Tag Archives: Focus Article

Doug White, PSSI
FST Soapbox

The Real-Time Value of Technology in Food Safety

By Doug White
No Comments
Doug White, PSSI

We live in a world where information on any subject is at our fingertips and can be accessed instantly. These real-time notifications keep us up to date on whatever topics we choose. This information helps guide our daily decisions and communicate more effectively with each other.

The same is true in business. We can be more efficient and make more informed decisions based on the information we have at various points throughout our day. However, for many companies and industries, the key is figuring out what information is needed and how it can be transmitted in real-time to increase the efficiency or effectiveness of the work.

In an industry not known for being on the leading edge of new technology, it is still not uncommon to have data captured using the good old pad and pencil method. This, unfortunately, limits visibility and the timely application of that information. This is especially critical when it comes to sanitation and food safety data. It is a complex, high-risk industry with tight timelines and lots of moving parts (figuratively and literally), and various teams working together 24/7.

The 2019 Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo features a dedicated track on Cleaning & Sanitation | Attend the event October 1–3 | Schaumburg, ILAdditionally, new rules and regulations around FSMA require processors to have more detailed documentation of a food safety plan and produce data proving adherence to that plan during plant inspections. Processors must show that best practices are being followed and address any instances where concerns may arise with immediate corrective actions, or face potential fines or temporary shutdown of production.

The bottom line is, technology is no longer a “nice to have”, it is a must have. Data is our friend and, if used appropriately, can significantly help mitigate risk and improve food safety.

Innovation in Sanitation

Specifically in the sanitization process, there is a distinct science-based, data-driven approach that can be used to document and report on the consistency and effectiveness of each cleaning process. However, without the right experience or specific microbiological training, it is hard for a processor to know what to document, how to document it and why it matters.

For instance, as part of standard operating procedures, our team always monitors and documents four key factors that can influence a successful cleaning process: Time, temperature, concentration of cleaning agents and mechanical force (i.e., water pressure). If any one variable as part of the sanitization process is off, it can impact the overall effectiveness of the cleaning.

This is the type of risk-based data that can be applied as part of FSMA reporting and compliance.

However, the real opportunity for improving food safety is about the visibility of that data and how it can be used to adjust the sanitization processes in real-time.

I was fortunate to be part of a team that developed and implemented a new real-time performance metrics platform over the last year. It is a digital system that helps sanitation teams proactively track and respond to critical data that can impact the effectiveness of the sanitation process.

Replacing the pen-and-paper method is a system in which data is logged digitally into an application on a tablet or mobile device in real-time during the sanitation process.

Site managers closely monitor data, which can be shared or accessed by other stakeholders to perform analytics and make real-time adjustments to the sanitation process. The system sends alerts and notifications regarding changes or updates that must be made as well.

From internal communications to coordination with USDA and FDA inspectors, it supports a much more seamless communication structure as well. Employees feel more confident and empowered to manage the sanitation process and partners feel armed with the right information and data to focus on managing the needs of their business.

As an industry, I believe we have a great opportunity ahead of us to continue advancing food safety. The technology and tools are there to support us. It is a matter of taking small steps to innovate and improve efficiencies in our own businesses every day that will have a drastic impact on the industry as a whole.

Blockchain

GS1 Discussion Group Seeks Education About Blockchain Without the Hype

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Blockchain

There are two key points that Kevin Otto of GS1 wants people to understand about blockchain: It is not a traceability solution in itself, and data standards are critical. Otto is the lead for the GS1 US Cross-Industry Blockchain Discussion Group (launched in November 2018) and the Foodservice GS1 US Standards Initiative at GS1 US. Recently the blockchain buzz has been transforming into a more realistic conversation about the future role of the technology in supply chain visibility and the necessary steps to achieve interoperability. In a Q&A with Food Safety Tech, Otto shares what GS1 is trying to accomplish with its relatively new blockchain discussion group, the important role of data standards, and supply chain traceability.

Food Safety Tech: Can you explain the role and goals of GS1’s blockchain discussion group?

Kevin Otto, GS1 US
Kevin Otto, lead for the GS1 US Cross-Industry Blockchain Discussion Group and the Foodservice GS1 US Standards Initiative at GS1 US.

