Tag Archives: Focus Article

FST Soapbox

Why I’m Attending the Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo and You Should, Too

By Jill Droge
No Comments

As someone who recently switched industries and is now an executive in a business development role for a curriculum development company that provides a 100% online PCQI course, I was trying to determine which of the many events to attend in the food industry.

After some research, I decided to attend the 7th Annual 2019 Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo and felt it would be helpful for anyone in a business development or sales/marketing role to have some details and tips about how I prioritize events. I also wanted to provide additional information for those in a C-level, Director, Manager, etc. position that are setting plans for the remainder of 2019 and establishing plans for 2020.

Location, Location, Location!!!

Rick Biros, president of Innovative Publishing Co., has more than 25 years of experience in the food industry and is very well known and respected. Rick saw the need for this type of event due to the variety of changes in the industry. Rick and his team did the research on the best place to have the event, which included considerations like ease of access to airports, hotel cost and percentage of food manufacturers in the area. His team found that the Schaumburg, IL area has the highest concentration of food manufacturers within a 200-mile radius. In addition, Chicago O’Hare airport is only a 30-minute ride to the beautiful Renaissance Schaumburg Convention Center where this event has been held. The Consortium team was able to negotiate a very reasonable hotel rate of around $175/night, which is a terrific deal for this area. It is also close enough to downtown Chicago that if you want to stay an extra day or two or take your team out, you have plenty of options available.

Two Great Events for One Price!

This year the Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo is co-located with the Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo this year. Anyone in the food industry understands how fast things are expanding and changing within the cannabis industry, not to mention that the state of Illinois has approved adult use effective January 2020. Both events will share the same exhibit area, which is a tremendous plus for anyone who is trying to make contacts within both industries and has invested in a booth space. This also means that attendees from both events will be a part of the social mixer events on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, facilitating additional networking opportunities.

Decision Makers Are Present

There are many different events within the food industry, but few have a high percentage of the actual decision makers in attendance. Often, they are made up of a variety of people from the education, government and industrial sectors of the industry that may be students, entry-level management, etc. Based on the attendance from the past, 98% of attendees to this event are within the Industrial sector of the food industry. More importantly, due to the contacts that Rick & team have made over the past years, the C-level and mid-level management make up a very large portion of those that attend this event. This enables attendees to network with those who can make the key decisions that may impact your company’s growth, as opposed to talking with someone about what your company offers only to find out they are multiple levels of approval that need to happen before even moving forward to present a proposal.

Training & Expo Discount Combinations

While there are numerous options provided within registering for this dual conference event, one option is to take advantage of the discounted rate on combining event attendance with training. One of these training options is offered by my company, ImEpik, which offers full-access to the Expo and conference sessions, and includes our 100% online PCQI course that is self-paced and available 24/7 for your convenience. The Innovative Publishing team has agreed to offer both for the low price of $895. That is lower than ImEpik’s retail cost, minus any promotions, for just the course itself –so the fact that you can get both our course and a full-conference pass to the Food Safety Consortium and the Cannabis Quality Conference is a tremendous value for any company. One other detail is the person attending doesn’t have to be the person that is given access to the training. The attendee may be senior level management who doesn’t need additional training but may need someone within his or her staff to receive PCQI training. Additional details about the training we offer are available on ImEpik’s website.

Team Building & Leadership Is a Priority

There are three breakout sessions that occur throughout the event. Each of those sessions will fall into one of the following categories:

  1. Food Safety & Testing
  2. Sanitation & Operations
  3. Food Safety Leadership

As many folks that I have personally spoken with at various events have attested, typically the leadership in the food industry is more “technical” in their leadership. One focus at the event this year is break-out sessions that focus on topics such as empowered leadership, team-building, and enabling teams that are afraid of making mistakes and therefore may not voice their opinion, which may include some positive ideas for company leaders. Come join Kathryn Birmingham, V.P. of Research & Development at ImEpik, and I as we present: Beyond meeting the FSMA regulations, the business case for PCQI, Wednesday, October 2 at 2:45 PM.

