Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne
One of China’s and other Asian countries food staples are sweet potato noodles. However, almost 60% of investigated samples tested positive for cassava, a common adulterant in sweet potato noodles (and also the basis for tapioca). The DNA of 52 samples was extracted and analyzed by the real-time loop-mediated isothermal amplification (Real-time LAMP) method, which showed accurate detection down to a 1% limit.
Resource
Wang, D., et al. (May 29, 2019). “Detection of Cassava Component in Sweet Potato Noodles by Real-Time Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification (Real-time LAMP) Method”. Molecules 2019, 24(11), 2043. Retrieved from: doi:10.3390/molecules24112043
Dioxins are highly toxic organic compounds that can remain in the environment for extended periods. These persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which include polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), are mainly generated by the combustion or manufacture of chlorine-containing materials such as plastics. Dioxins and other closely related POPs, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are classed as carcinogenic by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and present a significant threat to human health even at low levels.
Dioxins and PCBs can enter the food chain when livestock consume contaminated animal feed, and can accumulate in the fatty tissues of animals due to their high fat-solubility. As a result, over 90% of human exposure to dioxins and PCBs is through the consumption of meat, fish, dairy and other foods of animal origin.1 Given the health risks posed by dioxins and PCBs, effective food testing workflows are essential to ensure products do not exceed regulatory-defined safe levels.
GC-MS/MS: A Robust Technique for Analyzing Dioxins and PCBs in Food and Animal Feed
To control human exposure to PCDDs, PCDFs and PCBs from the food chain, global regulatory bodies have established maximum levels (MLs) and action levels (ALs) for various POPs in food products, as well as approved analytical methods for food testing laboratories to enforce these standards. In the European Union (EU), for example, European Commission regulations 2017/644 and 2017/771 outline sampling, sample preparation and analysis protocols for the detection of dioxins and other dioxin-like compounds in food and animal feedstuffs.2,3
With food testing laboratories tasked with handling potentially hundreds of samples every day, these workflows must be supported by robust and reliable analytical technologies that can confidently identify and accurately quantify dioxins and PCBs with minimal maintenance requirements in order to minimize downtime and maximize throughput.
Thanks to ongoing improvements in the robustness and sensitivity of gas chromatography-triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) systems, regulations were updated in 2014 to permit this technique as an alternative to gas chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS) for confirmatory analysis and for the control of MLs and ALs. The latest GC-MS/MS systems are capable of exceptionally reliable performance for the routine analysis of dioxins and PCBs, providing accurate and sensitive quantification of these compounds even at trace levels.
Case Study: Sensitive and Reliable Determination of Dioxins Using GC-MS/MS
The performance of modern GC-MS/MS systems was evaluated in a recent study involving the confirmatory analysis and quantification of 17 PCDDs and PCDFs, and 18 dioxin-like and non-dioxin-like PCBs in solvent standards and various food and feedstuff samples. The samples were analyzed using a triple quadrupole GC-MS/MS system equipped with the advanced electron ionization source (AEI) and a TG-Dioxin capillary GC column. Two identical GC-MS/MS systems in two separate laboratories were used to assess the reproducibility of the method.
Extraction was performed by Twisselmann hot extraction or pressurized liquid extraction. The automated clean-up of the extracts was performed using a three-column setup, comprising multi-layered acidic silica, alumina and carbon columns. Two fractions were generated per sample (the first containing non-ortho PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs, and the second containing mono-ortho and di-ortho PCBs and indicator PCBs) and these were analyzed separately. The analytical method gave excellent separation of all the PCDD, PCDF and PCB congeners in less than 45 minutes.
Given the high sensitivity of modern GC-MS/MS instruments, a calibration-based approach was used to determine limits of quantitation (LOQs) of the analytical system. Using calibration standards at the LOQ and subsequent check standards at this level enabled the performance of the method to be assessed throughout the analytical sequence. This also allowed LOQs for the individual congeners to be determined, assuming a fixed sample weight. Individual congener LOQs could be applied to upper-bound, middle-bound and lower-bound toxicity equivalence (TEQ) results by substituting the result of any congener that fell below the lowest calibration point with this value multiplied by the toxicity equivalence factor (TEF) of the congener.
To evaluate the response factor deviation over the course of the analytical sequences, standards at the specified LOQ were analyzed at the start, during and end of each run. Using a nominal weight of 2 g, and assuming 100% 13C-labeled standard recovery and all natives were less than the LOQ in the sample, a minimum upper-bound value of 0.152 pg/g WHO-PCDD/F-TEQ was determined. This met regulatory requirements for reporting at 1/5th of the ML upper-bound sum TEQ for all food and feedstuffs with a nominal intake of 2 g, with the exception of guidance associated with liver of terrestrial animals and food for infants or young children, which both have legal limits defined on a fresh weight basis. In these cases, either a larger sample intake or a magnetic sector instrument would be required. All of the calibration sequences demonstrated response factor %RSDs within EU regulations, highlighting the suitability of the method.