Kevin Otto: It’s a cross industry discussion group, so it’s a bit of departure from how we typically approach industry with verticals such as foodservice or retail/grocery. For the blockchain discussion group, we decided to bring different industries together under one umbrella—leading companies within foodservice, retail/grocery, healthcare, and apparel/merchandise—to discuss the use cases and implementations for blockchain. The common thread among so many industries was a focus on improving supply chain visibility. We thought it was a good opportunity to see where we could get alignment and be industry agnostic around how blockchain can be leveraged.

There were a few overarching goals that we were trying to accomplish with the group: The first thing we heard from industry is they’d really like some education without the hype. There seemed to be some confusion with some industry partners that blockchain itself is a traceability solution, which it isn’t. We know that a blockchain implementation is only as good as the data that is feeding it. We want to help various players in these industries clear up confusion, [and understand] that there’s still a need for data standards in order for blockchain to produce meaningful results. As a neutral not-for-profit organization, we thought we’d be a good place to provide education and industry insight.

In terms of other things that this group is trying to do: One thing that we thought was abundantly clear was the need to identify and align on the necessary core standards and master data elements to even approach a trading partner with a supply chain visibility proof of concept leveraging blockchain. If you want to talk about supply chain visibility with your trading partners and you’re not capturing and sharing any standardized data about how product moves through your supply chains today, there’s really no way you can even begin to discuss blockchain with them.

This goes back to the confusion in the industry where people think they can adopt “blockchain” and therefore have traceability. Supply chain visibility is a priority across all of these industries. Now is the time for them to decide what separate pieces of traceability data and master data are needed in order to have these discussions with trading partners. The discussion group will be putting out guidance on what is specifically needed for a blockchain traceability proof of concept.

Another major thing industry had asked from us: A knowledge management center, which is an interactive space where participants in the industry discussion group can post articles, ask probing questions, and interact with people outside of their four walls, and discuss progress of their own proofs of concept. We have been developing this tool over the last couple of months and will launch this summer.

FST: Are there additional the concerns about the use and implementation of blockchain technology?

Otto: There’s a lot of investment that goes into blockchain technology, and we saw a lot of people jumping in with both feet before understanding what the benefit really was to their organization. It’s almost as though blockchain was being positioned as a solution for all supply chain problems. We thought that being able to provide some of this education and insight from industry would help to elevate some of those issues.

I think one of the other concerns that plays a role is interoperability. When you talk about the ability for these different blockchain ecosystems to effectively speak to one another, there’s certainly a need for data standards in that space. There isn’t going to be just one blockchain solution; there are going to be several different players out there and they will need to leverage standards as one step toward interoperability. Our perspective is that we have companies that are already leveraging GS1 standards today through other data sharing mechanisms, and there’s no need to reinvent the wheel. These standards already exist; let’s make sure we’re using what’s been tested over time, which is a key step in helping ecosystems speak to one another.

FST: How is the use of digitized data provoking a shift in supply chain processes?

Otto: There are still smaller players within the food space who are leveraging paper-based data exchange with their trading partners. As the supply chain grows increasingly more global, the idea that you can have effective track and trace, for example, when the only thing you know is where a product was immediately before it came to you and immediately where it went after it left just doesn’t work anymore. It’s too slow and, quick frankly, dangerous if you have that much manual interaction and that much reliance on paper-based processes in a global supply chain. Certainly we’re seeing more trading partners make digital data exchange one of the prerequisites of their sourcing. The supply chain has gotten so complex that it just isn’t realistic to expect people to play “whisper down the lane” in figuring out where their product went in the event of a recall.

And when you think about the impact of social media and how quickly a recall can become much bigger, it’s imperative that some of these companies within the food and retail industries make sure their processes are buttoned up and that they can communicate with their trading partners quickly, and pull that product out of the supply chain. I think we’re seeing companies saying, if you don’t have a mechanism to electronically exchange data, then we may have to take our business elsewhere.

FST: Talk about your thoughts related to traceability and the need for companies to “speak the same language”. Where are companies in this journey, and where do they need assistance?

