Tag Archives: Focus Article

Bionano Laboratory

Biosensor Detects Norovirus on the Spot, in One Hour

By Food Safety Tech Staff
1 Comment
Bionano Laboratory

Norovirus has returned to the headlines following the latest outbreak at the PyeongChang Olympics in South Korea. Researchers at Bionano Laboratory in Guelph, Canada are trying to prevent such outbreaks with the development of a nanotechnology-based biosensor that can identify foodborne viruses at the point of care.

“Our nanotech biosensor boasts of a microfluidic platform duly integrated with graphene-gold nano-composite aptasensor that has shown to help with one-step norovirus detection. We have been able to detection the norovirus with in an hour with superior sensitivity with our state-of-the art device.” – Suresh Neethirajan, Bionano Lab

Designed for use in the field, the paper-based microfluidic device has a screen-printed carbon electrode that enables electrochemical virus detection within an hour. Its chip is packed with silica microbeads zones to filter and enrich a Norovirus-infected sample. The researchers also state that the biosensor is designed to be simple and cost effective. They have published two papers demonstrating the effectiveness of the device, one in Microchimica Acta (Apramer-based fluorometric determination of norovirus using paper-based microfluidic device) and the other in Biosensors and Bioelectronics.

Megan Nichols
FST Soapbox

How Automation Benefits the Food and Beverage Industry

By Megan Ray Nichols
2 Comments
Megan Nichols

During seasonal volume and demand peaks in the food and beverage industry, common practice is to increase labor and mobile equipment supplies temporarily. While this works great for small- to medium-sized businesses even in the current landscape, it’s not ideal for larger teams. This is primarily due to the evolution of technology, especially in the automation sector.

Adding more labor and machines can help increase volume, but it comes with a sizeable cost, one that could be shaved with the right process and system updates. As one might expect, adopting advanced automation systems, robotics and processes that can be controlled via machinery or software is the answer. Believe it or not, these systems can be made to work alongside and improve performance of existing laborers and teams.

In fact, automation is taking many industries by storm, and it’s about time food and beverage companies climbed aboard. Automotive, construction and healthcare are just three examples of industries already being disrupted by automation and AI.

But how is the technology being adopted or implemented in the food industry, and how will companies benefit from incorporating such systems?

Better Quality Control

Along the food and beverage supply chain, there are so many involved processes, workers and touchpoints that it can be difficult to not only keep track of food, but also to monitor its quality. As you know, quality is of incredible importance in the industry. You don’t want faulty or contaminated foods entering the market because it can be detrimental. Food must always remain traceable and safe, and it’s difficult to guarantee a system that has so many working cogs.

Automation, however, can change that completely. With the appropriate systems, defects and issues can be noticed much earlier in the supply chain. By detecting problems during packaging or processing, you can cut down on the total number of problematic goods that enter the market. Better yet, you can accurately identify when and where those problems are coming from and remedy the issue for improved performance in the future. If something along your supply chain is the culprit, automation will help you hone in.

Eliminating contamination can be controlled — and achieved — by deploying the appropriate cooling and air compressor systems. However, that also means understanding where this hardware must be utilized for maximum reliability. Automation and analytics systems can be helpful in discerning this information, better protecting foods and goods along the chain.

It’s not a pipe dream, either — systems are already being adopted and implemented to achieve such a thing.

End-To-End Traceability

While we touched on the idea of traceability a little in the point above, it’s the lion’s share that’s really going to make a difference. Automation and modern analytics tools can be deployed to track products and goods from inception to fulfillment. Because the systems in question are designed to track and monitor on their own with little to no input, you can tap in anywhere along the chain to seek the information you need.

Have a contaminated shipment that was discovered too late? You can use the modern analytics and automation tools at your disposal to find exactly where they are shipped or headed. This way you can head off a massive health problem before it even starts.

This, in turn, can help alleviate compliance costs and stressors, as well as improve the overall performance of the supply chain and various key processes. You could, for example, see how long a particular stop or touchpoint along the supply chain is taking and use the information provided to speed up performance.

End-to-end traceability and all the data that comes with it is about more than just watching where food comes from, where it is handled and where it goes. You can use the data provided to build an accurate profile and predictive system for future gains.