To demonstrate the performance of the GC-MS/MS system, six replicate extractions of a mixed fat quality control sample (QK1) were prepared, split between the two sites and analyzed at regular intervals throughout the analytical sequences (14 injections in total). The measured WHO-PCDD/F-TEQ values for congener were in excellent agreement with the reference value provided by the EU Reference Laboratory for Halogenated POPs in Feed and Food, and the upper bound WHO-PCDD/F-TEQ value did not deviate by more than 6% from the reference value for all 14 measurements (Figure 1). The deviation between the upper-bound and lower-bound WHO-PCDD/F-TEQ for each measurement was consistently less than 1.2%, well below the maximum limit of 20% necessary to support compliance with EU regulations.
Figure 1. Upper- and lower-bound WHO-PCDD/F-TEQ values for all 14 measurements of the QK1 mixed animal fat quality control sample, for six replicate extractions.
Robust Routine Analysis of Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compounds
To assess the robustness of the GC-MS/MS system, the PCDD, PCDF and non-ortho PCB extracts were pooled into a mixed matrix sample and analyzed more than 161 injection sequences across a period of approximately two weeks. Each sequence consisted of 40 matrix injections and 40 LOQ standards, interspersed with nonane blanks. No system maintenance, tuning or user intervention was undertaken throughout the two-week study. Figure 2 highlights the exceptional peak area stability achieved for selected PCDD and PCDF congeners.
Figure 2. Absolute peak area repeatability over two weeks of analysis for selected PCDD and PCDF congeners in a pooled matrix sample (%RSD and amounts on column are shown for each congener).
These results highlight the exceptional levels of day-to-day measurement repeatability offered by the latest GC-MS/MS systems. By delivering consistently high performance without the need for extensive maintenance steps, modern GC-MS/MS systems are maximizing instrument uptime and increasing sample throughput for routine POP analysis workflows.
Conclusion
Developments in GC-MS/MS technology, namely the advanced electron ionization source, are pushing the limits of measurement sensitivity, repeatability and robustness to support the needs of routine dioxin and PCBs analysis in food and feed samples. By minimizing instrument downtime while maintaining exceptional levels of analytical performance, these advanced systems are helping high-throughput food testing laboratories to analyze more samples and ultimately better protect consumers from these harmful pollutants.
References
Malisch, R. and Kotz, A. (2014) Dioxins and PCBs in feed and food – Review from European perspective. Sci Total Environ, 491, 2-10.
European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/644, Off J Eur Union, 2017, L92 9-34.
European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/771, Off J Eur Union, 2017, L115 22-42.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on research by Richard Law and Cristian Cojocariu (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Runcorn, UK), Alexander Schaechtele (EU Reference Laboratory for Halogenated POPs in Feed and Food, Freiburg, Germany), Amit Gujar (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Austin, US), and Jiangtao Xing (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Beijing, China).
Rodents are wary and cautious animals. Because of their discreet and mainly nocturnal nature, hundreds can be present in a facility without anyone knowing, all the while spreading dangerous bacterial diseases.
In order to outsmart them and protect your facility, you need to know what you’re dealing with. I’d like to introduce you to the three biggest rodent offenders and share some helpful hints to help you identify them. Without further ado…
Norway Rat
Norway rats are large, stocky, strong and sometimes aggressive. Common characteristics include coarse, reddish to greyish brown fur, blunt noses, small, close-set ears and short, scaly, semi-naked tails. They dig burrows and often nest in their burrows or in basements, walls, floor voids, woodpiles and sewers.
REGISTER NOW! Complimentary Webinar: Pest Management, Accountability and Food Safety: How to get more from your service provider | September 10, 2019 | 12 pmPossible signs of Norway rats: Urine and droppings with blunt ends, grease marks, fighting noises, scurrying and climbing sounds, footprints (about 2 cm-long and may show 4-5 toes), visual signs of gnawing that are around 0.3 cm and damaged goods (favorite foods include meat, fish, cereal and dry dog food).
Roof Rat
Roof rats are smaller and sleeker in appearance than Norway rats. Common characteristics include grayish black to solid black fur, pointed snouts, large ears and long tails. They are climbers and often nest in stored material, walls, appliances, false ceilings, wood piles, floor voids, garages, storm drains, attics and in vegetation like ivy and climbing vines, in trees like yucca, palm and cypress trees.
Possible signs of Roof Rats: Grease marks, fighting noises, scurrying and climbing noises, footprints (about 2 cm-long and may show 4-5 toes), visual signs of gnawing that are around 0.3 cm and damaged goods (favorite foods include fruit, vegetables and cereal). FYI: Roof rats do not often leave signs of urine or droppings on building floors.
