157:H7 results in finished sprout or spent irrigation. Due to limitations of the test method, FDA didn’t test seed samples.
“Sprouts are especially vulnerable to pathogens given the warm, moist and nutrient-rich conditions needed to grow them. From 1996 to July 2016, there were 46 reported outbreaks of foodborne illness in the United States linked to sprouts. These outbreaks accounted for 2,474 illnesses, 187 hospitalizations, and three deaths.” – CFSAN
In the event that contaminated sprout samples were uncovered, FDA worked with the firms that own or released the affect sprouts to conduct voluntary recalls or destroy them. FDA inspections also followed.
The effect that the 1993 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak had on the food industry was tremendous. Responsible for more than 600 illnesses and the deaths of four children, the outbreak led to significant changes in the industry’s approach to food safety. “[It] drove a shift in food safety that many had been working toward for years,” said Rima Khabbaz, M.D., acting deputy director for infectious diseases at CDC during the “We Were There” CDC lecture series, adding that the focus moved to food suppliers and how they could make their products safer. “The outbreak drove a paradigm shift that opened the door to food safety,” said Patricia Griffin, M.D., chief of the CDC’s enteric diseases epidemiology branch during the lecture.
Deirdre Schlunegger, CEO of Stop Foodborne Illness, and Michael Taylor at Stop event celebrating Food Safety Heroes during the 2015 Food Safety Consortium.
Within a few years, several actions and initiatives paved the way for notable progress. In 1994, Mike Taylor, who was administrator of USDA’s FSIS at the time, made a speech that “shocked and outraged the industry,” said Griffin, where he stated, “we consider raw ground beef that is contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 to be adulterated within the meaning of the Federal Meat Inspection Act.” From there, the USDA worked on the first major advance in meat regulation. In 1996 the agency established the Pathogen Reduction Rule to improve meat inspection. The same year CDC’s PulseNet was born, the nationwide lab network that uses DNA fingerprinting to help identify outbreaks early, along with the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet), an epidemiological system that tracks incidents and trends related to food.
In a Q&A with Food Safety Tech, Mike Taylor, most recently the former FDA commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, discusses the dramatic change that industry has undergone during the past 25 years, from FSMA to technology advancements to food safety culture.
Food Safety Past, Present and Future at the 2017 Food Safety Consortium: Recognizing the 1993 Jack In the Box E. coli outbreak as the event that propelled the current food safety movement. Mike Taylor, Bill Marler, Esq. and Ann Marie McNamara (Target Corp.), who took the reins from the late David Theno at Jack In the Box, will discuss Theno’s impact on the industry. The session continues through a timeline of the evolution of food safety from 1993 to present, and then the future, where we will cover the IoT, social media, food safety culture and technology. It will be followed by the STOP Foodborne Illness Award Ceremony. Wednesday, November 29, 2017, 4:00–5:30 pm | LEARN MORE
Food Safety Tech: Reflecting on how far the industry has come since the E.coli O157:H7 outbreak involving Jack in the Box in 1993, what key areas of progress have been made since?
Michael Taylor: I think there are very major ones obviously. You have to remember where things were when the Jack-in-the-Box [outbreak] happened. We were in a place where USDA programs said it was not responsible for pathogens in raw meat and that consumers are supposed to cook the product; [and] industry was operating under traditional methods. Microbial methods were typically conducted for quality not for safety; you had the loss of public confidence and a terrible situation in which consumers were pointing at industry, and industry was pointing at consumers, and no one was taking clear responsibility for safety of the product.
Now we are in a completely different environment where not only is there clarity about industry’s responsibility for monitoring pathogens, there’s also been enormous progress by industry to put in place microbial testing, something David Theno pioneered and is now a central part of food safety management systems for meat safety.
Everything has changed.
These [institutional] arrangements exist not only in the meat industry, but now across the whole food industry. There’s the emergence of GFSI taking responsibility for managing the supply chain for food safety, food safety culture taking hold broadly across leading companies in the industry, and FSMA codifying for 80% of the food supply that FDA regulates the principles of risk-based prevention and continuous improvement on food safety.
I think it’s rather dramatic how far the industry’s food safety regulatory system has come since [the] Jack in the Box [outbreak].
FST: How has FSMA helped to align industry priorities?
Mike Taylor was on the front lines of change in the meat industry.
Taylor: Let’s focus on the events first leading up to FSMA—for example, the outbreaks or illnesses associated with leafy greens [and] peanut butter, and problems with imported products—those events in the world aligned industry priorities around the need to modernize the food safety laws and to enact FSMA. It was the coming together of industry and consumer interests, and the expert community around the principles of comprehensive risk-based prevention that vaporized into FSMA. Now FSMA is the framework within which companies are organizing their food safety systems in accordance with these modern principles of prevention.
