Tag Archives: Focus Article

Darin Detwiler

Bringing Food Safety to the Masses

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Darin Detwiler

Food safety is set to gain national prominence with the release of “Poisoned: The Dirty Truth About Your Food.” The documentary from director Stephanie Soechtig was inspired by the book, Poisoned: The True Story of the Deadly E. Coli Outbreak That Changed the Way Americans Eat, by Jeff Benedict, which tells the story of the landmark 1993 Jack in the Box E. Coli outbreak.

The film premiered on June 9 at the Tribeca film festival and will launch on Netflix in Fall 2023. We spoke with Dr. Darin Detwiler, author, founder and CEO of Detwiler Consulting Group, and professor at Northeastern University, whose son Riley died as a result of the outbreak at just 16 months old, about his involvement in the documentary, who the film aims to reach, and changes that could be implemented to strengthen America’s food safety system.

How did the documentary come together and how did you get involved?

Tribeca Poisoned Premiere
Sarah Sorcher, Marion Nestle, Christine Haughney Dare-Bryan, Julie Marler, Bill Marler, Darin Detwiler

Dr. Detwiler: The film makers bought the rights to the book Poisoned by Jeff Benedict, But where Benedict’s book really looks at 1993 and the immediate aftermath of the Jack-in-the-Box E. coli outbreak, the filmmakers also wanted to look at the 30 years since the outbreak. We connected because I had written Food Safety: Past, Present and Predictions, and in that book I talk about 1993 and the immediate aftermath, but I also talk about the Peanut Corporation of America, the romaine lettuce outbreak and other landmark cases over the past three decades. I was a good resource for them in terms of my experience in 1993 with the death of my son, who was one of those four who died as a result of the E. Coli outbreak, and also in terms of my work with USDA and the FDA and my role as an academic who speaks on food safety and food safety policy.

Who is the intended audience in terms of who the filmmakers were hoping to speak to and in terms of who you hope to reach?

Dr. Detwiler: I love the fact that there are different audiences for the documentary. This is an opportunity for food safety professionals to understand the legacy of the E. Coli outbreak and the why behind the protocols, procedures, and expectations in regulatory compliance.

But what excites me is that this documentary was made for the general public, and it can hit the hearts and the stomachs of everyone. Everyone eats, and for more than 50% of people, their first job is somehow connected to food. Could this help someone who is working on a food production line better understand the history behind food handling and food safety requirements?

At the premiere there were so many questions from the audience and people were saying, “I had no idea you could get it E. coli without even eating a contaminated product. I had no idea this is still an issue.” This documentary could impact the decision making of several different categories of stakeholders who all have a role to play in terms of the bigger picture of food safety.

It must be painful to keep revisiting and telling the story of your son’s death.

Detwiler an Riley
Dr. Detwiler and son Riley.

Dr. Detwiler: It’s a way from me to pay respect to my son, and this might sound Pollyannaish, but it also helps to memorialize his story and extend the legacy of his life to new audiences.

If my son was alive, he’d be older than I am now—I was 24 in 1993 and Riley would be 31 today. For 30 years I have been sharing his story, and it has served two purposes. One is to help improve food safety at the core level and two is to keep my promise to myself. Right after my son died, I spoke with President Bill Clinton on the phone, and I said, “I feel like I need to help and be a part of this.” My thinking was, whatever I can do in terms of science or technology or laws and policy, we’re going to make it such that families in the future will not be dealing with these problems, but clearly they still are.

There was also a sense of, while I’m faced with losing my son, I don’t want to be faced with this notion that my son lost his father. When I do this work, in my mind it’s like I’m still spending time with him. I’m still there for him. And I do this not only for myself and my son but also for other people who have been affected by foodborne illness. To say “the CDC estimates that 48 million Americans become sick every year, that some 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die every year,” that’s usually the most lip service anyone gives to the idea of foodborne illness. When I tell the story of my son’s illness and other family’s experiences, that puts a face and an emotion to those numbers. My goal is to not only impact those with the ability to change the industry, but also serve those 3,000 families every year—that’s 90,000 families since my son died—that live with that chair forever empty at their family table. I saw this documentary as being very important because the true burden of foodborne illness is represented, and representation is an important part of the healing and recovery from such an event.

I was surprised to learn that back in 1993 E. coli in beef wasn’t a significant concern on the federal level, but was more stringently regulated among a small number of states. Are there food safety risks today where you feel we’re lacking in oversight or regulation?

Dr. Detwiler: There were very few states that were reporting E. coli at that time, but within a year that had quadrupled. Today, we have Pulsenet and Foodnet, which are federal collections of data related to foodborne illness incidents, and we have much better—when you’re looking at multi-state outbreaks—data being collected.

One area that’s of interest is the FDA Food Code in that it is updated regularly, but there are some states that use very old versions of it. When I was doing my doctorate research just a few years ago in 2015-2016, there were some states that were using versions of the Food Code there were over 20 years old, and clearly the science has changed.

On the federal level, there are 15 different federal agencies that play a role in food safety as well as many different state agencies, but you don’t just have 50 states. Within those 50 states you have either the State Department of Agriculture or the State Department of Health overseeing food safety—each of which have two different missions and two different sources of funding. On top of that there are more than 3,000 different jurisdictions for food safety in the U.S. when you start looking at military bases, tribal reservations, universities and colleges, etc. In some places it’s regulated by the state and in others it’s by county or even by city. So there are a lot of moving pieces and a lot of different players, resulting in this patchwork of regulatory agency oversight.