In summary, I hope this article is helpful in your 2019/2020 event planning. The networking opportunity as well as the chance to take advantage of combined training packages, multiple Expos (Food Safety and Cannabis) and access to decision makers make this event a “must” to attend. For more details on the agenda, hotel, etc. please visit the Food Safety Consortium website. Hope to see you there, and please visit Imepik at booth 105 on the Expo floor.

Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Palm Oil to Dye For

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Decernis, Food Fraud, Palm Oil
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne

Sudan IV, a diazo dye widely used to stain fuel and industrial grease, is a carcinogen and therefore unsuitable for human consumption. In a recent case in Ghana, it was added to palm oil to achieve the typical reddish-brown color. Adulteration of palm oil is a recurring issue that has been taking place across Asian and African brands, including products sold in Europe, and authorities keep warning of the consumption of the tarnished palm oil.

Resource

  1. Times of Malta (June 28, 2019). “Palm oil contains dangerous dye, authorities warn”.

Additional Resources

  1. FDA food alert, April 2018, Palm oil recall due to the presence of Sudan IV
  2. Swiss government warns of cancerous palm oil, January 2018. Palm Oil adulteration with Sudan IV. Origin of the oil is unknown but most likely an African producer
  3. CFA Alert, August 2017, Food recall: Palm oil adulterated with Sudan IV
Melody Ge
FST Soapbox

Compliance with the Intentional Adulteration Rule: Using FMEA for Your Vulnerability Assessment

By Melody Ge
No Comments
Melody Ge

What is FMEA? What is a vulnerability assessment (VA)? How can these two be linked? Despite what you may think, there are similarities between these two methods. FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) methods can be utilized to help objectively assess the vulnerable steps within your process.

After July 26, 2019, businesses other than small and very small businesses (defined by FDA) must comply with the FSMA Intentional Adulteration (IA) Rule. The rule is intended to enforce industry regulation to conduct vulnerability assessments and address proper mitigation plans to prevent any potential fraud risks within the food defense plan. For small businesses, the compliance date is July 27, 2020; for very small businesses, the compliance date is July 26, 2021.

Although the IA rule does not specify a particular method that you must use to conduct your VA and address proper mitigation plans, the following elements must be considered during your evaluation and mitigation strategy and must be implemented at each actionable step afterwards:

  • The potential public health impact (e.g., severity and scale) if a contaminant were added (21 CFR 121.130(a)(1))
  • The degree of physical access to the product (21 CFR 121.130(a)(2))
  • The ability of an attacker to successfully contaminate the product (21 CFR 121.130(a)(3))

During the 2019 Food Safety Consortium, Melody Ge will present: How to prepare ourselves in this data-driven transitioning time for the smart food safety era? | October 2 @ 10 am FMEA is a Six Sigma method widely used in operations when implementing a new process. It is a structured approach to discover potential failures that may exist within the design of a product or process. Within FMEA, the RPN (Risk Priority Number) score is used to prioritize risks and is calculated by Severity × Occurrence × Detection. RPN is a quantified number that helps you prioritize risks when determining actions. If we employ the same mentality, FMEA is a useful method in helping to identify vulnerable steps based on the risk within your process. Take a close look at how the RPN is generated; the following three components are also important during the vulnerability assessment.

Severity or the potential public health impact (e.g., severity and scale) if a contaminant were added.
Severity is identified when considering the consequence of when a processing step goes out of control; or thinking about the severity of the health impact. We can consider those impacts or consequences using four common categories:

  • Biological contaminants
  • Chemical contaminants
  • Physical contaminants
  • Intentional adulteration for economic gain contaminants

Occurrence or the degree of physical access to the product.

Occurrence is identified when considering how frequently a process step is expected to go out of defined controls. Is it once a week or once a month? Depending on how often the step goes out of defined controls, this will trigger different action steps as well as mitigation plans.

Detection or the ability of an attacker to successfully contaminate the product.