Improved Worker Safety

Automation systems, AI and modern robotics are often used to control rote, repetitive and sometimes even dangerous tasks. In this way, you can save human laborers from the dangers of a particular activity or even the monotony of busy work. It frees them up to handle more important demands, which is another benefit.

Of course, increased safety and protection for your loyal workforce can also work to alleviate operation or maintenance costs in the long run. It can lead to faster and more widespread adoption of new standards and regulations for your workforce at large as well. Traditionally, such a change might require additional training, new equipment or even better protection for your workers.

In the case of automation, you can simply update the existing hardware and software to be compliant and save the trouble of maintaining everything else, such as updating safety gear for your workers, which would no longer be necessary.

Efficiency Boost

It’s no secret that when deployed and developed properly, a machine or automation system can perform work faster and better than human laborers, at least in some cases. A machine never tires, never gets bored and can never slack off—unless it has a malfunction. That’s not to say modern technologies will be used to replace workers outright, but instead, they might be deployed alongside them to help them work faster, better and safer.

Take Amazon, for instance, which has deployed an army of AI and automation robots inside their warehouses to improve the efficiency of their order fulfillment process. It has the added benefit of speeding up the entire system, so customers get their items faster. It also improves safety and performance for the workers, effectively eliminating unsafe tasks or rote work.

Automation can provide benefits across the board for the food and beverage industry. It will be interesting to see how technological developments unfold.

Alert

Pathogenic Contamination Among Top Food Safety Hazards for Cannabis

By Steven Burton
No Comments
Alert

“As more people gain access to and ingest cannabis products, it’s only a matter of time before food safety becomes a primary concern for producers and regulators,” says Steven Burton, CEO and founder of Icicle Technologies, Inc. Without federal regulation, there are so many questions about the food safety hazards associated with the use of cannabis in food products. In an article published in Food Safety Tech’s sister publication, Cannabis Industry Journal, Burton discusses the Top Four Safety Hazards for the Cannabis Industry, which includes pathogenic contamination from pests and improper handling.

Jim Gorny, CFSAN

CFSAN Announces New Senior Science Advisor for Produce Safety

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Jim Gorny, CFSAN

FDA has created a new position for former FDA member Jim Gorny to serve as the senior science advisor for produce safety at CFSAN. Gorny worked at FDA from 2009 to 2013 as the senior advisor in the agency’s Office of Food Safety at which time he was involved in the development of FSMA. He was previously the vice president of food safety and technology at the Produce Marketing Association.

In his position at CFSAN Gorny will work with a team of produce safety professionals on implementing new science and risk-based requirements that aim to prevent illnesses from contaminated produce. He will serve as the chief advisor to CFSAN Director Susan Mayne on policies and programs associated with produce safety. His responsibilities include stakeholder outreach and engagement, investigations and recalls, research and training.

“I will be working with state regulatory partners and other government agencies at home and abroad to build support for implementation of the produce rule, as well as with industry to help further compliance… I’ll be working to make sure that the people in senior-level management and the field staff, including those conducting foreign inspections, are speaking the same language. – Jim Gorny, FDA

In an interview published on FDA’s website, Gorny discusses his role at FDA, the produce safety rule and how he will be working with industry and key stakeholders, including the farming community.

Cargill, facial recognition technology

Facial Recognition for Cows? The Future Is Here

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Cargill, facial recognition technology

Facial recognition technology could be the next step in improving efficiency on dairy farms. Cargill is investing in Dublin-based Cainthus, a company that uses machine vision technology and predictive imaging to monitor livestock. In just seconds, Cainthus’ proprietary software’s imaging technology identifies cows by their features and captures their identity by recording specific patterns and movements. In addition to monitoring behavior patterns, the software can track data such as food and water intake, and heat detection.

“Our shared vision is to disrupt and transform how we bring insights and analytics to dairy producers worldwide. Our customers’ ability to make proactive and predictive decisions to improve their farm’s efficiency, enhance animal health and wellbeing, reduce animal loss, and ultimately increase farm profitability are significantly enhanced with this technology.” – SriRaj Kantamneni, managing director for Cargill’s digital insights business

An artificial intelligence driven mathematical algorithm generates analytics that can send farmers an alert to help them make on-site decisions that impact milk production, reproduction management and overall animal health, according to a Cargill press release.