Shortly after the 1993 outbreak, the USDA declared that E. coli was an illegal adulterant in meat, and today we rarely see cases of food safety failure related to E. coli and meat. However, there were no significant changes in FDA policy until FSMA was passed in 2010, and the rules didn’t start to be implemented until 2016.

Imagine if we had a single food safety agency. Imagine if there had been a single agency 30 years ago and if the change in policy hadn’t just impact food regulated by the USDA but instead impacted all foods.

Does this mean you support the potential move to create a single Human Foods program at the federal level?

Dr. Detwiler: I do support it and believe it would solve some of these gaps. When you look at other nations you don’t have the division among the states like we have here. Just the sheer number of agencies at the federal level, economically it doesn’t make sense. Look at what happened after 9/11. Suddenly you have the Department of Homeland Security that says we can cut through some of these problems by creating a federal agency that brings together all the different agencies involved in national security. Imagine if something like that was done in terms of food safety.

There are a lot of factors to consider, and this is a complicated issue. I don’t think this documentary will answer all the questions, but I hope that it will compel consumers to start asking these questions. That is where we can potentially see the greatest change and improvement in food safety.

You mentioned that in the documentary the film makers wanted to focus on the legacy of 1993, what in your words is the legacy of 1993?

Dr. Detwiler: In terms of the positive, it gained the media’s attention. We have a food safety culture and industry today that has radically grown when you look at magazines and websites and conferences and things like that. What I do find unfortunate is that it is focused on industry. Imagine if all the messaging about driver safety was kept within the automobile industry and not actually getting to drivers. This documentary fills a big gap by focusing on the consumer. We also have seen the positive impact of the USDA declaring E. Coli an illegal adulterant in meat.

Poisoned Film Screen

Some of the things the documentary highlights, however, is the issue of antibiotic resistance and salmonella still being legal in poultry. When you look at some of the things that haven’t changed—for example, we see cattle feed lots that are next to where romaine lettuce is grown, the idea that Hepatitis A could be prevented in the food industry and in restaurants if employees simply got the vaccine to prevent it, and the lack of consequences for food safety failures—there are still areas that are lacking.

Most people don’t realize that with Jack in the Box back in 1993, there were no state or federal charges filed even though the CEO acknowledged—in front of news cameras—that they violated state law on the minimum cooking temperature, resulting in hundreds of illnesses and hospitalizations and the death of four people.

For families who’ve lost a child or their child has been left disabled, these cases have all been settled out of court and out of the public eye. This documentary bypasses all of that and puts this information in a very public package.

Ana Allende
Food Genomics

Listeria Contamination Patterns in Produce Processors

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Ana Allende

A study published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems (May 2023) looked at Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) contamination patterns in three produce processing facilities—one with a cut iceberg lettuce line, one with a cut fruit line and one with a salad bowl line. Lead author Ana Allende, Ph.D., and her team from the CEBAS-CSIC research institute in Spain also tested biocides against resident Lm populations to gauge efficacy and potential loss of sensitivity.

The two-year project was designed to yield practical data about produce facilities’ environmental monitoring plans as well as the efficacy of sanitation programs.

Their first objective was to understand how different factors such as zoning, sanitary design and connectivity affected the probability of contamination in different fresh produce processing facilities. In the case of salad bowls, the ingredients included not only leafy greens and other vegetables but also proteins from meat, fish and cheese, or pastas from different sources.

The researchers divided the processing areas into three zones based on their proximity to contact with the produce. Zone 1 involved areas with direct contact, such as knives and conveyor belts. Zone 2 included surfaces that did not contact food but were in close proximity. Zone 3 included more remote noncontact surfaces, such as drains, floors and ceilings, that could potentially lead to contaminating zones 1 and 2.

The researchers conducted systematic sampling of the facilities at the end of the day before cleaning and sanitizing. They also resampled the three processing lines after the cleaning and disinfection activities. In addition to the more than 600 total samples from the three zones, the researchers collected 45 samples from raw ingredients and end products.

Findings

Regardless of the facility, the highest number of positive Lm samples came from Zone 3. Whole genome sequencing revealed that the same two serotypes of Lm were found on the three processing lines after the two samplings, before and after cleaning.

“This makes us understand that these serotypes are inherent and are moving from zone 3 to zone 1,” said Allende.

When evaluating the efficacy of biocides against resident Lm isolates, “we found, indeed, all of the isolates obtained from the environment after cleaning were sensitive to the biocides,” she said.

While the research aimed to provide relevant results for the three cooperating produce processors, it also has broader implications for the produce industry about how they should conduct environmental monitoring including sampling after processing just before cleaning, Allende said. In addition, it should help processors better understand the main contamination points in zone 1 and how they relate to identical or similar Lm sequence types in zones 2 and 3.

“One of the hypotheses we had was the raw material was introducing much of the Listeria,” she said. “This was before we did sampling and the whole genome sequencing to understand the isolates and that they were not all coming from the raw material. Some of the contamination was probably coming from zone 3 in the different processing facilities.”

Image: Ana Allende, Ph.D.

Apple Juice

FDA Sets 10 ppb Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Apple Juice

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Apple Juice

The FDA has issued a final guidance “Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Apple Juice,” which identifies for industry the action level of 10 parts per billion (ppb) for inorganic arsenic in apple juice. The guidance supports the FDA’s goal to reduce exposure to environmental contaminants from foods commonly consumed by babies and young children.

