The importance of food safety testing technologies continues to grow, as companies are increasingly testing their products for GMOs and pesticides, and pathogens and contamination. Last year the global food safety testing market had an estimated value of $12 billion, according to a recent report by Esticast Research & Consulting. Driven by pathogen testing technologies, the global food safety testing market is expected to experience a 7.4% CAGR from 2017–2024, hitting $21.4 billion in revenue in 2024, said Vishal Rawat, research analyst with Esticast.
With a CAGR of 9.3% from 2017–2024, rapid testing technologies are anticipated to lead the market. Testing methods responsible for this growth include immunoassays (ELISA), latex agglutination, impedance microbiology, immune-magnetic separation, and luminescence and gene probes linked to the polymerase chain reaction, said Rawat, who shared further insights about the firm’s market projections with Food Safety Tech.
Food Safety Tech: With the GMO food product testing market expected to experience the highest growth in the upcoming future, can you estimate the projected growth?
Vishal Rawat: The GMO food product testing market is estimated to generate a revenue of approximately $5.2 billion in 2016. The market segment is expected to witness a compound annual growth rate of 8.3% during the forecast period of 2017–2024. This is a global market estimation.
FST: What innovations are occurring in product testing?
Rawat: Nanomaterials and nanobased technologies are attracting interest for rapid pathogen testing. Sustainable technologies such as edible coatings or edible pathogen detection composition can attain a trend in the near future. Also, new rapid allergen testing kits are now emerging out as the latest food testing technology in the market, which are portable and easy to use.
FST: Which rapid pathogen detection testing technologies will experience the most growth from 2017–2024?
Rawat: New and emerging optical, nano-technological, spectroscopic and electrochemical technologies for pathogen detection, including label-free and high-throughput methods would experience the highest growth.
FST: What pathogen testing technologies are leading the way for meat and poultry in the United States?
Rawat: The presence of a microbial hazard, such as pathogenic bacteria or a microbial toxin, in ready-to-eat (RTE) meat or poultry products is one basis on which these products may be found adulterated. The FSIS is especially concerned with the presence of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157: H7, and staphylococcal enterotoxins in RTE meat and poultry products. Rapid pathogen testing for E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella, for ground beef, steak and pork sausages is going to lead the U.S. market.
By Gregory Siragusa, Douglas Marshall, Ph.D. No Comments
This month we are happy to welcome our guest co-authors and interviewees Eric Brown, Ph.D. and Marc Allard, Ph.D. of CFSAN as we explore the FDA’s GenomeTrakr program in a two-part Food Genomics column. Many of our readers have heard of GenomeTrakr, but are likely to have several questions regarding its core purpose and how it will impact food producers and processors in the United States and globally. In Part I we explore some technical aspects of the topic followed by Part II dealing with practical questions.
Part I: The basics of GenomeTrakr
Greg Siragusa/Doug Marshall: Thank you Dr. Allard and Dr. Brown for joining us in our monthly series, Food Genomics, to inform our readers about GenomeTrakr. Will you begin by telling us about yourselves and your team?
Eric Brown/Marc Allard: Hello, I am Eric, the director of the Division of Microbiology at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Our team is made up of two branches, one that specializes in developing and validating methods for getting foodborne pathogens out of many different food matrices and the other branch conducts numerous tests to subtype and characterized foodborne pathogens. The GenomeTrakr program is in the subtyping branch as Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is the ultimate genomic subtyping tool for characterizing a foodborne pathogen at the DNA level.
Hello, my name is Marc, I am a senior biomedical research services officer and a senior advisor in Eric’s division. We are part of the group that conceived, evaluated and deployed the GenomeTrakr database and network.
Siragusa/Marshall: Drs. Allard and Brown, imagine yourself with a group of food safety professionals ranging from vice president for food safety to director, manager and technologists. Would you please give us the ‘elevator speech’ on GenomeTrakr?