And clearly what’s been codified in FSMA and some of the key elements are becoming organizing principles where industry is aligning our priorities for food safety. Environmental monitoring where that’s an appropriate verification control for a company’s hygiene and pathogen control—that’s clearly a priority that folks are aligning on. The issue of supplier verification for domestic and foreign supply is a priority that has been elevated by FSMA, and so has the whole issue of training and employee capacity, whether it’s in processing facilities or on farms, as well as food safety culture. If you’re going to be effectively preventive you need to deal with the human dimension of your food safety system.
These are examples of ways in which FSMA is aligning industry priorities.
Read the rest of the interview on page 2 (link below).
This week the FDA issued another guidance document to explain a waiver to the Sanitary Transportation rule and that it applies to retail food establishments that sell food for humans as well as those that sell both human and animal food. It does not apply to establishments that exclusively sell animal food.
“The Sanitary Transportation rule established a process by which FDA may waive any of the rule’s requirements for certain classes of persons, vehicles, or types of food if doing so will not result in the transportation of food under conditions that would be unsafe for human or animal health, or contrary to the public interest.” – FDA
In April, FDA announced three waivers that apply to businesses with transportation operations subject to State-Federal controls. Since this time, FDA stated that it has received questions regarding whether the term “retail food establishment” also applies to businesses that sell animal food. “The purpose of the guidance document is to clarify that the waiver is intended to apply to establishments that are covered by human food regulations based on the FDA Food Code and administered by state and local authorities,” FDA stated in a news release.
This week FDA released three guidances to help food producers understand how the FSMA rules apply to their commodities. The regulations covered in the guidances pertain to low-acid canned foods (LACF), juice HACCP and seafood HACCP. Since FDA’s regulations for HACCP and LACF were in place before the FSMA final rules were established, the agency is clarifying the FSMA requirements as well as exemptions for these products.
The following guidances are available on FDA’s website:
On Wednesday FDA launched a website where organizations can apply to be recognized as a third-party accreditation body. The certifications are used either to establish eligibility to participate in the voluntary qualified importer program, which provides expedited review and entry of food for eligible participants, or in circumstances in which FDA requires an imported food to be certified to keep potentially harmful food from entering the United States.
“Accredited Third-Party Certification is a voluntary program in which FDA recognizes ‘accreditation bodies’ that will have the responsibility of accrediting third-party ‘certification bodies’. The certification bodies will conduct food safety audits and issue certifications of foreign food facilities.” – FDA
The Food Safety Supply Chain conference brought together industry stakeholders from FDA, CFSAN, GFSI’s certification programs, academia and food companies to discuss strategies and challenges of the supply chain in a more complex global environment. The two-day event was held earlier this month at U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention in Rockville, Maryland. Here’s what some of the speakers had to say.
(Click images to enlarge)
You can’t build safety at the border; you have to build in safety before you get to the border… The Foreign Supplier Verification rule requires importers for first time to share responsibility of products that are coming into country. We have written this rule with a lot of flexibility. – Sharon Mayl, senior advisor for policy to the deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, FDA, on the FSMA FSVP rule
Transportation of food is a piece that doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it’s a very important part in ensuring the safety of food…[FDA is] in the process of developing a small entities compliance guide. We’re also revising the guidance we did in 2010 to ensure that it’s consistent with the rule. – Jennifer Thomas, director, division of enforcement, office of compliance, CFSAN, on the FSMA Sanitary Transportation of Human Food rule
Food fraud can lead to a public health threat—and should be managed under a food safety management system. – John Spink, Ph.D., director and assistant professor, Michigan State University, on supply chain transparency and food fraud
When you’re looking at the Foreign Supplier Verification Program, you also have to approve your suppliers. There are several aspects to this—you have to check their record with FDA, whether they have any warning letters or on import alert. That doesn’t mean you can’t buy from them, it just means you have to investigate what the problem is. – Russell Statman, executive director, Registrar Corp., on the FSVP rule
FDA doesn’t have jurisdiction over aquaculture farms. So we’re working with countries that do. Any country that has a significant industry has good aquaculture practice programs (GAqP)— every country now has one—so we’re working with them now to make them better. – Brett Koonse, consumer safety officer, FDA, on aquaculture and food safety
[The Sanitary Transportation of Human Food rule is important because of] the role that transportation has played in the past regarding foodborne outbreaks. We have to be proactive. We can’t learn from our mistakes anymore. – Debby Newslow, president, DL Newslow & Associates
(left to right) John Wadie of 3M Food Safety, Melanie Neumann, Terry Levee and Jorge Hernandez
Food safety should not be about just meeting the regulations. Suppliers must still meet the standards of your business. – Jorge Hernandez, chief food safety officer, Wholesome International
Collaboration and partnership are the only way your going to gain the transparency you need in the supply chain and build your brand for the protection it needs. – Melanie Neumann, president and global food safety attorney, Neumann Risk Services, LLC
One of reasons retailers take [visibility] seriously is that we’re the last line of defense. If you buy something at the grocery store and you get sick, you don’t remember the manufacturer of the product, you remember where you [bought] the product. – Terry Levee, senior director of food safety, Giant Eagle
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.