The companies are concentrating on the dairy industry first and plan to expand to swine, poultry and aqua over the coming months.

Debadeep Bhattacharyya, Thermo Fisher Scientific
In the Food Lab

Pushing The Limits Of Targeted Pesticide Residue Quantitation: Part 2

By Debadeep Bhattacharyya, Ph.D.
No Comments
Debadeep Bhattacharyya, Thermo Fisher Scientific

Detection and quantitation of pesticide residues in food is extremely important in food safety. Given the challenge of evaluating multiple pesticides at low levels across various samples, laboratories are in constant need of robust, reliable and sensitive analytical methods.

The risk of unauthorized pesticide overuse can increase residue concentrations in food, thereby, causing severe health issues. Global food safety bodies strictly regulate the levels of pesticides allowed in food products. In the European Union for instance, legislation in the form of Directive No 752/2014 sets statutory maximum residue limits (MRLs) for more than 1000 pesticides in food products of plant or animal origin.1 The number of pesticides and their allowed concentrations are necessary to ensure consumer safety, and are amongst the strictest in the world, permitting concentrations in products at levels typically as low as several parts-per-billion (ppb).

The requirements to achieve such low limits of quantitation for all analytes in a complex matrix present a significant analytical challenge for the food safety laboratories tasked with making a confident assessment of every sample. With perishable products such as fresh fruits and vegetables under routine analysis, these results need to be achieved within very short turnaround times and at a low cost per sample to meet lab managers’ budgets.

Advances in LC-MS/MS Technology

Recent advances in triple quadrupole technology have offered an additional boost to the existing analytical capabilities of liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The segmented quadrupoles, faster rod drivers and more powerful electron multipliers can enable analysts to achieve the desired levels of robustness, mass accuracy, precision and sensitivity required to meet this challenge.

Improvements in instrument detection capability are pushing the limits of quantitation even further. Figure 1 highlights the amplified sensitivity of a triple quadrupole spectrometer for the determination of two pesticides in a leek sample—a particularly complex matrix with a high moisture content. For both chlormequat and 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA), the spectrometer delivers enhanced performance, giving analysts the ability to quantify residues far beyond the current limits required for MRL determination.

mass spectrometers
Figure 1. Representative chromatograms of chlormequat (positive ionization mode) and 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (negative ionization mode), in leek extract monitored using the TSQ Quantis MS (blue trace) and the TSQ Endura triple quadrupole MS (red trace) mass spectrometers.

Robust, Reliable and Reproducible

With potentially hundreds of perishable samples to analyze each day, food testing laboratories not only require the ultimate sensitivity, but sensitivity should be supported by speed and robustness.

One way in which analysts are achieving higher analytical throughput is through the use of shorter instrument dwell times. Although short dwell times in the past enabled productivity of sample analysis (more samples at the same time), they often came at the expense of robustness and sensitivity of the results. With the latest advances in triple quadrupole technology, short dwell times no longer compromise analysis.

Very effective quantitation of pesticide residues can be achieved using timed selection reaction monitoring (SRM). With the timed SRM approach, data acquisition is performed within a short retention time window around each compound of interest. This approach reduces the number of transitions that are monitored in parallel within the retention time window, while ensuring consistent quantitation even at low concentrations (see Figure 2).

Pesticide Residue Quantitation
Figure 2. Comparison of azoxystrobin peak areas (1 μg/kg in leek) obtained on 10th injection and 410th injection. Peak areas are consistent even when a low dwell time of 2.5 ms is used. The 410th injection demonstrates an adequate number of data points across the peak.

Another important point to consider is workflow robustness. For busy laboratories with large workloads and tight turnaround times, time-consuming daily instrument recalibration and frequent maintenance simply isn’t a viable option.

Triple quadrupole instruments are renowned for their experimental reliability that is delivered for every fast-paced environment, and the latest instruments are pushing expectations even further. Figure 3 demonstrates the precise levels of measurement reproducibility that can be achieved using a triple quadrupole MS. Peak areas for the pesticide residue atrazine, added to a leek sample at a concentration of 10 μg/kg, remained well within the expected ±20% range over 400 injections. Even when the system was placed into standby mode for 12 hours and subsequently restarted, consistent measurements could be obtained without any additional maintenance.