Brown/Allard: GenomeTrakr is the first of its kind distributed network for rapidly characterizing bacterial foodborne pathogens using whole genome sequences (WGS). This genomic data can help FDA with many applications, including trace-back to determine the root cause of an outbreak as well providing one work-flow for rapidly characterizing all of the pathogens for which the agency has responsibility. These same methods are also very helpful for antimicrobial resistance monitoring and characterization.
Siragusa/Marshall: From the FDA website, GenomeTrakr is described as “a distributed network of labs to utilize whole genome sequencing for pathogen identification.” We of course have very time-proven methods of microbial identification and subtyping, so why do we need GenomeTrakr for identification and subtyping of microorganisms?
Brown/Allard: If all you want to know is species identification then you are correct, there are existing methods to do this. For some applications you need full characterization through subtyping (i.e., Below the level of species to the actual strain) with WGS. WGS of pathogens provides all of the genetic information about an organism as well as any mobile elements such as phages and plasmids that may be associated with these foodborne pathogens. The GenomeTrakr network and database compiles a large amount of new genetic or DNA sequence data to more fully characterize foodborne pathogens.
GenomeTrakr and WGS are a means to track bacteria based on knowing the sequence of all DNA that comprises that specific bacterium’s genome. It can be called the “ultimate identifier” in that it will show relationships at a very deep level of accuracy.
Siragusa/Marshall: Is it an accurate statement that GenomeTrakr can be considered the new iteration of PulseNet and Pulse field gel electrophoresis (PFGE)? Will PulseNet and PFGE disappear, or will PulseNet and GenomeTrkr merge into a single entity?
Brown/Allard: PulseNet is a network of public health labs run by the CDC, with USDA and FDA as active participants. The network is alive and well and will continue subtyping pathogens for public health. The current and historical subtyping tool used by PulseNet for more than 20 years is PFGE. It is expected that CDC, USDA and FDA’s PFGE data collection will be replaced by WGS data and methods. That transformation has already begun. GenomeTrakr is a network of public health labs run by the FDA to support FDA public health and regulatory activities using WGS methods. Starting in 2012, this network is relatively new and is focused currently on using WGS for trace back to support outbreak investigations and FDA regulatory actions. CDC PulseNet has used WGS data on Listeria and collects draft genomes (i.e., unfinished versions of a final genome are used for quicker assembly) of other foodborne pathogens as well, and USDA’s FSIS has used WGS for the pathogens found on the foods that they regulate. All of the data from GenomeTrakr and Pulsenet are shared at the NCBI Pathogen Detection website (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Siragusa/Marshall: Does an organism have to be classified to the species level before submitting to GenomeTrakr?
Brown/Allard: Yes, species-level identification is part of the minimal metadata (all of the descriptors related to a sample such as geographic origin, lot number, sources, ingredients etc.) required to deposit data in the GenomeTrakr database. This allows initial QA/QC metrics to determine if the new genome is labeled properly.
Siragusa/Marshall: After an isolate is identified to the species level, would you describe to the reader what the basic process is going from an isolated and speciated bacterial colony on an agar plate to a usable whole genome sequence deposited in the GenomeTrakr database?
Brown/Allard: The FDA has a branch of scientists who specialize in ways to isolate foodborne pathogens from food. The detailed methods used ultimately end up in the Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) of approved and validated methods. Once a pathogen is in pure culture then DNA is extracted from the bacterial cells. The DNA is then put into a DNA sequencing library, which modifies the DNA to properly attach and run sequencing reactions depending on the specific sequencing vendor used. The sequence data is downloaded from the sequencing equipment and then uploaded to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Pathogen Detection website. The database is publicly open to allow anyone with foodborne pathogens to upload their data and compare their sequences to what is available in the database.
Siragusa/Marshall: Suppose a specific sequence type of a foodborne bacterial pathogen is found and identified from a processing plant but that the plant has never had a positive assay result for that pathogen in any of its history of product production and ultimate consumption. If an outbreak occurred somewhere in the world and that same specific sequence type were identified as the causative agent, would a company be in anyway liable? Could one even make an association between the two isolates with the same sequence type isolated at great distances from open another?