Otto: Speaking the same language is imperative. The most sophisticated data sharing methods in the world are of very little use if I don’t understand the data being sent to me. There aren’t any manufacturers, retailers, operators, etc. in the food supply chain whose stated core competency is translating data from their trading partners. That’s why so many of these different companies are relying on GS1 standards—the global language of business—so they can focus on what they do best—providing high quality, safe products to their consumers

In terms of where companies are on this journey: It varies. There are companies that have been adopting standards for traceability for years, and there are always other companies being on-boarded. This is a marathon, not a sprint. The important thing to realize is that this is a business process, not a project. Food traceability is something we need to work at everyday. As we work with all these different companies, they’re increasingly saying that food safety isn’t a competitive advantage—it’s something we all need to do and we all benefit from.

Where assistance might be needed: The food service supply chain is large and complex. When looking at the tens of thousands of independent growers as you get further upstream in the supply chain, we work with other industry associations to make sure they understand our messaging and how GS1 standards can provide value for their business. The challenge is always going to be that if we want to get to farm-to-fork traceability, we have to make sure we are talking to all the independent farmers and growers that you just can’t simply call or talk to on a daily basis. We leverage partnerships to be our voice in those discussions so we can truly connect with the entire food supply chain. That will be a continuous ongoing effort.

magnifying glass

Failure to Have Foreign Supplier Verification Plan a Common Inspection Observation

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
magnifying glass

Food accounts for one-third of the 42 million products imported into the United States each year, according to Andrew J. Seaborn, supervisory consumer safety officer, division of import operations, ORA, FDA. FSMA’s risk-based FSVP rule places responsibility on importers to ensure their food is safe, yet since the rule was implemented, the most common Form 483a observation has been a failure to develop an FSVP. In fact, from FY 2017 to present, the observation was cited 552 times, outweighing any other observation, said Seaborn at the recent Food Safety Supply Chain Conference, as he shared some of the latest trends in compliance and enforcement related to FSVP.

Thus far, common citations include:

  • No written hazard analysis to identify and evaluate known or reasonable foreseeable hazards
  • No written procedures that ensure appropriate foreign supplier verification activities are occurring related to imported food

Seaborn noted several additional “significant observations” related to FSVP inspections, including incorrect entry data, and the absence of documentation in the following areas:

  • Approval of a foreign supplier
  • Evaluating foreign supplier performance, along with related risks
  • Establishing written procedures to ensure foreign supplier verification activities are performed
  • Review and assessment of another party’s evaluation of foreign supplier performance
  • Ensuring food was produced in compliance with low acid canned foods regulations
  • Related to meeting the definition of a very small importer, when applicable
Main Points of FSVP FSVP Inspections (Completed)
U.S.-based importers responsible to ensure safety of imported food FY 2017 285
Risk-based (hazards, importers and suppliers) FY 2018 792
Align with PC supply chain provisions FY 2019 (as of 5/28/19) 458 (FDA is planning for 880)
FDA oversees compliance via importer inspection
Foreign suppliers can help importers comply

 

Alec Senese, Bayer Crop Science, Digital Pest Management
Bug Bytes

Did Barcode Scanning Kill IPM Inspections?

By Alec Senese
No Comments
Alec Senese, Bayer Crop Science, Digital Pest Management

Barcode placement on rodent traps was introduced as a simple and seemingly obvious way to make sure that the work of an IPM inspection was being performed. Each trap would have to be manually inspected in order to scan the barcode, providing proof that the task was completed.

While this method may be a great way to ensure an important job is being done, the problem with this approach is that it does not ensure the most important jobs are being done. In facilities that are large and complex, the act of checking and scanning traps is a lengthy and laborious process. This leaves little time for thorough investigative inspection and corrective actions, which are a vital part of preventing future rodent problems. Pest control technicians’ time should be spent using their understanding of pest biology and behavior to be pest detectives in your facility, not spending the majority of their time on time-consuming tasks that require little brainpower.

So did barcode scanning kill IPM inspections? Probably not, but it certainly didn’t help.