The FDA noted that its testing results reflect a trend in reductions in the amount of inorganic arsenic in apple juice on the market, with an increasing percentage of samples testing below 3 ppb and 5 ppb. However, since the release of the draft guidance in 2013, the agency has identified some apple juice samples with inorganic arsenic levels above 10 ppb—the level the agency considers achievable with the use of good manufacturing practices.

Though non-binding, the FDA expects that the 10 ppb action level will help to encourage manufacturers to reduce levels of inorganic arsenic in apple juice. The agency said that it will continue its current practice of monitoring arsenic in apple juice samples and if testing identifies inorganic arsenic in apple juice above 10 ppb, the FDA will consider this action level, in addition to other factors, to determine whether to take enforcement action.

 

2019 FSC Audience
From the Editor’s Desk

Earn Up to 26 CE credits at the 2023 Food Safety Consortium

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
2019 FSC Audience

Food safety and quality professionals attending the 2023 Food Safety Consortium can gain up to 20 NEHA-recognized continuing education (CE) credits, while taking advantage of two days of high-level panel discussions and professional networking, “boots on the ground” education on the mitigation, regulation and control of key Food Safety Hazards, and their choice from four pre-conference workshops.

The Consortium will take place October 16-18 at the Hilton Parsippany in Parsippany, New Jersey, and feature leading industry professionals as well as high-level members of the FDA and USDA. Session highlights include:

  • Anti-Food Fraud Tactics for the Entire Supply Chain
  • Regulatory Audits
  • Food Safety Culture: Creating a “Speak Up” Culture
  • The Rise of Previously Unforeseen Hazards
  • FSMA 204: The Final Rule – Looking Ahead
  • Audited and Validated Allergen Control Plans
  • Recall Trends and Predictions
  • And more

View the full agenda and speakers

This year’s Food Safety Consortium is co-located with the Food Defense Consortium and Cannabis Quality Conference. The Consortium’s two-day program is recognized by NEHA (National Environmental Health Association) for 12.0 Continuing Education (CE) Hours. If you participate in one of the Pre-Conference Workshops or Trainings and attend the conference (a total of three days), you can gain 20 NEHA CE Hours (or up to 26 with the auditor training program).

Pre-Conference Workshops (held on Monday, October 16) include:

Food Safety Culture Design Workshop, presented by the Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention in collaboration with Sage Media, will guide food industry professionals through the necessary steps to create an actionable food safety culture strategy.

CP-FS Credential Review Course. The Certified Professional – Food Safety (CP-FS) credential is the gold standard for those working in retail food safety, including cannabis edibles. Earning your CP-FS demonstrates your commitment to the health and well-being of your customers and shows the public you take their safety seriously.

Interested in becoming a food safety auditor or building your auditing skills? View the complimentary webinar, “What Does it Take to Become a Food Safety Auditor?” to learn more about this program.

Food Safety Auditor Training. This four-part series is designed to provide the knowledge, behaviors and technical skills attributed to a competent food safety auditor. The series includes three virtual 2-hour presentations conducted by a live instructor. These sessions are recorded and available for additional self-paced study for less experienced participants, while experienced auditors can refresh their understanding of auditing fundamentals before advancing to the more complex skills and critical thinking behaviors needed to audit high risk products. The course culminates with a full day of in-person instruction (Monday, Oct. 16) on advanced topics such as potential conflicts of interest, enhanced conflict resolution techniques and providing tips in advanced written communication skills to support the delivery of comprehensive audit reports.

The Seed to Sale Safety Workshop. Led by four veterans of cannabis quality and safety, this pre-conference workshop offers participants an interactive and engaging opportunity to learn about the novel seed-to-sale safety considerations associated with cannabis edibles. Participants will achieve an understanding of cannabis hazard analysis, learn the principles of cannabis edible GMPs, apply food safety best practices, identify risks in marketing and labeling and apply the fundamentals of state and federal regulatory compliance.

Register now for the 2023 Food Safety Consortium

Jennifer Allen
Food Safety Attorney

Protecting the Nation’s Tiniest Consumers

By Jennifer Allen
No Comments
Jennifer Allen

Does your company need to worry about regulations relating to foods designed for infants (considered to be anyone aged 0-12 months)? If you manufacture infant formula, then of course the answer is yes. But what if you manufacture baby food—those cute little jars of liquified goodness? Traditionally, those types of food haven’t been subject to any special FDA regulations. Manufacturers simply need to follow the regulations that govern all foods designed for consumption by humans of any age. That, however, is changing.

There is a growing push to limit, and ultimately eliminate, heavy metals, such as inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, present in baby food. These elements are present in our food chain in amounts that are concerning to members of the U.S. Congress and other stakeholders because of modern manufacturing techniques, and they have an outsized effect on infant health.

Pending Legislation

On March 25, 2021, the Baby Food Safety Act was introduced in Congress. As of the time this article was written, it had not yet passed. If it passes, it will require manufacturers, within one year of its enactment, to reduce levels of inorganic arsenic in non-cereal foods to 10 ppb and in cereals to 15 ppb, levels of cadmium and lead to 5 ppb in non-cereals and 10 ppb in cereals, and levels of mercury to 2 ppb in non-cereals and cereals. Within three years of enactment, the Act requires that final regulatory levels be set that reduce these levels to an even lower amount. It also requires reevaluation of the current regulatory levels every five years thereafter.