Brown/Allard: The genetic evidence from WGS supports the hypothesis that the two isolates shared a recent common ancestor. If, for example, the isolate from the processing plant and the outbreak sample where genetically identical across the entire genome, the prediction is that the two samples are connected in some way that is currently not understood. The genetic matches guide the FDA and help point investigations to study the possible connections. This might include additional inspection of the processing plant as well as linking this to the typical epidemiological exposure data. Sometimes due to the indirect nature of how pathogens circulate through the farm to fork continuum and the complex methods of trade, no connection is made. More commonly, these investigative leads from genetic matches help the FDA establish direct links between the two bacterial isolates through a shared ingredient, shared processing, distribution or packaging process. The genetic information and cluster helps the FDA discover new ways that the pathogens are moving from farm to fork. We are unaware of any example where identical genomes somehow independently arose and were unrelated. This is counter to molecular evolutionary theory anyway. Genetic identity equals genetic relatedness and the closer two isolates are genetically to each other, the more recent that they shared a common ancestor. With regard to liability, this is a topic beyond the scope of our group, but genomic data does not by itself prove a direct linkage and that is why additional investigations must follow any close matches.
Siragusa/Marshall: We know that SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms or single base pair differences in the same location in a genome) are commonly used to distinguish clonality of bacteria with highly similar genomes. Are there criteria used by GenomeTrakr bioinformaticists that are set to help define what is similar, different or the same?
Brown/Allard: As the database grows with more examples of diverse serotypes or kinds of foodborne pathogens, the FDA WGS group is observing common patterns that can be used as guidance to define what is same or different. For example, closely related for Salmonella and E. coli are usually in the five or fewer SNPs, and closely related for Listeria is 20 or fewer SNPs using the current FDA validated bioinformatics pipeline. These values are not set in stone but should be considered more like guidance for what FDA and GenomeTrakr have observed already from earlier case studies that have already been collected and examined. Often, a greater number (e.g., 21-50) of SNP differences have been observed between strains isolated in some outbreaks. Any close match might support or direct an outbreak investigation if there is evidence that suggests that a particular outbreak looks most closely like an early case from a specific geographic location. WGS data helps investigators focus their efforts toward and international verses domestic exposure or possible country of origin. Even more divergent WGS linkages, when SNPs are greater than 50-100, often connect to different foods or different geographic locations that would lead investigators away from the source of an outbreak as the data provides both inclusivity as well as exclusivity.
When two strains have more than 50–100 SNPs, different food or geographic sources of those strains can be incorrectly linked resulting in investigators pursuing an incorrect source.
Siragusa/Marshall: Can SNPs be identified from different agar-plate clones of the same strain (i.e., Different colonies on the same plate)?
Brown/Allard: Since understanding the natural genetic variation present in foodborne pathogens is the basis to understanding relatedness, the FDA conducted validation experiments on growing then sequencing colonies from the same plate, colonies from frozen inocula, thawing and plating, as well as running the same DNAs on different instruments and with different sequencing technicians. The FDA’s work with Salmonella enterica Montevideo sequencing as well as ongoing proficiency testing among laboratories shows that the same isolate most often has no differences, although some samples have 1-2 SNP differences. Genetic differences observed in isolates collected by FDA inspectors all related to a common outbreak generally have more genetic differences, and this appears to be dependent on the nature of the facility and the length of time that the foodborne pathogen has been resident in the facility and the selective pressure to which the pathogen was exposed to in a range from 0–5 SNPs different.
Siragusa/Marshall: Regarding the use of WGS to track strains in a particular processing plant, is it possible that within that closed microenvironment that strains will evolve sufficiently so that it becomes unique to that source?
Brown/Allard: Yes, we have discovered multiple examples of strains that have evolved in a unique way that they appear to be specific to that source. Hospitals use the same practice to understand hospital-acquired infections and the routes of transmission within a hospitals intensive care unit or surgery. Food industry laboratories as well as FDA investigators could use WGS data in a similar way to determine the root cause of the contamination by combining WGS data with inspection and surveillance. The FDA Office of Compliance uses WGS as one piece of evidence to ask the question: Have we seen this pathogen before?