House Mouse
House mice have small, slender bodies. Common characteristics include dark grey fur, large ears and long, semi-naked tails. They nest in walls, attics, trees, storm drains, woodpiles garages, basements, closets and storage places. They are especially drawn to insulation and voids of the walls with fibrous and shredded materials like paper, cloth, burlap, insulation or cotton.
Possible signs of house mice: Small droppings similar to those of large cockroaches, footprints (more numerous than a rat’s and do not exceed 1 cm-long), characteristic musky odor, scurrying and climbing sounds, visual signs of gnawing that are around 0.15 cm and damaged goods (favorite foods include seeds, cereals and insects trapped on glue boards).
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne
The 2013 horse meat and lasagna scandal, and the 2018 kiwi fraud issue are just some of the product traceability cases that are under public scrutiny in France. For the second time in France’s Lot-et-Garonne region, strawberries labeled French turned out to originate in Spain. Part of the harvesting labor was outsourced and was therefore more difficult to track. This makes it easier for mislabeling and food fraud to enter smaller-scale agricultural and agricultural cooperative businesses.
As the popularity of home delivery services for food (i.e., online grocery shopping, prepared meals from restaurants, meal kits) continues to gain traction, the industry has been grappling with clear-cut guidance on how to ensure food safety during what is known as the “last mile” of delivery to the consumer. For example, how do third-party delivery services address concerns such as maintaining the right temperature of food during transit? How are allergen risks controlled? Do the people who deliver the food undergo any food safety training?
“It’s kind of a wild west out there,” said Donald Schaffner, Ph.D., professor at Rutgers University during a panel discussion on the topic of home food delivery at the IAFP annual meeting last week in Louisville, Kentucky.
In April, Acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless, M.D. and Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response Frank Yiannas acknowledged that there are food safety challenges presented by “evolving business models” such as e-commerce, and stated that the agency will be looking at ways to work with federal, state and local stakeholders to address the issues. During the IAFP panel, food safety professionals from Amazon, Uber Eats, The Kroger Company and FSIS shed some light on how their respective organizations are handling the food safety risks associated with home delivery.
Training the People Who Deliver Your Food
The overarching consensus among panelists was that there is not a one-size-fits all approach to training the people who deliver food to the consumer, because there are so many different business models out there. The key to developing successful training will be to first understand the risks associated with each of those different models.
“Everyone needs training, but we don’t want to over-engineering it—not everyone needs ServeSafe training,” said Schaffner. For example, training the person who is simply putting food in the car and delivering it to an address should be different from the training necessary for an employee selecting food in the grocery store versus the warehouse employee packing food. “Figuring out the right-size training and what kind is currently available is one of the things that we’re trying to figure out on the [Conference for Food Protection] committee.” (Note, the Conference for Food Protection committee is developing guidance that addresses home food delivery.) Schaffner indicated that training surrounding time and temperature, allergens and product tampering are important considerations.
Howard Popoola, vice president, corporate food technology and regulatory compliance at The Kroger Company provided the retailer perspective. “Our challenge is multiple in nature,” he said, emphasizing that stores try to keep labor at a minimum. Designing training for workers who are getting a $.25-per-hour raise presents a different hurdle. “What we’re doing in the store today is something we’ve never done before, and [we’re] asking individuals to do things they’ve never done before,” said Popoola. “The training we’ve done before is slowly becoming obsolete.” He said that The Kroger Company is evaluating its current basic food safety training and is looking at building on the segments of its stores that are involved in picking, packing and preparing food—especially the fresh items that are more susceptible to potential microbial contamination.
The Allergen Risk
A question was raised about whether delivery services use the same bags over and over, introducing the potential for cross-contamination. As part of its restaurant community guidelines, UberEats encourages restaurants to put food in tamper-resistant packaging. According to Joseph Navin, senior manager of global safety at the company, in order to reduce the possibility of cross contamination, all food should be placed in a bag before it is put in the insulated bag for transport. UberEats also has guidelines for how those bags should be cleaned. Further addressing the allergen risk: “How do we optimize the way that consumers can disclose that they have a food allergy? We don’t want to have food allergies going in the same free form text [box] that says ‘send extra napkins’,” said Navin. He added that UberEats is developing ways in which dealing with allergens is more conspicuous for restaurants when their employees are preparing food.
Allison Jennings, director food safety and compliance North America at Amazon, said the company has experimented with multiple types of packaging, but there isn’t one perfect set of variables and inputs. Amazon currently uses single-use bags for delivery to mitigate risks with re-cleaning, she said.
Consumer Complaints
As a best practice, integrating relevant information from consumer complaints should become part of a company’s food safety program, said Schaffner. An important role of technology will be its ability to collect feedback that allows companies to generate actionable insights related to food safety, identify any gaps, strengthen controls and be able to develop ways to mitigate risks, said Navin. Amazon currently monitors customer feedback using automatic detection for keywords related to food safety and quality that arrives via the phone, online chats with customer service and social media outlets. When necessary, the method can prompt an investigation, look for trends or help engage in continuous improvement processes. “We are constantly looking for any potential blind spots with our processes,” said Jennings. “We also mystery shop ourselves and make sure we’re meeting our requirements.”