Detection is considered by how easy it can be detected when the failure occurs. For example, within the food production operation, mixing steps is relatively easier than a CIP step to be detected. More references could be found in FDA’s definition of KAT (Key Activity Types, as discussed in the draft guidance, “Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration”), such as:

  • Bulk and liquid receiving and storage
  • Liquid storage and handling
  • Secondary ingredient handling
  • Mixing and similar activities

Once the RPN is identified, then the vulnerable steps can be sorted based on the RPN. To utilize this approach, Table 1 provides a template to be considered using FMEA for the vulnerability assessment.

Process Step Description Is it KAT? (Y/N) RPN Action Process Step Mitigation Strategy Explanation
Sev Occ Det RPN
Table 1: Determine the vulnerable steps (for reference)

As IA rules regulate, a mitigation plan must be generated once a vulnerable step is identified. The intention of the plan shall ensure those risks identified are mitigated and controlled so that the final finished products are not impacted or contaminated. One tip to begin this process is to start with reviewing your current control plan for potential food safety risks. As FSMA Preventive Controls are fully implemented, all food plants shall have a food safety plan in place with validated control plans that are intended to reduce risks for potential physical, chemical, biological and adulteration for economic gain. Sometimes, these risks are highly associated with potential vulnerable steps for intentional adulteration, especially those processing steps associated with potential economic gain hazards. If those controls are not working properly, then we can seek out other mitigation plans. Nevertheless, regardless of what steps are taken, they have to be validated to show that the IA risks are effectively mitigated. Monitoring and verification shall be conducted as well once the mitigation plan is implemented.

Of course, like all food safety management systems, every food plant should have its own designated plans based on the products being produced, operations implemented and the nature of the production. Ultimately, it will be your choice to find an effective method that fits your production culture. However, the intention should always be in compliance with the IA rules: Identify the vulnerable steps within the process, and conduct mitigation plans to control the risks of intentional adulteration.

Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Food (or Beverage) Fraud That Kills

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food fraud, methanol, alcohol, Costa Rica
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne

Methanol is highly toxic for humans, and increased amounts can show up in fraudulent or illegal alcoholic beverages. Dozens of methanol poisoning cases still happen every year around the world, some of them being deadly, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The FBI is assisting the Costa Rican Police in the investigation of 20 recent deaths that are possibly methanol-related. Costa Rican authorities have searched a production facility, seized liquor and issued a nationwide alert.

Resource

Knowles, H. (July 24, 2019). “Tainted alcohol has led to 20 deaths in Costa Rica, authorities say”. The Washington Post.

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

Back to the Future…of Pest Management

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

Some of you may not remember the days when pest control companies were few and far between and the majority of pest management programs were run by in-house experts. But in-house pest management programs used to be the rule, not the exception. Over time, most companies have adopted third-party pest management services as a way to manage costs. In-house programs are certainly more costly than third-party services, but they have significant advantages over today’s outsourced approach. Because of a shared accountability and responsibility for the outcome, well-managed in-house programs incorporate greater expertise and responsiveness.

While outsourcing pest control services will continue to be the standard, manufacturers do not enjoy the same level of transparency as they did in the past. Manufacturers trust that the job is being done well, but with limited in-house pest management expertise, it can be hard to know if gaps or “blind spots” exist in the program that can put them at risk.

With this in mind, it is important to remember that you rely on the expertise of your service provider. However, consider whether cost containment efforts have put your brand reputation in the hands of the lowest cost service provider, not necessarily the best provider. Your provider may be responsible for your pest management program, but they are not accountable for the consequences—you are. There are, however, ways to mirror the results of an in-house program by collaborating with service providers and aligning expectations. It may require building in-house knowledge and understanding of new technologies available today in order to partner with your service provider and get their very best service.

food waste

New IBM Challenge Puts Solving Food Waste in the Hands of Developers

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
food waste

Nearly 40% of U.S.-produced food is not consumed, according to a 2018 report by The Center for Biological Diversity. In addition, retailers are named as the largest culprits when it comes to food waste. IBM estimates that supermarkets tossed about 16 billion pounds of food last year alone. The technology company is working to get more involved in this problem and is holding the Food Waste Developer Challenge in an effort to find solutions to help reduce waste.