Siragusa/Marshall: The number of sequences in the GenomeTrakr database is approaching 120,000 (~4,000 per month are added). Are the sequences in the GenomeTrakr database all generated by GenomeTrakr Network labs?
Brown/Allard: The sequences labeled as GenomeTrakr isolates at the NCBI biosample and bioproject databases are the WGS efforts supported by the U.S. FDA and USDA FSIS. GenomeTrakr is a label identifying the FDA, USDA FSIS and collaborative partner’s efforts to sequence food and environmental isolates. Additional laboratories, independent and beyond formal membership in the GT network, upload WGS data to the NCBI pathogen detection website of which GenomeTrakr is one part. CDC shares WGS data on primarily clinical PulseNet isolates and USDA FSIS shares WGS foodborne pathogens for foods that they regulate. Numerous international public health laboratories also upload WGS data to NCBI. The NCBI pathogen detection website includes all publicly released WGS data for the species that they are analyzing, and this might include additional research or public health data. The point of contact for who submitted the data is listed in the biosample data sheet, an example of which can be seen here.
Siragusa/Marshall: Once sequences are deposited into the GenomeTrakr database, are they also part of GenBank?
Brown/Allard: The majority of the GenomeTrakr database is part of the NCBI SRA (sequence read archive) database, which is a less finished version of the data in GenBank. GenBank data is assembled and annotated, which takes more time and analysis to complete. Once automated software is optimized and validated, NCBI likely will place all of the GenomeTrakr data into GenBank. Currently, only the published WGS data from GenomeTrakr is available in GenBank. All of the GenomeTrakr data is available in SRA both at GenomeTrakr bioprojects and in the NCBI pathogen detection website.
Readers, look for the Part II of this column where we continue our exploration with Drs. Brown and Allard and ask some general questions about the logistics surrounding GenomeTrakr. As always, please contact either Greg Siragusa or Doug Marshall with comments, questions or ideas for future Food Genomics columns.
About the Interviewees
Marc W. Allard, Ph.D.
Marc Allard, Ph.D. is a senior biomedical research services officer specializing in both phylogenetic analysis as well as the biochemical laboratory methods that generate the genetic information in the GenomeTrakr database, which is part of the NCBI Pathogen Detection website. Allard joined the Division of Microbiology in FDA’s Office of Regulatory Science in 2008 where he uses Whole Genome Sequencing of foodborne pathogens to identify and characterize outbreaks of bacterial strains, particularly Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. He obtained a B.A. from the University of Vermont, an M.S. from Texas A&M University and his Ph.D. in biology in from Harvard University. Allard was the Louis Weintraub Associate Professor of Biology at George Washington University for 14 years from 1994 to 2008. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology.
Eric W. Brown, Ph.D.
Eric W. Brown, Ph.D. currently serves as director of the Division of Microbiology in the Office of Regulatory Science. He oversees a group of 50 researchers and support scientists engaged in a multi-parameter research program to develop and apply microbiological and molecular genetic strategies for detecting, identifying, and differentiating bacterial foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella and shiga-toxin producing E. coli. Brown received his Ph.D. in microbial genetics from The Genetics Program in the Department of Biological Sciences at The George Washington University. He has conducted research in microbial evolution and microbial ecology as a research fellow in the National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and as a tenure-track Professor of Microbiology at Loyola University of Chicago. Brown came to the Food and Drug Administration in 1999 and has since carried out numerous experiments relating to the detection, identification, and discrimination of foodborne pathogens.
Laboratory reports recently acquired by the Freedom of Information Law from the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets show the Sol Andino brand ground cumin to contain 1090 ppm lead as well as 259 ppm chromium. The spice was also analyzed by IS:2446, 1980 method, “Detection of Lead Chromate in Chillies, Curry Powder and Turmeric by diphenyl carbizide.” A positive result was given, indicating the presence of hexavalent chromium, which is a component of lead chromate. Lead chromate is a yellow pigment, not allowed in food anywhere in the world as it is toxic, containing both lead and hexavalent chromium. The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets posted a Class I recall of the Sol Andino ground cumin on July 10, 2017, without mention of the extremely high concentration of lead in the product.