The most common consumer complaints reported among the panelists were not related to food safety, but rather food quality—the product was crushed, didn’t look appealing, etc. “Since we rely on third party partners, we’ve walked through with them on those processes…[and are] challenging our third party partners on who they hire to deliver food, training, etc. and taking caution on delivering food,” said Popoola.
Schaffner said common complaints noted during a study conducted by Rutgers University and Tennessee State University were the following: The product was received out of temperature control; there was evidence of packages leaking (meat, poultry, and fish); a lack of cooking directions; and no mechanism to provide feedback to the company if you have a complaint.
According to Navin, among the top complaints that UberEats receives is missing food or a replacement for items that might be out of stock.
Recalls
In general, recalls in the home delivery segment would apply to products that are received via online grocery shopping services. Since consumers must sign up for these services by providing either an email or phone number, companies can contact customers in the event of a recall. For example, Amazon requires an email account, so it directly emails customers when there is recall or known safety risk associated with a product purchased. Similarly, when a customer uses a loyalty card at a grocery store such as Kroger, the retailer can use its robocall system to notify customers if they purchased an item that is subject to a recall or is associated with an outbreak.
Recalls have become an unfortunate reality for the food and beverage industry. It seems every month, another grocer pulls inventory from its shelves due to contaminated products that are potentially harmful for consumers.
Last month, it was Kroger that was forced to remove beef products from stores in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana as part of Aurora Packing Company’s recall of more than 62,000 pounds of meat that may have been infected with E. coli. Not only do these situations hurt the reputation and bottom line of companies across the food supply chain—from the manufacturer to the retail store—there is the potential for these issues to become deadly.
The CDC counts 3,000 deaths, 128,000 hospitalizations and 48 million foodborne illness cases every year. While the food industry has put stricter guidelines into place for recalling contaminated products, the key to preventing illness is to take an even more proactive stance toward making food free of harmful pathogens before it reaches consumers’ plates.
Unfortunately, this is easier said than done.
The 2019 Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo features an entire track on sanitation | October 1–3 | Schaumburg, ILComplexities of the Food Supply Chain
The food industry faces unique supply chain challenges. First, consider that the industry is dealing with products that come from the ocean or earth. Once obtained, these products are boxed, sent, in many cases long distances, to a facility via truck or cargo ship, where our foods undergo a number of processing mechanisms before being put back in a shipping container and sent off to a store. When they finally make it in-store, they’re moved from the backroom to the store floor. After all this, these products go into our mouths and through our digestive systems.
There are often many complex steps food has to go through before it makes it into our homes—and with each level of the food supply chain comes a new opportunity for things to go wrong and contamination to happen. What makes the food supply chain even more frightening is that pinpointing the root cause of harmful pathogens—such as E. coli or Listeria—by retracing all the potential contacts points is very challenging given their microscopic nature. All in all, the germs are beating us.
Old Disinfection Techniques Aren’t Cutting It
To mitigate the issue of contamination and avoid those dreaded recalls, food companies have prioritized disinfection. Most often, techniques include manually washing processing equipment with chemicals to keep them sanitized, and even spraying food products with antibiotics to directly kill harmful germs. However, these solutions have many limitations and are either intermittent in their use or insufficient to tackle the complexity of challenges associated with the food processing environment.
First, the tide is beginning to turn on the use of chemicals on food products, with consumers having growing concerns with introducing antibiotics in their food. There’s heightened and justified skepticism over the use of antibiotics and fears over the potential impact on resistance through overuse. In other words, consumers are afraid of the potential side effects from ingesting these chemicals on a daily basis and the alternative resistance bacteria they promote.
The truth is that the excessive use of antibiotics makes them less effective. This is due to frequently exposed bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics over time. The result is that antibiotics are no longer as effective at killing these germs, which is at the heart of great concern for the public’s health.
Resistant bacteria can be passed from food-producing animals to humans in a number of ways. If an animal is carrying resistant bacteria, it can be passed on through meat that is not handled or cooked properly. Plus, food crops are regularly sprayed with fertilizers, which can contain animal manure with resistant bacteria. Once spread to humans, resistant bacteria can stay in the human gut and spread between individuals. The consequences of the introduction of these germs and the subsequent consumption of them include infections that would not have happened otherwise.
Second, cleaning equipment with chemicals and disinfectants is important, but only intermittently effective. While someone working in a food processing plant uses chemicals to clean off a surface or container before food touches it, there’s still an opportunity for harmful bacteria to land on the space in between washes from many sources including the air, packaging, other food, etc. Not to mention there is a wide variety of different surfaces and nodes that food touches as it moves throughout a plant and across the supply chain. Every single surface is a distinct and new opportunity for germs to live, and simply scrubbing these areas a few times a day (or once a day in some cases) simply isn’t enough to keep these germs away. By solely relying on the intermittent use of chemicals to sanitize, it seems virtually impossible to ensure contamination is not ever introduced along the way to your table.