Jennifer van de Ligt, Food Protection and Defense Institute, University of Minnesota
FST Soapbox

The Changing Face of Leadership in the Food and Beverage Industry

By Jennifer van de Ligt, Ph.D.
No Comments
Jennifer van de Ligt, Food Protection and Defense Institute, University of Minnesota

Our food system is facing daunting challenges. We must adapt our food systems to sustainably feed almost 10 billion people by 2050 in a world with shifting climate and environmental pressures. In addition, we need to reduce the rising number of undernourished people (an estimated 821 million people in recent years) and confront the significant issue of more than 30% of food production being lost or wasted. Tackling these challenges will require collaboration across all aspects of the food system to assure that production processes, policies and regulations, food safety practices, and affordability align to assure we live in a food secure future. However, most of the current generation of leaders in the food industry has not approached leadership from the systems-thinking approach that will be required to succeed.

Thus, focusing on developing the right skills in the rising next generation of leaders in the food and beverage industry in order to solve these problems will be critical. We need people who can think broadly and are empowered to navigate the complexities of the global food system. Professionals in the food industry need to think beyond the specialties and silos where they currently work. Approaching food problems in an open-minded and cross-disciplinary way will achieve better results for business growth, population well-being, food production and planet sustainability.

In my decades of working in the food industry, I was acutely aware of the challenges that we would face in the future. Now, as part of the Integrated Food Systems Leadership program at the University of Minnesota, we are addressing these issues by helping to train the future leaders that will transform the food system. The following topics are just a few of the areas that we see as essential to develop the food leaders of tomorrow.

Next-Gen Leaders with a Holistic Approach

One of the key steps for new leaders in food and beverage industry is to adapt to food systems thinking. Most professionals were hired for their knowledge in a specific area. Now, to become next-gen leaders, they will need to think about the whole food production system and how all decisions made in this system, from sourcing and production to supply chain and retail sale, affect people and the environment.

Where we source our food and how we produce it is truly global and interconnected. The ingredient and material supply chains are vast and complex. We can no longer afford not to take into consideration where and how these items are being sourced and supplied. Additionally, we can no longer afford not to be responsible for the products produced and how they are affecting the health and well-being of consumers as well as the planet.

The next generation of leaders, no matter what part of the food system they are working in, will need to understand these relationships and think about how all these little pieces from production to marketing and sales work together. When one change is made to the system, whether the idea is from R&D or the marketing department or is caused by a new regulation, this will produce ripple effects across the food system.

True Leadership vs. Management in the Food System

Often times, the idea of leadership is thought of as just managing people—observing a team and making sure each person is doing their job. This is management and not a true definition of leadership. To be a leader means you have a vision and can paint a clear picture of what you see to others. Leaders build relationships with people who help turn a vision into reality. Leaders aren’t afraid to change the status quo and take risks if those risks will help the long-term plan. Leaders help their team achieve more than any individual on the team thought possible.

Leaders have many qualities. First, they have ideas that should be heard. However, in order for those ideas to see the light of day, professionals must know how to communicate so their opinions and thoughts are considered. Knowing how to package a vision and communicate it more effectively are critical to leadership development.

Second, leaders desire to have a meaningful impact in the world. To be able to effect change, seeing the bigger picture and understanding the interdependencies throughout the food system is paramount. As part of this, they want and need to help other people be heard to move the vision and plan forward. They will need the skills to foster collaboration and innovation within their teams and across disciplines to help everyone succeed in making the changes needed in the food system.

Third, although leaders want to grow their companies, they also want to grow personally. When a vision is created and steps taken to pave the way for that vision to come to fruition, a journey begins. Leaders know that any journey embarked upon is a life-changing experience, and they welcome that new stage.

Finally, it is important to note that leaders can be found in more places than the corner office. Leaders are not just CEOs, but come in varying roles and titles. Developing people’s leadership potential, style and goals for whatever capacity they work in is a critical part of leadership building. Leaders exist within every team, department and work group across a business. Finding them, to grow and foster their potential, is the challenge.

Fostering Professional Development in the Field

Food and beverage companies can do a great deal to address these pressing issues today by instilling a culture of learning in the organization. I have found, more often than not, people who enter this industry are passionate about it. However, when individuals enter a company, especially early in their career, they sometimes face a crisis of faith moment and question that their lifelong training has not prepared them for what they truly want to do.