Sol Andino ground cumin recalled
The author could find no record of an FDA recall for the Sol Andino brand cumin powder containing excessive lead.
Some of us remember the four FDA Class I recalls of Pran brand turmeric for excessive lead in October 2013. These recalls were initiated by the New York State Health Department due to an illness complaint—most likely a child with high blood lead levels. The recalled Pran brand turmeric contained 28–53 ppm lead.
“There have been two cases of high blood levels of lead associated with this product to date. Both cases have been reported through the Illinois Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Protection.”
According to the recall, the “Thyme” was found to contain 422 ppm lead.
Wondering if the 422 ppm lead was caused by adulteration of the “Thyme” with lead chromate or another lead pigment, a food chemist at the New York State Food Laboratory (a Division of NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets) requested from Illinois a sub-sample of the “Thyme” for analysis. Lab analysis of the spice found 323 ppm lead, 109 ppm chromium and a positive result for the chromate test. Thus, this recalled “Thyme” contains lead chromate.
In both cases, Pran turmeric and Nabelsi Thyme, illness complaints led to the recall of lead adulterated spices.
The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets has a proactive program. Random samples of spices are sampled from retail markets and subsequently analyzed for unallowed colorants, undeclared allergens and heavy metals. In 2016 this resulted in the Oriental Packing Class I recall of 377,000 lb. of turmeric containing spices for excessive lead. (A typo in the FDA recall attributes the recall to the New York State Health Department, instead of the New York State Dept. of Agriculture and Markets.)
Still, it’s even better to analyze spices being imported into the country at receiving warehouses before the product reaches retail markets. Lead concentrations above 10 ppm can be determined instantaneously with a handheld XRF analyzer.
Food safety and hygiene are very important aspects of food production, processing and consumption. In the absence of proper hygiene and safety protocols, the entire food chain right from the farmer who grows the food till the consumer who eats it is compromised. Food safety lapses like contamination and spoiling of food pose major health risks.
There are many ways in which a perfectly safe food product can turn hazardous. Cross contamination from animal matter, lack of hygiene among workers in processing plants, poor sanitation procedures, inadequate preservation techniques and low-quality packaging can all adversely affect the shelf life of a food product. Raw food spoils much faster than processed food, so fresh vegetables and fruits used in food processing must be washed properly and stored at optimal temperatures before they are processed.
The following are a few critical factors that affect the safety, shelf life and hygiene of food products.
1. Hygiene in Processing Plants
Personal hygiene and excellent sanitation policies are essential to maintaining food safety. Processing facilities potentially have several points of food contact equipment and food contact surfaces. There must be well developed and written standard cleaning practices or sanitation procedures for all such high-touch areas in a food processing plant. All equipment, vessels and surfaces must be monitored for bioburden or presence of microbial matter.
The workers must also be aware of good personal hygiene practices. This will help prevent cross contamination and possible spread of foodborne diseases from humans. Workers suffering from contagious diseases should refrain from coming to work and regular employee health checkups must be carried out by doctors. All staff must be trained in food and personal hygiene, and strictly follow recommended methods of hand washing and drying. Proper usage of hygiene gear including masks, caps, gloves, overalls and footwear must be ensured.
Floors, walls, drainage facilities, narrow cat-walks and all surfaces in the processing area must be cleaned thoroughly using high quality cleaning materials. The standard cleaning practices must be diligently met each time and the supervisors should ensure that the crew is doing their job properly. Quality and consistent employee training, and effective instant monitoring methods like ATP testing will help achieve these goals.
2. Good Packaging Is Crucial
The quality and suitability of packaging are also very important in determining the safety, longevity and hygiene of food products.
Evolving consumer habits, growth of online marketplaces, increased consumption of high-protein foods, popular demand for smaller portions due to shrinking family size and the rise in new global distribution channels have all impacted packaging requirements.