But the Act would do much more than simply setting limits for heavy metals in baby food. It would also:

  • Add regulations to the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act requiring FDA to specifically regulate foods for consumers up to 36 months old
  • Require manufacturers to report levels of heavy metals biannually on their websites
  • Give FDA mandatory recall authority
  • Mandate creation of public awareness campaigns
  • Offer grants for farming research

Current FDA Actions

The FDA is already working to reduce heavy metals in baby foods. In August 2020, the FDA finalized guidance setting the limit for inorganic arsenic in baby rice cereals to 100 micrograms per kilogram. Fortunately, most manufacturers had already achieved those limits; sampling from 2018 showed that 76% of manufacturers were in compliance, up from 47% in 2014 and from just 36% between 2011 and 2013.

In early 2021, FDA launched an action plan to address heavy metals in foods consumed by infants and young children, called Closer to Zero. The overarching purpose of the plan is to gather data about heavy metal levels and then set tolerances for those substances, with the input from all stakeholders. Thus, the FDA has signaled its intent to act regardless of what Congress has in store.

More recently, the FDA issued draft guidance, titled “Action Levels for Lead in Food Intended for Babies and Young Children,” recommending that levels of lead be limited to 10 ppb in fruits, some vegetables, and yogurt, and to 20 ppb in root vegetables and dry cereal. The guidance is focused on processed foods, including foods served in jars, pouches, tubs, and boxes intended for children under two.

Whatever the ultimate outcome of these initial steps taken by Congress and FDA, one thing is clear: Concerns about heavy metals in the foods consumed by our tiniest citizens isn’t going away. So, if the product you manufacture or grow may be destined for a jar of baby food—even if you don’t think you manufacture baby food—it’s time to begin working to address the issue in your facilities and your fields.

Paul Damaren

Technology and ISO Compliance: Work Smarter, Not Harder

By Paul Damaren
No Comments
Paul Damaren

 ISO compliance is essential to maintaining high levels of food safety and quality. Trying to manage the ISO compliance process manually—with paper files or Excel spreadsheets—is an expensive, time-consuming, error-prone process. Manual systems make it difficult to spot noncompliance issues, track certification paperwork, and get real-time visibility across an enterprise. Technology can be a game-changer when it comes to achieving and maintaining ISO compliance.

SaaS-based quality and audit software can automate ISO compliance-related tasks, making it easier as well as more efficient and accurate to track quality metrics, document corrective actions, and generate reports. Additionally, this software can save time and costs, while reducing the risk of errors. It also provides real-time visibility into the compliance process, allowing organizations to quickly identify and address any issues that may arise, ensuring that they stay compliant.

Tech Trends to Watch

While technology has already elevated ISO compliance dramatically, there are some exciting trends we are watching that have the potential to significantly improve the process:

  • The rise of automation and the Internet of Things (IoT) are driving increased adoption of technology solutions for ISO compliance and quality management.
  • The use of data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) are becoming more prevalent in ISO compliance, as companies look for ways to improve the accuracy and efficiency of their compliance efforts.
  • Consumer demand for transparency and sustainability is driving increased attention to ISO compliance and quality management. This will continue to intensify in the coming months and years.

Recently, we have seen large companies adopting technology to improve their quality and safety initiatives. Some notable examples include consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble, who implemented a comprehensive quality management system that incorporates ISO standards. P&G has worked hard to achieve ISO certification across many of its global operations, vowing to operate responsibly, build and maintain public trust in their products, and meet (or exceed) all legislative and regulatory safety requirements.

Similarly, Swiss fragrance and flavor manufacturer Givaudan has implemented a digital quality management system to automate quality data collection and analysis, helping the organization achieve compliance with ISO standards and improve product quality. They have developed a structured system to identify, assess, respond to, and mitigate risks to protect the company’s products and assets. They also vow to improve compliance with proper corporate governance guidelines and to follow all applicable laws and regulations. Hopefully, we’ll see more organizations following their lead.

The Benefits of Adopting Tech Solutions

There are many benefits to adopting new technologies to achieve ISO compliance. These include:

  • Automating essential tasks. Tech tools make it much easier to track metrics, document corrective actions, and generate reports, compared to manual methods. They also improve accuracy, allowing you to save time, money, and hassle. The more efficient, streamlined process lets you work smarter, not harder.
  • Reducing risk. Tech tools can help organizations increase their safety processes and protocols, achieve ISO compliance, and reduce the risk of food safety breaches that could cause major legal, financial, and reputational damage. Maximizing safety—and minimizing risks—can help boost key performance indicators (KPIs), including sales and profits, as well as customer loyalty, retention, and referrals.
  • Centralizing data. Many food businesses have overflowing file cabinets in their back offices, and they’d be hard-pressed to find a specific document quickly for an auditor. It’s far more effective and efficient to organize these documents through a tech solution that provides centralized, organized data and reports. This way, you’ll always have quick, easy access to information at your fingertips, allowing you to instantly track, manage, and find the various components of ISO standards—including certification documents, audit information, and operational records. This can save significant time (and frustration) over paper file systems.
  • Boosting visibility and transparency. Tech tools provide real-time visibility as well as a wider, deeper, more comprehensive view of your whole enterprise—or drill down by location. With access to real-time data, your organization can quickly identify (and fix) any noncompliance issues that may arise, allowing you to stay compliant. It also answers customers’ and investors’ calls for more transparent information about your business practices.
  • Boosting ROI. Companies may worry about the cost of purchasing tech tools—especially during our current economic uncertainty—but this is one of the smartest investments that your organization can make. Investing in modern technology solutions will save you money in the long run. Tech tools provide a huge ROI, by helping companies cut costs through energy efficiency, prevention of food safety breaches, and elevation of customer confidence, loyalty, and sales. Becoming ISP certified can also result in other lucrative benefits, such as attracting new investors, and helping to recruit and retain employees.
  • Reinforcing key messages to priority populations. Since ISO is widely considered the global gold standard, when you become ISO certified, you’re demonstrating that you prioritize safety, quality, consistency, and compliance, and that you’ve followed guidelines to provide consistently high-quality products and services. Being ISO certified demonstrates to key audiences, including your customers, investors, employees, and other stakeholders, that you’re investing the time, money, and energy into running as safely, effectively, and ethically as possible, and that protecting them remains your top priority.