The Introduction of Continuous Disinfection Using Light
Intermittent sanitization hasn’t been disproven to be a wholly effective way to kill germs—it’s simply not a strong enough line of defense in and of itself. Perhaps, one of the best ways to protect our food from harmful bacteria and prevent expensive recalls altogether is to introduce and layer in a new breed of “continuous disinfection” technology using bacteria-killing visible LED lighting directly into the process.
Going back to more than a century ago, scientists have known that certain wavelengths of light are highly effective at destroying bacteria. Ultraviolet (UV) light is extremely powerful, but it is also especially dangerous to humans and causes things like plastics to become brittle and crack. UV light directly impacts the DNA in people, animals and plants, along with bacterial cells.
There is, however, a very human-friendly frequency of light (405 nanometers), which is in the visible spectrum of light, that is completely harmless to humans, but just as devastating to bacteria. It activates the porphyrin molecules that exist only within unicellular organisms such as bacteria and fungi. Humans, animals and plants do not have these particular molecules. Exposure to 405 nm light directly activates these molecules and essentially rusts bacteria from the inside out destroying any bacteria that is exposed to this human-friendly light. The ability of this new LED tool to be safely used around the clock allows for it to be acting continuously. This continuous nature goes above and beyond the existing limitations of intermittent cleaning.
With the advent of LED lighting, it is now possible to “tune” the frequency of light with extreme precision. The significant breakthrough of isolating light to this specific frequency of violet-blue light has now begun to enter the food processing industry. It is taking its place as a critical component to the layered defenses against harmful bacteria entering the food chain. When left on, this light continuously kills bacteria, preventing any germ colonies from forming and replicating. This has now become the perfect complement to the proper cleaning and sanitizing of all surfaces used in food processing and preparation—intermittent chemical cleaning working together with continuous disinfection from light.
In short, avoiding outbreaks and infection crises is all about smart prevention. Recalls are a reactionary solution to the problem. The key to preventing these potentially deadly (and costly) situations is to make sure that all facilities that process and handle food are continuously disinfected. The good news is that tech startups are at the helm of developing these new tools for killing germs before they even have a chance to have a seat at our tables.
It’s no secret that the food and beverage industry is heavily regulated and filled to the brim with quality and process standards, if only to help ensure the health and safety of consumers. With these sorts of restrictions, it’s difficult to maintain flexibility and adapt to a changing world. That’s not to say it is impossible—it’s just more challenging.
Between shifting consumer demands, a greater need for accurate maintenance and compliance, and an increasingly competitive market, food providers and distributors are being forced to alter their current trajectories to keep up. Even fresh, organic foods are part of an arduous and complex process, with conventional operations taking precedence over innovative solutions.
One solution that seems to be spreading quickly in the industry is a push toward more agile development strategies. On paper, it seems like the methodology is a poor fit, especially considering the above-mentioned challenges and complications. But the reality is that agile manufacturing has a lot to contribute.
Why Agile Manufacturing and Development?
Agile manufacturing is a response to the fast moving, constantly in flux landscape of today’s marketplace. Through processes, tools and training, it puts an emphasis on quickly responding to customer needs while maintaining balanced costs and higher quality output. It is often confused with lean manufacturing, yet the two methodologies are separate.
The rapid response to customer needs that agile enables is a key staple of the methodology and highlights exactly why it’s been given the name “agile,” or speedy. By definition, agile teams and operations are in a much better place to deal with or react to short windows of opportunity and rapid demand changes.
Because today’s consumers want instant gratification, desire plenty of choice or personalization, and have shifting interests, agile manufacturing serves as an effective solution.
Four key elements or core values in the agile manifesto speak directly to food safety and compliance.
1. It Favors Individuals and Interactions
In agile manufacturing—also agile development—the operations are designed to put more emphasis on individuals and their interactions as opposed to the processes or tools adopted. Why is this fact important? Because it’s the people who do the work and drive the entire industry, especially when it comes to certain foods and goods.
Agile manufacturing recognizes that the most difficult challenges are often overcome through face-to-face interactions. It’s the more effective way to work.
2. It Emphasizes Working Software Over Documentation
In many industries—food and beverage being a key example—documentation reigns supreme, especially with complex processes or systems involved. A lots of time is placed on compiling the documentation, following up and conducting verification procedures.
Agile does away with a lot of the busywork. It doesn’t eliminate documentation and the related processes but instead streamlines everything so that it’s more actionable. In other words, the reporting process doesn’t serve as a hindrance, slowing down everything else. Instead, it happens in parallel to everything else, presenting a much smoother output.
3. Customer Collaboration Is a Priority
Despite its reliance on consumer demands, the food industry is rife with regulation, compliance protocols and various standards. The focus is taken away from the consumer in many cases just to remain efficient and safe. This shift becomes increasingly apparent during contract negotiations with various partners and third parties.