Sustainable and responsibly sourced packaging materials are the hallmark of advanced packaging technology. They are environmentally friendly and do not deplete natural resources. Clean label packaging focuses on using recycled materials, high-pressure packaging technology, digital packaging and 3-D printing techniques, and outsourcing of more activities to save money, time and resources.
The need for reducing food waste has been an important objective of all recent packaging innovations. According to a recent report by The Guardian, almost half of all U.S. food produce is thrown away. Global food waste can be reduced by extending the shelf life of packaged foods, thereby avoiding early disposal and excessive purchasing. Latest innovations include in-built freshness sensors in packaging that alert customers when food goes bad, vacuum skin innovations, barrier bags and modified-atmosphere packaging.
3. Consumer Awareness Is Key
The end user or the customer who buys the food product for consumption also needs to be aware of good food use, preparation and storage methods.
Fresh veggies and fruits should be washed thoroughly, chopped, diced, and sliced, and stored in clear, airtight containers in the fridge. Prepare and cook raw foods like fish, poultry and meat to extend their storage life. Cooked food can be safely frozen for a long time. In addition, many food items like casseroles, soups, sauces, stir-fries and baked foods stay safe for cooking and consumption even beyond their typically assumed use-by date.
As responsible consumers, we must be aware of the difference between use-by, sell-by, best-before and expiration dates. This will prevent us from throwing away a whole lot of perfectly edible food items from our pantries.
Conclusion
Food safety is a matter of global concern and affects the well being of billions of people all over the world. Ensuring safety, hygiene, freshness and long shelf life of food items will help reduce food waste, hunger and starvation in the world. It will also reduce the burden on limited natural resources and will help ensure a sustainable and efficient food chain.
The FSMA Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) has many elements that must be met. Do you know the correct response to these questions?
Working with Bill Bremer, principal of food safety compliance at Kestrel Management, LLC, Food Safety Tech is continuing its FSMA IQ test series. Results will be posted monthly in our Food Safety Consortium newsletter leading up to the 2017 event.
Confirm your company’s responsibility in meeting FSMA FSVP compliance by answering True or False.
Agent detection to identify contamination of food products is required in food safety and defense programs. Detection typically involves laboratory methods or technologies, such as biosensors, that are used in close physical contact with food products. While the field of food protection has benefited from the development of novel agent detection methods in recent years, the challenge of determining which food products to test remains. The sheer volume of food produced within and traded across U.S. borders makes agent detection a daunting, time-consuming and expensive task. The decision of when to utilize detection methods depends on the risk of a particular product being contaminated. Contamination may be unintentional or intentional, including economically motivated adulteration (EMA).
The risk of contamination fluctuates over time and is a function of several factors. Risk depends on the biochemical makeup of the product, supply chain characteristics such as complexity and transport distance, and a wide range of natural or manmade events that may disrupt supply and potentially incentivize intentional adulteration. This is particularly true in the case of EMA. Events include but are not limited to natural disasters that destroy or reduce the usual supply of an ingredient, political instability that disrupts usual trade patterns, interruptions of routine food safety inspections, and market fluctuations that impact global prices. While data exists to monitor these risk factors of contamination, optimal use of this information by government and private industry is hindered by several challenges. For example, valuable data often exists across multiple data systems with data across systems appearing in inconsistent formats. In addition, the amount of data that must be reviewed to find a signal within the noise is frequently overwhelming.
To address finding signals within vast quantities of data sources and systems, the Food Protection and Defense Institute (FPDI) developed technology to curate and help make sense of this data. With support from both the FDA and the Department of Homeland Security, FPDI developed FIDES or Focused Integration of Data for Early Signals to perform “horizon scanning” of food system disruptions in support of food protection efforts, including agent detection. FIDES was designed to help users forecast, monitor and identify food system risk factors and adverse food events. The FIDES web application fuses multiple streams of data from disparate sources and displays information in the form of an online dashboard where users browse, search and layer both dynamic and reference data sets related to food system disruption events. Examples of data currently included in FIDES are import refusals, global disasters, animal health alerts, food defense incidents, historical food safety incidents, import data, price alerts and reference data on food production worldwide.