Many times those in the industry feel like they have ideas or skills that aren’t being leveraged. They may feel like they aren’t being heard or that they’ve been pigeon-holed into one segment of or role in the business. These professionals could be the collateral damage of silo mentality and lack of a culture of learning and growth, especially when they are high-value and have specialized knowledge. Corporations have perfected efficiency by keeping certain departments, and individuals within them, separated in order to optimize their segment’s function. But slotting the business, and individuals, into distinct categories can hinder the ability of these organizations to see and understand the big picture.

By breaking down this silo mentality and promoting systems thinking, businesses can help their talented and dedicated people grow their career, become a better leader, and enable a move across the lattice structure within an organization. Many times these individuals feel a little lost in the mix and frustrated as a cog in the machine and are looking for growth opportunities. This doesn’t necessarily mean they want to move vertically within the organization, but rather learn and grow laterally or diagonally within an organization to both enhance their career and provide a broader benefit to the entire business.

When companies equip professionals with critical-thinking skills, they are developing their professionals who want to make a meaningful impact within their organizations as well as in the entire food system. This is true empowerment to improve the future of food and make companies viable and competitive for the future.

If a company doesn’t have this training ability internally, organizations can support programs that are helping to build these leaders. Programs like the new Integrated Food Systems Leadership are designed to help future leaders bridge the current skills gap in the food system. These future leaders will have the tools to drive the change critical for many companies to succeed while we feed the future.

Laura Lombard, IMEPIK
FST Soapbox

Is Your Facility Properly Prepared to Ensure Preventive Controls are Met?

By Laura Lombard
No Comments
Laura Lombard, IMEPIK

Under FSMA, you are required to have at least one Preventive Control Qualified Individual (PCQI) on your staff at all times to build and manage your food safety plan(s) for your manufacturing facilities. Per the regulation, PCQIs “have successfully completed training in the development and application of risk-based preventive controls at least equivalent to that received under a standardized curriculum recognized as adequate by FDA or be otherwise qualified through job experience to develop and apply a food safety system.” (Subpart C Section 117.180 (c) (1))

First and foremost, have you met the basic requirement of having at least one trained PCQI? There are now both online and in-person options to ensure your that food safety or quality assurance manager has had the proper training. Most online options require set times and dates like the in-person version to complete the training. Only one PCQI training currently on the market is completely self-paced and available 24-7. No matter which option you choose, it is a baseline that you ensure you have checked that regulatory box before the FDA comes to inspect your facility.

But what if your PCQI needs to take extended medical leave or moves on to another job? It is a proactive and smart move to have a back-up PCQI trained to both help support your PCQI under regular circumstances and be ready to step in if your quality assurance manager becomes unavailable. For a relatively small investment, you can ensure your company is meeting the regulatory requirement and has the training to provide a safe, quality product.

The FSMA regulation does not require you to have a PCQI for every facility but does require an individual food safety plan per location. Depending on how many facilities your particular company has, you may want to consider more than one PCQI to ensure that food safety plans are regularly updated and properly implemented. Many companies are now training the entire quality assurance department or a facility cross-functional team to be PCQIs and participate on the food safety team. Again, the relatively small investment in properly training personnel can save your company hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in costly recalls, lost revenue due to negative brand reputation, and FDA fines. The average recall costs $10 million, not including brand damage and lost customers.

It is simply prudent to invest in PCQI training beyond the basic requirement of the FSMA regulation. Companies should train their quality assurance or food safety staff at the PCQI level to protect a company’s product quality, brand and customer base. The fewer food safety-related claims you have, the more that can be saved in costly recalls, loss of current or potential customers, and brand reputation. Lastly, a company with a robust safety culture has a competitive advantage over competitors who are less inclined to invest sufficiently in their food safety training and may suffer financial repercussions and damage to reputation as a result of recalls and customer quality assurance complaints.

Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

This Bufala Is No Bufala

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Bufala
Find examples of these records and more in the Food Fraud Database.

Who doesn’t enjoy a nice Insalata Caprese or pizza Margherita with fresh tomatoes and mozzarella? Based on regulations in the EU and Italy, mozzarella di bufala is supposed to be made with buffalo milk only. “Bufala” in Italian may also mean “media hoax”, however, in this case, science shows that there is indeed “no bufala”. Multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry brings wide-spread fraught to light, showing that two-thirds of the tested supermarket and restaurant products are made with much cheaper cow’s milk, according to a study published in Food Control.