John Walicki, IBM
John Walicki, senior technical staff member, CTO IoT developer advocacy at IBM

“Often, innovation comes from unexpected places. IBM’s sponsorship of the Food Waste Developer Challenge encourages developers to use their unique expertise toward solving some of society’s hardest problems,” says John Walicki, senior technical staff member, CTO IoT developer advocacy at IBM. “We hope to ignite an open community of impassioned developers to create solutions that improve the food supply chain and reduce food waste.” In a Q&A with Food Safety Tech, Walicki explains the important role that technology could play in stopping the ongoing food waste problem.

Food Safety Tech: What are the biggest challenges in addressing food waste?

John Walicki: One big issue is that the data around a product’s age, origin and journey lies with different parties or isn’t being tracked at all. Without shared visibility into these product attributes, at all stages of their life, it’s hard for grocers and producers to optimize how they sell and fulfill each item to guard against waste. And while less waste has a direct impact for the bottom line, more than ever, it has just as big of an impact in the mind of the increasingly belief-driven customer. According the 2018 Edelman Brand Survey, nearly two-thirds of consumers now choose, switch to or boycott a company based on its stand on societal issues, up from 51% in 2017.

FST: What is the goal of IBM’s Food Waste Developer Challenge?

Walicki: The goal of the challenge is to excite and crowd-source the minds of the developer community to create creative cloud-based, AI-enabled solutions for reducing food waste. For example, developers in the challenge have access to open-source code patterns for IoT, blockchain, AI-enabled bots, and more from IBM they can leverage in creating a solution. Nearly all of these capabilities are available for free on the IBM Cloud.

FST: Where are the key areas in which the food industry should be collaborating to solve these issues?

Walicki: The supply chain is the area [that] a lot of food retailers and producers are looking at. Better visibility into where the food is coming from, when, and its conditions are key in understanding when food will perish, etc. This involves collaboration from every partner all the way from the farm to when the customer purchases the product. The food chain is such a connected eco-system today. It’s really a team game in terms of generating solutions.

In addition, retailers are working to get better visibility into real-time on-hand inventories, so they can better know exactly how much of a certain product they have, so they can take prescriptive action if needed. More and more this type of insight requires the integration of data across many systems, both cloud-based and not. This means tight collaboration for food retailers internally and with suppliers.

Lab grown meat

“Real” Beef: It May Not Be What’s For Dinner Anymore

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Lab grown meat

As the consumer craze over plant-based meat continues, cell-cultured meat is next on the list of alternatives to “real meat”. There are several factors driving this market, including increased demand for meat as the world’s population grows and becomes more affluent, and the concern that if more sustainable solutions are not implemented, there won’t be enough protein to feed the world’s population by 2050, according to Paul Mozdziak, professor at NC State University. Mozdziak, who presented his perspective on cell-cultured meat during the IAFP Annual Meeting last month, has been working in the cell-cultured meat space for 25 years. It’s not a new concept, he pointed out, but sustainability issues, concerns over the efficiency of the animal industry (i.e., the biological limits of animals), along with a waning enthusiasm in eating animals have sparked even more interest in animal technologies during the past few years.

Animal cell culture technology involves a controlled growth of animal cells from livestock, poultry, fish or other animals, their subsequent differentiation into various cells types, and their collection and processing into food, according to Roberta Wagner, assistant administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development at FSIS, USDA. Wagner shared the regulatory perspective on this emerging segment at IAFP. And although the session in which Wagner and Mozdziak spoke was titled, “Is Cell-cultured Meat Really Meat?”, neither of them answered this question. Rather, they discussed the status of the sector and the challenges ahead.