Events in recent years illustrate the value of gathering intelligence and utilizing data related to food system risks to inform decisions regarding product targeting. Tsunamis, crop failures and disease outbreaks in humans and animals around the globe have threatened supply of products such as shrimp, spices, cocoa and eggs. When supply is disrupted, companies are often forced to quickly identify new and sometimes previously unvetted suppliers, including spot market purchasing. Likewise, supply disruptions often lead to price increases. As prices increase in the absence of adequate supply, concerns about EMA also increase. In both of these instances, the risk of product contamination—both unintentional and intentional—may rise and an increase in product screening or a change in agent detection methods may be appropriate.
For example, the 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak had a significant impact on West Africa, the primary production region for the world’s cocoa supply. Disruptions from the outbreak, including border closures and other trade interference, led to uncertainty about supply availability and prices. This raised concern for EMA, particularly given that many cocoa products are sold as powders, butters and liquors— forms that are more vulnerable to EMA than raw ingredients. As a test case, FPDI reviewed FIDES data streams during the peak of the outbreak. Real-time data on the outbreak was layered with data on global cocoa production and import patterns. Import refusal data from multiple global systems was assessed to identify any concerning patterns. Historical food defense and food safety incidents were also reviewed to determine which cocoa products had been previously contaminated. A similar approach could be used by the food and agriculture sector to guide decisions about targeted inspections—which product(s) and region(s) to monitor, which method(s) to use and which contaminant(s) to test. FIDES could support targeted screening and enhanced awareness of product risk profile that would allow the food industry to assure continued supply of authentic and quality products.
The effect that the 1993 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak had on the food industry was tremendous. Responsible for more than 600 illnesses and the deaths of four children, the outbreak led to significant changes in the industry’s approach to food safety. “[It] drove a shift in food safety that many had been working toward for years,” said Rima Khabbaz, M.D., acting deputy director for infectious diseases at CDC during the “We Were There” CDC lecture series, adding that the focus moved to food suppliers and how they could make their products safer. “The outbreak drove a paradigm shift that opened the door to food safety,” said Patricia Griffin, M.D., chief of the CDC’s enteric diseases epidemiology branch during the lecture.
Deirdre Schlunegger, CEO of Stop Foodborne Illness, and Michael Taylor at Stop event celebrating Food Safety Heroes during the 2015 Food Safety Consortium.
Within a few years, several actions and initiatives paved the way for notable progress. In 1994, Mike Taylor, who was administrator of USDA’s FSIS at the time, made a speech that “shocked and outraged the industry,” said Griffin, where he stated, “we consider raw ground beef that is contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 to be adulterated within the meaning of the Federal Meat Inspection Act.” From there, the USDA worked on the first major advance in meat regulation. In 1996 the agency established the Pathogen Reduction Rule to improve meat inspection. The same year CDC’s PulseNet was born, the nationwide lab network that uses DNA fingerprinting to help identify outbreaks early, along with the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet), an epidemiological system that tracks incidents and trends related to food.
In a Q&A with Food Safety Tech, Mike Taylor, most recently the former FDA commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, discusses the dramatic change that industry has undergone during the past 25 years, from FSMA to technology advancements to food safety culture.
Food Safety Past, Present and Future at the 2017 Food Safety Consortium: Recognizing the 1993 Jack In the Box E. coli outbreak as the event that propelled the current food safety movement. Mike Taylor, Bill Marler, Esq. and Ann Marie McNamara (Target Corp.), who took the reins from the late David Theno at Jack In the Box, will discuss Theno’s impact on the industry. The session continues through a timeline of the evolution of food safety from 1993 to present, and then the future, where we will cover the IoT, social media, food safety culture and technology. It will be followed by the STOP Foodborne Illness Award Ceremony. Wednesday, November 29, 2017, 4:00–5:30 pm | LEARN MORE
Food Safety Tech: Reflecting on how far the industry has come since the E.coli O157:H7 outbreak involving Jack in the Box in 1993, what key areas of progress have been made since?