Technology can make a dramatic difference in achieving ISO compliance, transforming the process from the manual methods that organizations have used for years. By automating the necessary tasks, you’ll save time, identify (and fix) areas of noncompliance, reduce errors and headaches, boost efficiency, increase visibility, and centralize data. Now is the time to ditch your paper certifications and overflowing file cabinets and embrace a smarter, easier, more efficient way of working.

Food Safety Consortium 2023
From the Editor’s Desk

Registration Open for the 2023 Food Safety Consortium

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Food Safety Consortium 2023

Registration for the 11th Annual Food Safety Consortium, which will take place October 16-18 at the Hilton Parsippany in New Jersey, is now open.

Presented by Food Safety Tech, the Food Safety Consortium is a business-to-business conference that brings together food safety and quality assurance professionals for education, networking and discussion geared toward solving the key challenges facing the food safety industry today.

In addition to two full days of high-level panel discussions, this year’s program will include a second Food Safety Hazards track. These “Boots on the Ground” sessions provide education on the detection, mitigation, control and regulation of key food hazards.

New this year is a strategic co-location with the Cannabis Quality Conference (CQC), a business-to-business conference and expo where cannabis industry leaders and stakeholders meet to build the future of the cannabis marketplace. Registered attendees get full access to both conferences.

Registration options are available for in-person and virtual attendance.

The Consortium will kick off with presentations from Erik Mettler, Assistant Commissioner for Partnerships and Policy in the FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA), and Sandra Eskin, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety at the USDA FSIS, followed by a Town Hall with the regulators.

Other agenda highlights include:

  • The Future of Food Safety Culture
  • The Rise of Previously Unforeseen Hazards,
  • FSMA 204: The Final Rule – Looking Ahead,
  • Anti-Food Fraud Tactics for the Entire Supply Chain
  • Bridging the gap between food safety and cybersecurity
    Protecting Allergic Consumers through Audited and Validated Allergen Control Plans
  • Succession Planning for Food Safety Inspectors
    Utilizing Food Quality Plans to Ignite Positive Food Safety Culture
  • Recalls Trends and Predictions

View the full agenda and register here.

Attendees will also have the opportunity to take part in pre-conference workshops on Monday, October 16, including:

  • Food Safety Auditor Training
  • CP-FS Credential Review Course
  • The Food Safety Culture Design Workshop
  • The Seed to Sale Safety Workshop

Event Hours

Monday, October 16: 8:30 am – 5:00 pm (Pre-conference Workshops)

Tuesday, October 17: 8 am – 6:30 pm

Wednesday, October 18: 8:30 am – 3:45 pm

Register now

Tabletop exhibits and custom sponsorship packages are available. Contact Sales Director RJ Palermo.

About Food Safety Tech

Food Safety Tech is a digital media community for food industry professionals interested in food safety and quality. We inform, educate and connect food manufacturers and processors, retail & food service, food laboratories, growers, suppliers and vendors, and regulatory agencies with original, in-depth features and reports, curated industry news and user-contributed content, and live and virtual events that offer knowledge, perspectives, strategies and resources to facilitate an environment that fosters safer food for consumers.

About the Food Safety Consortium

The Food Safety Consortium is an educational and networking event for Food Protection that has food safety, food integrity and food defense as the foundation of its educational content. With a unique focus on science, technology and compliance, the “Consortium” enables attendees to engage in conversations that are critical for advancing careers and organizations alike. Delegates visit with exhibitors to learn about cutting-edge solutions, explore high-level educational tracks, and network with industry executives to find solutions to improve quality, efficiency and cost effectiveness in the evolving food industry.

 

Stacy Vernon

Lessons Learned from Listeria Recalls

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Stacy Vernon

Listeria monocytogenes continues to be a key factor in food recalls. While it is not the most common pathogen behind foodborne illness, it does have a high mortality rate. Listeria is hearty. It thrives in cold, moist environments, can grow under refrigeration temperatures and is salt tolerant. The risk of listeria contamination can be reduced through stringent sanitation, and environmental monitoring and testing. But far too often, it takes an outbreak or recall for companies to truly understand the efforts needed to find and destroy it in their facilities.