Pesticide Residue Quantitation
Figure 3. Atrazine peak areas (10 μg/kg in leek) monitored over 400 injections. Red lines represent ±20% atrazine response. Yellow lines show the point at which the system was placed in standby mode for 12 h. No system maintenance was performed between injections.

Conclusion

Technical advances in instrumentation and improvements in procedures have generated more robust LC-MS/MS processes to definitively detect trace pesticide residues. With limits of quantitation growing increasingly stringent year on year, such advances in technology are not only helping laboratories meet the quantitation challenges of today, but also prepare for those of tomorrow.

References

1. Commission Regulation (EU) No 752/2014 of 24 June 2014 replacing Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2014.

Acknowledgements

This article is based on research by Katerina Bousova, Michal Godula, Claudia Martins, Charles Yang, Ed Georg, Neloni Wijeratne & Richard J. Fussell Thermo Fisher Scientific, Dreieich, Germany, Thermo Fisher Scientific, California, USA, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Hemel Hempstead, UK.

Recall

Panera Bread Recalls Cream Cheese Out of Caution

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Recall

No one has reported falling ill, but Panera Bread Company isn’t taking any chances. After sampling one type of two-ounce cream cheese showed a positive result for Listeria monocytogenes from a single production day, the company decided to recall all varieties of its two-and eight-ounce cream cheese.

“The safety of our guests and associates is paramount, therefore we are recalling all cream cheese products sold in the U.S. with an active shelf life. We have likewise ceased all manufacturing in the associated cream cheese facility. Only one variety of 2-oz cream cheese from a single day yielded the positive result. Our intent is to go above and beyond for our guests. You should expect nothing less from Panera.” –Blaine Hurst, Panera’s President and CEO

The recall only affects cream cheese sold in Panera Bread United States locations, not those in Canada or other Panera food products.

FDA

FDA Releases Five FSMA Guidance Documents

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
FDA

Today the FDA issued five guidance documents related to FSMA with the goal of assisting food importers and producers meet provisions in the regulation.

The first two documents are related to the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) regulation. The FDA issued the draft guidance, Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals, along with a small entity compliance guide. The third draft guidance is related to whether a measure provides the same level of public health protection as the corresponding requirement in 21 CFR part 112 or the PC requirements in part 117 or 507 . “This draft guidance aims to provide a framework for determining the adequacy of a process, procedure, or other action intended to provide the same level of protection as those required under the FSMA regulations for produce and for human or animal food,” according to FDA.

The FDA also released a final chapter in the draft guidance related to FSMA requirements for hazard analysis and risk-based PCs for human food. The chapter is intended to assist food facilities in complying with the supply chain program requirements.

The fifth guidance is an announcement of the FDA’s policy to exercise enforcement discretion related to the FSVP rule regarding certain grain importers that bring the product into the United States as raw agricultural commodities. “This enforcement discretion is meant to better align the FSVP rule with the exemption for non-produce RACs under the PC rules,” stated FDA.

Lance Roberie, D.L. Newslow
FST Soapbox

Can You Defend Your Food Safety Plan?

By Lance Roberie
1 Comment
Lance Roberie, D.L. Newslow

As a food safety plan manager, do you ever get asked these questions regarding your food safety plan: What was your thought process for making this decision? Why do you do it this way? How do you answer this?

And, do you ever answer with one of the following statements:

  • I’m not sure? What do you mean?
  • That’s the way it has always been.
  • Our customer asked us to do it that way.
  • That’s what our last auditor recommended.
  • We make a low-risk product.

If this is one of your answers, defending your food safety plan may be a challenge. There is a major shift taking place in the world of food safety. With the implementation of FSMA Preventive Controls, the widespread adoption of GFSI audits, along with advanced technologies such as rapid pathogen and allergen detection, whole genome sequencing, and transparency efforts such as Blockchain, as well as with the increasing use of social media and access of information via the internet, food industry professionals are more educated and informed than ever before and ready to challenge your every move. As a food safety plan manager, you and your team must be ready! Being prepared to defend your food safety plan can be the difference between a recall and a routine audit. If you cannot fully explain the reasoning behind your decision-making, then how will you be able to prove that you are in complete control and are being proactive against food safety hazards? It will not be easy.