Scale Up

“The technology has been around,” said Mozdziak. “The issue is getting it to scale and myogenic to actually produce product.” Muscle cells want to attach to something. The process of making cultured meat involves isolating cells, getting them to grow in suspension and transferring them to a bioreactor to grow. In order to create a fully formed muscle, the cells needs to attach to a scaffold and differentiate, he explained. The bioreactor facilitates a sterile environment, but when scaling up, the challenge is the unknowns (which could introduce food safety issues) during downstream processing. “Once it’s out of the bioreactor and in a non-sterile environment, there are a variety of ways it can be contaminated,” said Mozdziak.

The production process could be cost prohibitive as well. “Currently, serum-based media cost $25 a liter; serum-free is $104 a liter. How much lower can we go from that?” said Mozdziak. “A kilo of turkey at ALDI is $6… therefore the media costs would have to be below $12 a liter for this to ever be profitable.”

How Will It Be Regulated?

In October 2018, FSIS and FDA held a joint public meeting to discuss the use of cell culture technology to develop products derived from livestock and poultry. The agencies also started talking about what regulatory oversight might look like. In March of this year the USDA and FDA reached a formal agreement on joint framework for regulating cell-cultured meat and poultry products. FDA will regulate the extraction of cells from live animals and jurisdiction will be transferred to FSIS during the cell harvest stage, and FSIS will oversee production and labeling. “The agreement roughly mirrors our jurisdiction of both agencies for traditionally produced livestock,” said Wagner. She added that regarding FSIS authority over cell-cultured products, the agency does not expect there will be a need for additional legislation nor will there be new regulation to inspect the products (Establishments that harvest cells or process the cells must comply with sanitation, HACCP and any other applicable FSIS regulations). Labeling for cell-cultured meat and poultry products must be approved.

Wagner noted two major challenges ahead in the federal regulation of cell-cultured meat. “We’ve received very little information about the process and technology being developed or used by cell-cultured meat and poultry manufacturers,” she said. “If industry doesn’t share such information, there could be a delay in review of products.” She added that the agency is encouraging industry to come forward sooner than later with this information. The second big challenge involves research and science gaps—more is needed to understand the risks.

So, is cell-cultured meat really meat? “Before we can answer that, someone needs to actually have a product,” said Mozdziak. He believes industry will get there in creating marketable cell-cultured meat, but there is no telling how long it will take.

Dole baby spinach, recall

Dole Recalls Baby Spinach Due to Salmonella Risk

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Dole baby spinach, recall
Dole baby spinach, recall
Dole issued a voluntary recall of baby spinach.

Dole Fresh Vegetables announced a voluntary recall of its 6-oz Dole Baby Spinach bags after a random sample test conducted by the Department of Agriculture in Michigan tested positive for Salmonella. The recalled products were distributed in 10 states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. The products contain Use-by dates of August 5, 2019. No illnesses associated with the recall have been reported.

 

2019 Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo

Don’t miss this Plenary Session on October 1: Recalls Panel Discussion moderated by Rob Mommsen, Director of Global Quality & Food Safety, Sabra Dipping Co.

Panelists:

  • Don Zink, Ph.D., President, IEH Consulting Division of Foods and Regulatory Compliance, retired Senior Science Advisor CFSAN FDA
  • Craig Wilson, VP Quality and Food Safety, Costco Wholesale
  • Daniel Dwyer, JD, Partner Kleinfeld, Kaplan, & Becker

 

Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Need to Focus on Crocus

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food fraud, crocus, saffron
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne

Many food adulteration cases revolve around spices, since the profits can be significant. Genuine saffron is the world’s most costly spice by weight. Often, fraudsters blend real saffron threads, which are derived from saffron crocus flowers, with cheaper fibers from other plants. Saffron costs up to $9 per gram and is therefore a spice that is very tempting for fraudsters to adulterate. Product sold in the UK led to the seizure of 90 kg of fake saffron in Spain and subsequent arrest of two fraudsters.