At Food Safety Tech’s Hazards Conference in Columbus, Ohio, in April, Stacy Vernon, Food Safety Operations and Program Manager at CIFT, an Ohio Manufacturing Partner, shared lessons learned from food companies that have experienced Listeria in their facilities and resulting product recalls.

Lesson Learned: Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory requirements related control of listeria monocytogenes can be found at USDA 9 CFR Part 430.4 and FDA 21 CFR Part 117. Both agencies offer guidance documents that serve as valuable resources that food companies can use to build their food safety programs:

USDA FSIS: FSIS-GD-2014-0001 “Controlling Listeria monocytogenes in Post-lethality Exposed Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Products”

FDA: FDA-2008-D-0096 “Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-to-Eat Foods”

“The question is, are your people reading these? Are they aware they exist?” asked Vernon. “In speaking with companies who have gone through recalls, many were not even aware these guidance documents existed or were not utilizing them.”

Lesson Learned: Sanitation Program Shortcomings

“Sanitation is the No. 1 program that you need to have on point,” said Vernon. “Unfortunately, labor shortages and turnover have made this a big challenge in recent years.”

Issues that companies uncovered following recalls include:

  • A lack of understanding of the difference between cleaning and sanitizing
  • Sanitation teams not given enough time to properly sanitize equipment
  • Lack of easy access to the tools needed to sanitize properly
  • Lack of training on or understanding of the seven steps of sanitation
  • Lack of training on what biofilms are and how to detect them

“Sanitation teams tend to be small, and they need to be everywhere,” said Vernon. “Are you looking at their foot traffic? Your sanitation team should get, at least, general training on food safety and pathogens. Make sure this department is not overlooked because they do pose one of the highest risks of cross contamination.”

Lesson Learned: Poor Sanitary Design

Companies cited similar shortcomings in sanitary design. Vernon recommended that companies implement the following practices, if they are not currently following them:

  • Involve your food safety professionals in the purchase of new equipment
  • If purchasing used equipment, make sure that it has been maintained
  • Google “Sanitary Design Checklist.” These free downloads are available from the American Meat Institute, U.S. Dairy and other organizations and are great resources
  • Look for facility and equipment design flaws, such as cracks or separations in the floor, exposed threads, hallow pipes not sealed, bad welds, and water/product accumulation points

“Drain maintenance is also key. One company uses a snake to swab their drains, so they know if they have listeria before it works its way back up into the facility,” said Vernon.

Lesson Learned: Poor Environmental Monitoring Programs

The goals of an environmental monitoring program (EMP) is to aggressively seek and destroy pathogens. “You need to know where listeria is entering the facility, where it harbors and how it moves in your facility so you can effectively eradicate it,” said Vernon. “There is still a mentality that people are scared to find it, so they swab the safest areas. We need to change that mindset to ‘I want to find it and I want to eliminate it.’”

EMPs need to be tailored to your specific facility. Some of the issues companies found with their EMPs following recalls included a lack of internal knowledge to build a comprehensive and custom program and failure to swab properly. “Ask yourself, who is responsible for setting up our EMP and can they do it alone, or do we need outside expertise?” said Vernon.

When swabbing, you need to apply pressure and seek out hard to reach areas. When determining which zones to swab, consider the following:

  • Your risk assessment and hazard analysis
  • Previous environmental monitoring data collected
  • Visual appearance of surface
  • Products produced and intended users
  • Potential for growth after packaging

“Focus on areas where RTE products are exposed. Companies often do not want to swab Zone 1, but one company that went through a recall has implemented swabbing in Zone 1 while they are sampling their products,” said Vernon. “Their reasoning is, the products are already on hold and if they have to throw one shift of product away, it costs much less than a recall or outbreak.”

Lesson Learned: Lack of Employee Knowledge

Several of the companies Vernon spoke with found that they had inadequate food safety and pathogen training and knowledge at all levels; and that they did not have a good sense of employee traffic flow and habits. “When is the last time you stepped back to evaluate traffic flow in your facility?” asked Vernon. “Companies that took the time to evaluate traffic flow and employee practices were often surprised that they did not understand their employees’ movement within the facility or work habits.”

Key areas to investigate include:

  • How do employees and product move through your facility?
  • What is your footwear policy?
  • Are employees following appropriate GMPs for handwashing, PPE, product handling, etc.?
  • Are sanitation employees cleaning properly?

“Changing employee practices doesn’t take a lot of capital,” said Vernon. “It is one of the cheapest ways to mitigate risk.”

Lesson Learned: Not Reassessing Programs

EMP and sanitation programs should be reassessed when findings occur or changes happen in the facility, including anytime you bring in new equipment. “Start with a document review and then reassessment of your environmental monitoring program,” said Vernon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Morrine Omolo, Ph.D.,
Women in Food Safety

My Food Safety Journey

By Morrine Omolo, Ph.D.
No Comments
Morrine Omolo, Ph.D.,

My food safety journey was nurtured at an early age by my parents. I grew up in a farming family in a country (Kenya) where small scale food producers are the backbone of the economy. We lived within an agricultural research institute where my father worked. This enabled me to develop a lived awareness of the myriad of challenges that producers face, including affordable ways to manage pests and other food safety hazards.

Along with food safety, my parents instilled in me fundamental concepts of different ways to combine and prepare foods for optimal nutritional benefit. My late father’s work as a farm manager exposed me to animal and plant health and management, while my mother’s expertise in home economics laid the foundation for what has become my career path.