You must be ready to defend each and every part of your food safety plan. You must be able to defend questions and challenges with certainty and facts. Every decision made in your hazard analysis should be written down and backed with factual evidence whenever possible. Even the “none identified” areas should be backed by strong reasoning if no other factual evidence is available. You can use the data that you collect daily to help justify your decisions. Data collected from your prerequisite programs (ATP swab results, allergen cleaning validations, GMP audit findings, pest control trends, etc.) and food safety plan (CCP’s, validations, verifications) is all support for your decisions. Have this on file and ready to review when necessary.

If something looks out of the ordinary in your plan, make sure you can fully explain it and can back it with solid justification. If not, auditors, regulators, customers, etc. may start to become suspicious, which can lead to unwanted questions. You will then oftentimes start to get suggestions for change based on others’ individual expertise. Regulators may make “strong suggestions” for changes, for instance, and some people will just go along with it to avoid the pushback or because they simply don’t have a better solution. If this happens, soon your plan is no longer yours—it’s everyone’s. Some of these suggestions may be good, but is it really the right change for your plan? If not, it will often make the plan less rational and often difficult to defend.

The following are tips to help you avoid this situation.

  1. Meet with your food safety team regularly. Go through each part of your food safety plan and figure out how to answer the “why’s”. Why are things done this way? Why did we decide if this hazard was significant or not? Have annual reviews to make sure your plan is still functioning as originally intended and review new industry trends to be proactive regarding new potential hazards.
  2. Write a process narrative. Writing a process narrative documenting what happens at each step of your process and explaining your “thought process” for making decisions is a great support tool. It gives your team a chance to elaborate on the “justification” column in the hazard analysis, providing more decision-making details without crowding the hazard analysis form.
  3. Gather supporting documents. Scientific studies, guidance documents, expert opinions, etc. are vital pieces to have in your supporting documents library. Make sure it is appropriate for your individual products and the documents are from reputable sources, such as FDA, USDA, universities, process authorities, etc. Oh, and don’t forget about history! A reputable supplier with a long track record of safe product, a low history of recalls for the products you produce, etc. can help justify your decision-making.
  4. Conduct Internal Audits. Having an internal audit schedule and well-trained internal auditors help with finding inconsistencies within your program and allow you to make corrections before outside parties find these issues.
  5. Prepare. Have a “mock audit” and prepare for questions that are commonly asked during audits. Practice your answers and make sure you have supporting evidence when needed. Stay up-to-date with industry trends, especially common audit non-conformances.
  6. Be organized. It’s great to have all the supporting documents that you need, but if you cannot find them, then you just as well have nothing.
  7. Be confident. People, especially experienced auditors and inspectors, can quickly sense fear and lack of confidence. This often prompts more questions. Knowledge is power, and knowledge also builds confidence. Simply put, the more knowledgeable you are about your food safety plan, the more confident you will be when someone is trying to test you.
  8. Continuously Improve. It’s understandable that mistakes will be made. However, the next logical question you will be asked is: What did you do about it? Remember, for every nonconformance you find in your system, there should be a correction or corrective and preventive action to address it. It must not simply restate the problem, but legitimately correct the issue. This will give regulators, auditors, customers and anyone else looking at your system confidence that you are in control and can provide a consistently safe product.
USDA Logo

What USDA Will Do During Government Shutdown

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
USDA Logo

Despite the government shutdown, certain aspects of the USDA will continue to operate. On Friday, USDA issued a release in which U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue outlined the services that will continue to be available, including the following:

  • Ensuring meat, poultry and egg products are safe
  • Inspect before and after bird and animal slaughter for food intended for humans
  • Apply foreign government inspection requirements and procedures
  • Conduct emergency operations related to voluntary meat and poultry products
  • Conduct epidemiological investigations related to foodborne health hazards and disease outbreaks, and provide pathological, microbiological, and chemical examination of USDA regulated products for disease, infection, contamination and adulteration
  • Prevent movement of adulterated product

A full outline of the government shutdown plan is available on the USDA website.