Agile recognizes that the emphasis on customer relationships creates a healthier environment for all and also provides a competitive advantage. It takes the customer feedback process and applies insights to just about every internal process, but in an effective way. And it’s all made possible with the help of modern technologies.
4. Flexibility and Versatility Are Part of Its Structure
Most methodologies or structured systems focus on building a plan and then sticking to that plan come hell or high water. This philosophy doesn’t work as well when you’re talking about a constantly shifting industry such as food and beverage.
Agile instead views market and demand change as something positive—as an opportunity to excel. In fact, with the right approach, that change can help provide increased value to a business or operation. Planning isn’t the enemy of agile, but instead serves as a guideline for where to go rather than a permanent route or decision. In this way, agile helps teams adapt to change faster and more openly than ever before while still remaining on track, eliminating delays that would put off a timely completion.
This system honors a more team-oriented approach to all aspects of an operation, allowing the skills and strengths of the entire team to shine through. Employees are empowered, gain much more value and have an incredible amount of influence over the entire operation. These changes are achieved primarily through a fostered culture that supports and encourages change.
Today’s Food Industry Requires Adaptability
Through a variety of remarkable solutions, which call for more modern processes, technologies and support systems, companies can better manage compliance and safety in the food industry. That is true whether these firms are manufacturing or producing the goods themselves, or distributing trade goods from other sources.
The agile methodology honors excellence and streamlined culture that understands and truly speaks to the need for change. One could argue that the future of the supply chain is headed in this direction anyway, with an emphasis on quality, accuracy and compliance.
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne
Organized crime in Europe has found a new money making machine by engaging in food fraud, which often goes undetected and is relatively low risk compared to other criminal activities. Opson, an Europol-Interpol joint operation, confiscated 16,000 tons of fake food items and 33 million liters of fraudulent beverages in 2018, a new record, but also probably just the tip of the iceberg. Government agencies do not have the resources to detect all fraudulent activities, and suspected food fraud cases moving through the federal and local government hierarchies is a long and cumbersome process.
Food fraud has been at the center of attention recently and has highlighted inconsistencies in the food industry and supply chain management. Both consumers and regulators are demanding or imposing new standards for assuring the authenticity of food products. In such a context, food industries have to use their knowledge, perceptions and experience to answer and comply with regulators, consumers, and (for some) GFSI requirements regarding food fraud management. However, one can ask how ready and aware food industry players are to understand, mitigate and tackle food fraud. With those questions in mind, the research team of the CIRANO at Montreal, Canada led by Professor Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin and the research team of the PARERA platform at Laval University, Quebec, Canada led by Professor Samuel Godefroy had developed a survey of 52 closed questions to assess the awareness and the perceptions of Canadian food industries toward food fraud and what actions they had already implemented to mitigate their risks. The survey included six main sections:
Food fraud definition
Perceptions of food fraud burden globally and locally
Food fraud regulations
Food industry responsibility towards food fraud
Their capacities to prevent and manage this aspect of food quality and safety
Food fraud prevention practices, detection methods and their implementation.
A total of 398 Canadian food industries took the survey; they were food processors, producers (crop, livestock, and fisheries), and distributors (agricultural wholesalers, wholesaler-merchants, and retailers). They will be referred to as Food Business Operators (FBOs) or processors, producers, and distributors when a difference was highlighted between sectors.
What Is the Level of Knowledge of Food Fraud?
Firstly, there is no current data on knowledge of food industry operators on food fraud, hence, the research team proposed definitions and the respondents had to identify which ones could refer to food fraud (1) An intentional and deliberate act (2) False or misleading statements for economic gain and (3) An act aimed at misleading the consumer. More than nine FBOs assigned the definitions to food fraud, hence showing a good understanding of what food fraud is. In an additional question some examples of food fraud were proposed:
Hidden mix of a liquid with another liquid of lower quality
Hidden information about a product or one of its ingredients
Hidden replacement of a product or one of its ingredients by a product of lower quality
Labeling containing false claims
Addition of a non-approved or illegal ingredient.
Again, more than 90% of the FBOs were able to identify those cases as food fraud. The answers to the first questions suggested that Canadian FBOs understand what food fraud is.
Was Your Company a Victim of Fraud?
The authors asked the respondents if they think or know that their company has already been the victim of food fraud in the past or recently. Besides, the respondents were asked to assess how safe their company is towards food fraud. More than a third of the respondents reported to have been a victim of fraud in the past, but sectors answered differently. In fact, while 40% of processors and 48% of the distributors answered it was likely or very likely that their company had been a victim, only 24% of the producers gave this answer. In parallel, one third of the respondents agreed that their business is safe from food fraud, however, the results per sector were statistically different: 42% of the producers agreed while only a quarter of the processors and the distributors felt safe from food fraud. Those results indicated a shift between producers and the two other sectors; the producers seem to feel less impacted and concerned by food fraud.