Resources

Gunning, Y., et al. (July 2019). “Quantitative authenticity testing of buffalo mozzarella via αs1-Casein using multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry”. Food Control. Volume 101, Pages 189-197. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713519300775?via%3Dihub

Third party certification program, FDA, audits, Food Safety Supply Chain Conference

Your Supply Chain in 2019: Top Considerations

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Third party certification program, FDA, audits, Food Safety Supply Chain Conference

Last week industry gathered for the Food Safety Supply Chain conference at USP in Rockville, MD. The following are some quick highlights of insights they shared.

Most Common Form 483 Observations

Following FSVP inspections, the most common Form 483 observation was a company’s failure to develop an FSVP. From FY 2017 to present, the observation was cited 552 times, outweighing any other observation and underscoring the need for an educational component. – AJ Seaborn, supervisory consumer safety officer, division of import operations, ORA, FDA

FDA, Food Safety Supply Chain Conference
(left to right) AJ Seaborn, Lisa Ross and Priya Rathnam of FDA share an update on FSMA implementation at the 2019 Food Safety Supply Chain Conference

Top Citations for FY 2018

  • Hazard analysis (when a facility is not identifying a hazard that requires a preventive control)
  • Lack of a food safety plan. “There’s still work to be done on the education and outreach on this one.”
  • Equipment and utensils (GMP deficiency)
  • Allergen controls monitoring
  • Sanitation control verification procedures
  • Personnel (usually, this is related to a repeated issue)
    Priya Rathnam, supervisory consumer safety officer, CFSAN, FDA

Critical Supplier Questions Must Be Asked

  • How do you choose and approve your suppliers?
  • What must be done to ensure that we aren’t receiving hazards from suppliers?
  • What requirements must be defined?
  • Does every supplier need to be audited?
  • Should we treat all suppliers equally? (No, it depends on their risk profile)
  • How do we ensure that our program is effective?
  • When working with suppliers, it’s important that your decisions are reproducible and that you apply the same risk methodology across the board. – Erika Miller, food safety specialist, D.L. Newslow & Associates, Inc.

“Before you can do anything to transform your business, you have to have visibility in your supply chain.” – George Dyche, senior director, innovations & solutions, Avery Dennison

“’Compliance’ should be replaced in industry with ‘commitment’…when you’re committed, compliance will follow.” – Felix Amiri, food sector chair, Global Coalition for Sustained Excellence in Food & Health Protection (GCSE-FHP)

Putting the “P” in CAPA = Getting out in front of issues before they happen. “Don’t wait for the consumer to get sick… if you have a recall, it means you haven’t done your work on the CAPA side.” – Andrew Kennedy, director, Global Traceability Center, IFT

Food Safety Supply Chain Conference
(left to right) Felix Amiri, Lucy Angarita and Andy Kennedy discusss supply chain vulnerabilities and solutions.

On critical success factors to establish a traceability program: Technology will never fix a company’s data quality or process issues. If you don’t already have it defined, you won’t get there. And after you understand the KPIs and goals, don’t give up. This doesn’t happen overnight. Engage your leadership, because the vision has to be from the top for others to also allocate the time and effort. “It’s a journey, not a destination. If you take your eyes off data quality, data quality goes down.” – Lucy Angarita, director, supply chain traceability, IPC/Subway

In 2018, 47% of recalls were allergen related, and this rate has increased. “People still don’t get [allergen labeling]”.  – Barry Parsons, senior consultant, PTI Consulting Group (Division of Paster Training)

On the significance of teaching truck drivers the importance of food safety risks: “They are part of our supply chain, and we need to incorporate them. It shouldn’t be out of sight, out of mind.” – Holly Mockus, senior industry analyst, Alchemy

Third party certification program, FDA, audits, Food Safety Supply Chain Conference
Trish Wester, chair of The Association of Food Safety Auditing Professionals, leads an FDA panel discussion about the Third-Party Certification Program. (left to right) Doriliz De Leon, program coordinator, accredited third-party certification program, FDA; Marla Keller, biologist, FDA; Marianne Fatica, policy analyst, Office of Compliance, FDA; Clinton Priestley, consumer safety officer, audit staff, human and animal food operations, ORA, FDA
Bob Pudlock, Gulf Stream Search
FST Soapbox

Architect the Perfect Food Safety Team: Capture Your Ideal Candidate and Set Them Up for Success

By Bob Pudlock
No Comments
Bob Pudlock, Gulf Stream Search

If there is one ingredient that contributes the most to a successful food safety team and culture, it’s the senior-most food safety officer taking full responsibility for the recruitment and on-boarding of each of its team members.