In my everyday formal and informal interactions with people, I try to inspire a passion for the science of food with special attention to safety. I believe that the debates around sustainability, climate change and food security should more deliberately include food safety as a key element, rather than a tangential afterthought.

The Path to a Career in Food Safety

After high school, I came to the U.S. for higher education, starting out as a Zawadi Africa Education Fund undergraduate scholar in biochemistry. I wanted to go into public health. My initial goal was medical school. However, after several internships shadowing doctors and surgeons and caring for terminally ill cancer patients, I decided to pursue a different path in public health. I chose to work in the food industry for a year, during which I explored opportunities for graduate school. By combining my history in food production, training in biological sciences and desire to contribute meaningfully to human health, I eventually opted to undertake a master’s in food science, studying the antimicrobial properties of plant-based extracts against known foodborne pathogens.

Subscribe to the Food Safety Tech weekly newsletter to stay up to date on the latest news and information on food safety and quality.

After completing my master’s, I applied for and was awarded the prestigious Schlumberger Faculty for the Future Fellowship to pursue a doctorate in food science. In my dissertation, I built genome scale metabolic models to explore weaknesses in the Escherichia coli genome that could potentially be exploited by manipulating nutrient components in food matrices. I also evaluated the prevailing approaches to Extension food safety education in Minnesota, and underscored the value of collaboration between regulators, educators, and food producers to achieve ideal culturally relevant education and training. This turned out to be a long and challenging experience that taught me to be patient and resilient. I also learned to advocate for myself and other students.

Finding My Passion

Over time, I became more interested in the safety subfield. I discovered a passion for policy, which narrowed down my career interest to food safety regulations. Through mentorship and deliberate networking, I expanded my understanding of the history of food safety in the U.S., and the role that the Codex Alimentarius plays in the global food system. Some of the Books that shaped my understanding included Outbreak: Foodborne Illness and the Struggle for Food Safety by Lytton, Timothy D., and Food Systems Law by Marne Coit. I was also inspired by my Food Quality professor, whose industry experience brought to life many of the concepts we discussed in class.

After completing my dissertation, I was hired by the University of Minnesota Extension as a food safety specialist. In this capacity, I have two primary roles: research and outreach. My research focuses on the role of human behavior in foodborne illness, and hinges on the concept of food safety culture (the attitudes, beliefs and values about food safety practice). My interest in this specific area was inspired by two books—Food Safety = Behavior: 30 Proven Techniques to Enhance Employee Compliance and Food Safety Culture: Creating a Behavior Based Food Safety System—both written by former FDA Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy & Response Frank Yiannas.

I continue to build on the lessons learned from my dissertation, working in collaboration with other scientists across the North Central Region. Specifically, I elevate the knowledge and experiences of local food producers and empower them to prioritize science-based solutions to challenges in formulation, processing, packaging, labeling and points of sale. My goal both through research and outreach is to enable small scale food producers to embody the critical role they play in local food systems, especially because consumers sometimes assume that local food means safe food.

It is not enough for food handlers to learn about food safety, and it is not practical to use scare tactics to get them to comply with regulatory requirements, because these are temporary solutions. Instead, I believe it is critical to alter behavior and the perception of food safety practice. This more readily happens when the handler takes ownership of food safety as part of their value system, rather than as a regulatory obligation.

Challenges Posed by the Growing Cottage Food Industry

The biggest challenge I face in my current role is the growing local food movement and cottage food industry. Today, there are almost 8,000 registered cottage food producers in Minnesota, all of whom can legally produce and sell non-potentially hazardous foods in their uninspected home kitchens. While the Minnesota Cottage Food Law only allows shelf-stable products, other states, such as Wyoming, have broader Food Freedom Laws that allow the sale of products including poultry. The undercurrent driving the local food movement is consumer demand for sustainable, locally sourced food, with a tangible connection to the producer. The chaos in the global food system during the pandemic also contributed to growth in local food supply. While all these changes are positive and contribute to food security and sovereignty, the question of safety still lingers.

Historically, work around the safety of food has focused on corporate manufacturing. Now the tide is slowly shifting towards local food systems, but more needs to be done to understand the food safety culture in this context. Concomitantly, we must develop training and education opportunities that account for the diversity of producers, including emerging (first generation) farmers, farmers practicing covered agriculture, immigrant farmers, and small and medium scale processors. For instance, cottage food producers in Minnesota maintain a list of allowed products, which has to this point been predominantly Eurocentric. However, as a sanctuary state, Minnesota is home to a very diverse population, with more than 150 languages spoken in the Twin Cities. As more immigrants learn about the cottage food industry, newer multi-cultural food items will be considered for inclusion on the list, which requires food safety analysis and shelf-life studies. These challenges present opportunities for collaborative problem solving through research that incorporates existing practical knowledge among key stakeholders.

Thoughts for Students Considering a Career in Food Safety

Food safety professionals choose this path because we deeply care about protecting the consumer. Episodes of foodborne illness are unnecessarily burdensome and quite often life threatening. Additionally, foodborne outbreaks erode consumer trust in the food industry and exert a heavy financial burden on the public health system. Many of the long-term impacts of foodborne illness are unknown to the general public but have devastating effects on patients and their families.