Who Is Responsible for Managing Food Fraud?
Depending on where the FBO is in the supply chain, one can make the hypothesis that this company might not feel responsible for the authenticity of the products it buys or sells. The survey authors asked respondents if they considered themselves as responsible for the products’ authenticity they would buy or sell to consumers or an intermediate. Among the three sectors, 82% of the respondents considered themselves as responsible for the products they received from the suppliers, and 80% for the authenticity of the products they sell to consumers. However, only half consider they are responsible for the product authenticity once it is processed or sold by a client. It was reassuring to see that FBOs understand fraud and consider themselves as responsible for ensuring food authenticity. One can argue that this perception will positively impact the robustness of their mitigation measures and the controls of food fraud.
Which Measures Have Canadian FBOs Implemented to Prevent Food Fraud?
FBOs mainly implemented a supply chain traceability system to mitigate food fraud. This result was not surprising, as traceability has to be in place to comply with current requirements for food safety and food quality. The vulnerability assessment is a recommended (or required) procedure to implement in food industries to comply with regulations and certifications such as GFSI, and 36% of the FBOs have implemented this measure (half of the processors). Finally, detection methods were implemented by only 27% of respondents. Interestingly, through another question, those three measures were seen as the more efficient way to fight food fraud according to the respondents. Also, FBOs would rely on a stable and long-term relationship based on trust with their supplier to mitigate food fraud and rated this measure as an efficient way to fight food fraud. Audits of suppliers and ingredient authenticity checking were also perceived as efficient but were not implemented as frequently. The lack of human resources, financial means, training, and time were the reasons why processors and distributors did not implement more measures to counter food fraud. Interestingly, the primary reason producers selected was “the system in place was enough” followed by lack of financial means, human resources and time and “food fraud is not an essential stake for our company.” One can relate this difference between the sectors with the observation made earlier on how safe the producers feel compared to the two other groups. Regarding detection methods, 88% of the FBOs rated their knowledge of those technologies as moderate or low, and 77% of the respondents rated the frequency of food fraud detection technologies as “never to rarely”. The reason why detection methods are not applied more was the lack of financial means, and the system in place is adequate to control food fraud.
Also, If They Identify Fraud, What’s Next?
Lastly, the authors asked what the respondent would do if their company identified an incident of fraud. Most of the respondents (69%) said they would speak to their supplier; this affirmation can be associated with the strong and long-term relationship the company would have with the supplier. The second option chosen was to change the supplier and then inform the authorities. The respondents could answer several questions, and one can hypothesize that their actions following the identification of fraud would depend on the severity of the fraud and its impacts on both the consumers and the company.
Conclusion
In summary, this survey is the first to assess the knowledge, perception and readiness of FBOs to fight food fraud. Results have indicated that Canadian FBOs understand what food fraud is but data is missing to support their perception that fraud is more present abroad than in Canada. Two third of the respondents feel unsafe towards food fraud which should be seen as positive point; in fact, FBOs would be keener to implement measures to protect themselves if they feel unsafe. Besides, a majority feels responsible for the authenticity of the products they sell to consumers. Respondents tend to implement preventive measures but perceive other measures as more efficient to counter fraud. Apparently, those measures seem to be too expensive, time-consuming and resource-consuming. Besides, lack of training on food fraud management was also reported as an impediment to fight fraud. Finally, differences have been highlighted along the survey between producers and the two others sectors: Processors and distributors. One can hypothesize that producers might feel less concerned by food fraud being at the very beginning of the food chain supply and that most food fraud cases involve their clients and not the producers directly.
Footnotes
More details and more results are presented in a manuscript submitted by the research team: Food industry perceptions and actions towards food fraud: Insights from a pan Canadian study.
Researchers involved in the project from the CIRANO: Yoann Guntzburger, Ingrid Peignier and Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin and from the PARERA platform Jeremie Theolier, Virginie Barrere and Samuel Godefroy. Partners: r-Biopharm, EnvironeX, the Quebec consortium for industrial bioprocess research and innovation (CRIBIQ), NSF, Transbiotech, and Olymel.
The spring of 2019 saw record rain fall across North America, causing historic, severe flooding in the Great Plains, parts of the Midwest, and the Southern United States. That above-normal precipitation doesn’t look to be ending, either. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center predicts that wide swaths of the United States could face above normal precipitation for the remainder of 2019.
In addition to disrupting power to critical equipment and damaging property, when food businesses flood, food safety is put at risk. Flood waters can be contaminated with debris, sewage, chemicals, pests and more. In a restaurant or foodservice operation, any product, object or surface that flood waters touch becomes contaminated.
Pre-Flood Preparation
Having a documented flood emergency plan in place can give location staff a step-by-step course of action to follow in times of increased stress and panic. It can also help minimize losses for a business.