Resource

  1. Spirit FM News Team (August 6, 2019). “Fake saffron found in West Sussex sparks international investigation”. Spirit FM News.
Robotic technology, automation

Automation Bandwagon: Know the Challenges Before Jumping On

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Robotic technology, automation

The food industry is behind high tech industries when it comes to automating certain manufacturing and warehousing processes. Although the advantages of using automation technologies can benefit many food companies in the long run, they should also be aware of the potential hurdles before moving forward. “With our growing population, we’re going to have to grow more food with [fewer] resources—automation will enable us to do that,” said Wendy White, project manager, food safety at Georgia Tech during her presentation at the IAFP annual meeting in Louisville, KY. “There are a lot of jobs in our industry that will benefit from automation—I don’t think it will necessarily eliminate jobs; I think it will help eliminate the harshness of some of the repetitive tasks.”

The benefits of automation are clear (especially for processes that involve close precision). Automation technologies can contribute to preventing injuries on the job, promote operational efficiencies, and give companies better access to records and reporting. They also can in turn enable the production of more consistent products, aid in faster product release and lower food costs. The following are the challenges that food companies may face, which include the reproduction of human senses, having the facility footprint that allows for these technologies, expense and complexity, and potential vulnerability to outages and even cybercrimes.

Challenge 1: It’s hard to replicate a human. It’s difficult to replicate any human task that requires thought. “For example, it’s hard for us to understand how many decisions go into picking off an apple from a tree,” said White. “It’s actually extremely hard for a robot to do… we underestimate how many things happen before you pick an apple.” White referred to a project at the Georgia Tech Research Institute’s Food Processing Technology Division that uses cameras to assess characteristics of an apple (i.e., insect intrusion spots, bruises, damage, ripeness, desired color), and integrates different sensing capabilities into a robotic arm. The robotic arm can sense the different gases being produced by the apple and can understand if it is at the peak of its ripeness. Yet, doing this type of work in a lab is very different from operating the robotic arm out in an actual apple orchard, so there is still a lot of work to be done.

Another example is the process of deboning a chicken carcass. “We have to figure out a way to get the bones off faster,” said White, adding that with American consumption of chicken reaching about 92 pounds annually, the poultry industry is trying to keep up. There are safety concerns with deboning, including making sure that a sliver of bone or cartilage is not left on the end product. It’s another task that is not easy for a robot to execute. She discussed current work that is using cameras and x-ray technology to understand the joint location, and from there this information is fed into an algorithm to help the robot make decisions that a trained human would intrinsically make. Once again, it takes a lot of effort for a robot to make those decisions, White pointed out.

Challenge 2: Facility footprint. Implementing automation technologies usually requires a larger facility footprint, and many food companies simply don’t have the space.

Challenge 3: Robot injuries. According to OSHA, about 4,500 injuries occurred in food facilities in 2013, two of which were robot related. However, those two robot-related injuries resulted in death. Although robot injuries are less likely to occur, they are usually more serious when they do happen, cautioned White. She stated between 1984 and 2013, 38 robot-related accidents were reported and 28 resulted in fatalities.

Challenge 4: Finding increasingly skilled labor. An employee needs to operate the robot. Although this may not seem like it would be difficult, the question is whether the existing workforce at a company can handle a completely different way of doing their jobs. Finding the level of skill required to either operate these robots or finding the employee who is willing to even work with these technologies could be a hurdle. White added that she is seeing a lot of research around co-bots, or collaborative robots, which is the term for robots that provide assistance to humans in conducting tasks such as heavy lifting.

Challenge 5: Complexity. The more complex the technology, the more likely there is to be an issue. And when this issue occurs, how long will it take to fix? Will it shut down an entire product line? This is also a consideration for companies that are considering retrofitting their existing facilities.

“We owe it to our workforce to make their jobs as safe and as easy as possible,” said White. She encourages industry to pursue automation but to also be aware of these challenges and vulnerabilities to ensure that companies are approaching implementation in the right way.