Choosing to be a food safety scientist means becoming an advocate, the voice of millions of people who expect—as they should—that every food item made available to them is inherently safe. It becomes your job to work in collaboration with regulatory authorities to keep unsafe food out of commerce. Sometimes you will be on the processing floor, actively training and managing the production team and ensuring everyone follows the food safety and defense plans. Other times, you will be in the C-Suite, bringing the voice of the food safety team to management to ensure that the company walks the talk when it comes to food safety. And every day, you will be the consumer that relies on the integrity of professionals such as yourself to protect you and your family from foodborne illness.

George Gansner

Now is the Time to Reassess the Food Industry’s Approach to Managing Risk

By George Gansner
No Comments
George Gansner

The food industry is under intense scrutiny, with concerns about food safety and quality making headlines around the world. Today, the industry faces unprecedented challenges when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of the global food supply chain. Leaders need to manage known concerns such as foodborne pathogens, food fraud and contamination, as well as emerging challenges, including ingredient scarcity and changes in consumer preferences that have created the need to reformulate recipes quickly, source from new suppliers, and increase imports—all of which contribute to increased risks.

Due to climate change and shifting environmental factors we are seeing crop failures, and new bacteria and antimicrobial resistance to foodborne pathogens, which increase the cost of managing food safety. As consumers demand greater transparency and look to place more trust in the food chain, changing buyer habits further compound these challenges by putting a greater onus on food handling, production, manufacturing, and supply companies to provide more education to consumers about foodborne illnesses.

Recalls are the biggest threat to a brand’s profitability and reputation, and this threat is growing. According to FDA reports, recalls increased by 700% in 2022, with undeclared allergens being the leading cause for the last five years. The Food Safety Authority in the UK tells a similar story with undeclared allergens accounting for 84 of the 150 recalls last year, followed by salmonella, listeria, and foreign body contamination.

As food regulations become more complex to navigate, it is now essential to reassess the industry’s approach to managing risk. Protocols such as VACCP and TACCP are regularly used as part of a solid food defense program to identify risks. But the traditional approach of relying solely on regulations and compliance-based systems is no longer sufficient to ensure food safety in today’s complex, volatile and globalized food supply chains. Now is the time to implement a more holistic and dynamic risk-based approach to managing food safety more effectively.

What Is a Risk-Based Approach to Food Safety?

A risk-based approach allows the industry to proactively identify potential food safety risks and take appropriate measures to mitigate them, rather than simply responding to problems as they arise. For example, mature food businesses are building on food safety management systems with food safety audits to identify and manage risk to stay ahead of the curve. A risk-based approach helps underpin the continuous improvement process and, by doing so, demonstrates the ability of a company to be a trusted partner in the global food supply chain.

One of the key aspects of a risk-based approach to managing food safety is proactive intervention and control, using relevant data analysis stored in a cloud-based platform. All stakeholders need access to accurate and actionable data during risk assessment and management to make informed decisions. However, there are many barriers to accessing risk-related data for smaller operators, many of which are still working in a largely manual way.

Data must be collated from across the business, and multiple data sources need to be collected and appropriately analyzed to protect both the brand and public health. It is estimated that we are at least 10 years away from any type of interoperability of industry data, which will allow better transparency and visibility of risk across the supply chain.

Stay Ahead of Emerging Legislation

Visibility of the emerging legislation in source countries of ingredients and raw materials is critical, as are contingency sourcing plans and good risk analysis protocols. Food integrity needs to be a standing agenda point as part of internal meetings, and ESG policies need to be visibly delivered. The industry needs to ensure that it is aware of changes in regulations that could impact the safety and quality of its products through horizon scanning tools. There is also an onus on the industry to make its risk assessments more dynamic to incorporate change at a frequency that is appropriate for risk evaluation with effective crisis management plans in place.

Supply Chain Management Is Critical

Sourcing raw materials and ingredients across supply chains requires best practices. You must ensure that your supply chain partners and suppliers know how to manage a crisis and that emerging risks are shared across the supply chain. Quality, food safety, and regulatory divisions must actively participate in risk assessments and receive relevant data and communication. ESG policies also need to include the supply chain; leaders in this space need to be able to verify that these policies are delivering.

Marketing claims must be vetted and aligned with regulations and markets where products are sold. Procurement, supply chain and communication, and external partners such as NGOs and consumer associations are important groups to involve in risk profiling and ongoing management. While managing emerging issues and horizon scanning is critical, it is also important to remain vigilant on the basics, as most food safety and allergen incidents are known risks.

Detecting Food Fraud

Opportunistic food fraud cases are rising in the high food inflation market, with recent examples including everything from adulterated honey to the mislabeling of beef. To deter food fraud, businesses need to focus on risk-based auditing and testing through sampling programs. Knowing your supply chain, shopping around safely, being vigilant about ingredients and specifications, utilizing training, and building awareness and readiness are imperative to deter food fraud and create a culture of confidence and greater food safety.

Think Differently About Managing Risk

Now is the time for the food industry to reassess its approach to managing risk. A risk-based approach focusing on prevention, continuous improvement, and stakeholder collaboration is necessary to ensure a safe and secure food supply chain in an increasingly complex and challenging environment. The industry must prioritize data accessibility and accuracy, have a crisis management plan, be aware of emerging legislation, and include ESG policies in its risk management strategies. By focusing on risk-based auditing and testing, the industry can deter food fraud and create a culture of confidence.

The probability of eliminating all risks is very low, so the food industry must pivot and be agile to challenge the traditional approaches to managing food safety. It is time to think differently about managing risk and adopt new practices that promote prevention and collaboration.