For national chains in particular, it can be harder to ensure that all locations have the resources and tools available in their area. Corporate operations can assist by identifying vendors and resources ahead of time.
Designate roles and responsibilities. Having a clearly outlined plan with designated roles and responsibilities can prevent confusion and extra work during the crisis. Have an updated phone contact list of key contacts available for those with designated roles and responsibilities.
Sandbags. Placing sandbags in front of doors or other openings may help limit flood damage.
Vital records. Both paper and digital/electronic records can be at risk. Businesses using electronic records should ensure that files are automatically backed up regularly. Businesses using paper records should ensure that vital records are secured in such a way that they can be quickly removed to a safe place or elevated to prevent damage.
Equipment. Flood waters can damage or destroy expensive equipment. Have a plan in place to remove equipment to a safe place.
Food storage. If flood waters contact food supplies, many may need to be destroyed. Arranging for food storage in a secure place away from flood waters can help minimize losses. This may require refrigeration storage.
Turn off electric and gas. Turning off natural gas lines can prevent devastating damage and contamination from occurring. Turning off and unplugging equipment that uses electricity can help protect the safety of rescue workers or staff returning for cleanup.
Refrigeration. If it is not possible to remove food, be certain that all refrigerated units are equipped with accurate thermometers. If possible, monitor the temperature in the units during the disaster situation.
Post-Flood Recovery
Even with a rock-solid pre-storm plan in place, Mother Nature’s extreme weather events can wreak havoc on facilities. In the wake of a storm, sorting out what needs to be done to restore order to operations can be a hefty task.
Post-storm recovery can be an extensive task, especially if flooding is involved. It may require work of many staff members or outside vendors, such as remediation specialists. Safety should be absolutely paramount. No one should enter a space that has been flooded without confirmation that there are no electrical shock hazards, gas leaks or debris that could harm people. Structural damage that could lead to collapse or other injury is possible. Mold is also a risk following floods. All personnel involved in flood clean-up must wear personal protective equipment—eye protection, gloves, disposable aprons, rubber boots, and masks or respirators, etc.
The following guidelines can help prioritize steps to ensure food safety won’t be a factor holding back a location from re-opening.
Safe water. Facilities cannot prepare food without a clean, potable water supply. If the water system was affected by flood or the local water supply was unsafe, the local health department should be involved in clearing re-opening.
Disinfection of equipment. Any food equipment that was exposed to flood water or other non-potable water must be disinfected prior to use, including ice machines, which are often overlooked. Discard any ice already present in a machine. Thoroughly clean and sanitize the machine before turning it on. Once the machine is running again, discard the first two cycles of ice.
Disinfection of surfaces. Any surface (countertops, walls, ceilings, floors, equipment surface, etc.) that was contacted by floodwaters must be disinfected before reopening.
Use a commercial disinfectant with effectiveness against norovirus or make a chlorine bleach solution to disinfect affected areas.
Use unscented bleach and wear gloves.
Make fresh bleach solutions daily.
Food contact surfaces that are disinfected must be rinsed with clean, potable water, and sanitized before use.
Discard any mop heads or absorbent materials used to clean flooded areas.
What to discard. Inevitably, there will be items that cannot be salvaged following a flood event. The following items should be discarded if they have come into contact with floodwater or non-potable water or were subjected to temperature abuse due to power outages. If there is any doubt, throw it out.
Unpackaged food (examples: fruits, vegetables)
Food in permeable packaging (examples: flour in bags, produce in cardboard boxes)
Food packaging materials
Refrigerated food in a refrigerated unit where the temperature rose above 41°F for more than four hours
Any refrigerated product that was not temperature-controlled for more than four hours
Frozen food product that has thawed to a temperature of above 41°F for more than four hours
Canned items with damaged seams, swelling or dents
Items with screw tops, twist-off caps, or other semi-permeable packaging
Single service/use items
Any linens that contacted floodwaters that cannot be laundered with bleach and dried in a mechanical dryer
What can be safely kept. Not everything will need to be discarded.
Canned foods free of dents or rust can be kept after labels are removed, they are disinfected, washed, rinsed in clean water, and sanitized; cans with any signs of bulging or leaking must be discarded; canned foods should be also be relabeled with the name of the food product, as well as the expiration date
Linens that can be safely laundered with bleach and dried in a mechanical dryer
Dishes, utensils, pots and pans, and other service items that are free of rust and can be disinfected, washed, and sanitized
As climate change continues to advance, the threat of extreme weather and flooding situations may soon be a reality for areas of the United States that have never experienced them before. In the Congress-mandated Fourth National Climate Assessment, compiled by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the authors warn of the future of severe weather events.
“More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities.” – Fourth National Climate Assessment
Even for businesses that have not had to consider flooding before, it may be time to sit down and develop a flooding and food safety plan of action. The time invested in training and educating staff members may help to protect investments and keep food safe in the event of flooding and weather emergencies.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.