“But isn’t that HR’s job?”

“Isn’t that the talent acquisition team’s job?”

“Isn’t that what our internal recruiter is supposed to take care of?”

As an executive recruiter who is asked to transform food safety teams through new hires, I can say with 100% conviction that the answer is NO.

It’s your job as a food safety leader to make sure every step of the recruitment and on-boarding process, from the first connection with the potential candidate all the way through their first review, is performed flawlessly.

The following are some key benchmarks of a well-executed recruitment process.

  • The candidate and food safety leadership team have clear expectations of how the new hire will impact the business.
  • The candidate’s compensation expectations are aligned with the company’s capabilities, both in the short-term as well as in the future.
  • Each member of the food safety team is on the same page during the interview process. There’s a level of coordination and everyone has a role and responsibility that leaves a favorable impression on the candidate that “this is a strong food safety team and one I want to be a part of.”
  • The hiring team, because it’s been so thorough in its due diligence, has no underlying concerns about their decision.
  • The new hire knows when their first review will be, who it will be with, and what benchmarks they’ll be assessed against.
  • Offer, acceptance and start date are presented, accepted and committed to in less than three days.

What happens when YOU don’t take ownership of the candidate and new hire experience?

Bob Pudlock will be moderating the panel discussion, “Food Safety Leadership: Earning Respect”, at the 2019 Food Safety Consortium | October 1–3 | Schaumburg, ILWhen asked to describe why they left a role after less than six months, the most often heard reply is that the food safety leadership and/or recruiter promised something during the interview process and once on board, everything changed.

Another complaint that arises is that elements of relocation packages, sign-on bonuses, on-boarding and training are either not executed or not coordinated with what was promised during the interview process.

In the food safety space, an oft-held complaint is that the confidence and conviction of food safety leadership during the interview process disappears when the new hire arrives; the new hire experiences a lack of respect shown to food safety personnel, and their leadership team retreats in the background and doesn’t provide cover for the on-the-ground team.

It’s unfortunate but true—a misstep in the recruiting and on-boarding process in an otherwise flawlessly executed hiring process can have drastic consequences on a new hire’s experience.

Imagine a meal at a five-star restaurant with family and friends that goes off flawlessly, only to find out the next morning that half your guests are in the emergency room with food poisoning.

It’s no different when a new hire’s on-boarding experience destroys the goodwill that was created during the hiring process.

In talent acquisition, a flawlessly executed hiring process, followed by an on-boarding experience that aligns with what the new hire was promised during the interview process is the key to future employee referrals—no area of a food or beverage company needs more strong employee referrals than food safety.

It’s also a big part of why food safety staff can act with confidence in calling out protocol violations or unsafe practices that play out in facilities or with suppliers. When trust and goodwill with senior food safety leadership is in place, the food safety team can do their job knowing their boss has their back.

Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

This Smells Quite Fishy

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food fraud, Fish
Records involving fraud can be found in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne

In a EU-wide coordinated effort, more than a dozen members of an organized criminal group were arrested. The criminals were fishing with illegal methods, and processed and stored their catch in unsanitary conditions. Consumers’ health was possibly affected by the rotting fish being treated with bleach to mask unsavory smells, with the goal to sell the fish in multiple EU countries, yielding a revenue of more than €100,000 per year. In addition, the gang committed tax and money laundering crimes.

Resources

  1. EU-OCS Editor (May 16 2019). “Tons of contaminated fish seized in EU-wide operation”. EU-OCS Latest News on Crime and Security in Europe. Retrieved from https://eu-ocs.com/tons-of-contaminated-fish-seized-in-eu-wide-operation/