Michael Taylor: I think there are very major ones obviously. You have to remember where things were when the Jack-in-the-Box [outbreak] happened. We were in a place where USDA programs said it was not responsible for pathogens in raw meat and that consumers are supposed to cook the product; [and] industry was operating under traditional methods. Microbial methods were typically conducted for quality not for safety; you had the loss of public confidence and a terrible situation in which consumers were pointing at industry, and industry was pointing at consumers, and no one was taking clear responsibility for safety of the product.
Now we are in a completely different environment where not only is there clarity about industry’s responsibility for monitoring pathogens, there’s also been enormous progress by industry to put in place microbial testing, something David Theno pioneered and is now a central part of food safety management systems for meat safety.
Everything has changed.
These [institutional] arrangements exist not only in the meat industry, but now across the whole food industry. There’s the emergence of GFSI taking responsibility for managing the supply chain for food safety, food safety culture taking hold broadly across leading companies in the industry, and FSMA codifying for 80% of the food supply that FDA regulates the principles of risk-based prevention and continuous improvement on food safety.
I think it’s rather dramatic how far the industry’s food safety regulatory system has come since [the] Jack in the Box [outbreak].
FST: How has FSMA helped to align industry priorities?
Mike Taylor was on the front lines of change in the meat industry.
Taylor: Let’s focus on the events first leading up to FSMA—for example, the outbreaks or illnesses associated with leafy greens [and] peanut butter, and problems with imported products—those events in the world aligned industry priorities around the need to modernize the food safety laws and to enact FSMA. It was the coming together of industry and consumer interests, and the expert community around the principles of comprehensive risk-based prevention that vaporized into FSMA. Now FSMA is the framework within which companies are organizing their food safety systems in accordance with these modern principles of prevention.
And clearly what’s been codified in FSMA and some of the key elements are becoming organizing principles where industry is aligning our priorities for food safety. Environmental monitoring where that’s an appropriate verification control for a company’s hygiene and pathogen control—that’s clearly a priority that folks are aligning on. The issue of supplier verification for domestic and foreign supply is a priority that has been elevated by FSMA, and so has the whole issue of training and employee capacity, whether it’s in processing facilities or on farms, as well as food safety culture. If you’re going to be effectively preventive you need to deal with the human dimension of your food safety system.
These are examples of ways in which FSMA is aligning industry priorities.
Read the rest of the interview on page 2 (link below).
One stringent component of FSMA and the Final Rule on Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food is record keeping. Depending on the type and size of business, the FDA can demand proof of record anywhere from under one year and upwards to two years, all while needing to address their inquiry within 24 hours. Failure to do so will be considered a “prohibited act” and violators can be tried for civil and criminal penalties.
This new rule, put in place by the FDA, will put immense pressure on the food transportation industry, not only to make food safety a priority, but also to ensure that proper food safety practices and measures are being properly implemented, by way of record keeping.
While the litany of rules and regulations pertaining to record keeping best practices is intense, let us break down the basic requirements applying to records in layman’s terms:
If HACCP procedures aren’t documented, it didn’t happen
Records must be verbatim accounts of what happened
The need for real-time recording is paramount
Corrective actions must be executed immediately if an issue occurs
If not, liability risk increases exponentially
Companies must determine the most efficient and plausible manner by which they will comply. Traditional storage of records in filing cabinets and input of data in spreadsheets is antiquated, and leads to errors and the potential for misplaced records. Now, more than ever, is the time for businesses along the food chain to deliver value to their organization via digital technologies and automated data gathering solutions. This will ensure constant visibility and ensure quality control throughout the process from farm to fork.
Where Does Waste Happen?
While covering a lettuce farm in central California, National Geographic discovered that numerous loads were dumped each day due to procedural mistakes , including improperly filled, labeled and sealed containers.1 Due to the mishaps, the loads were then dumped. Between April and November that year, the local Waste Authority landfilled 4–8 million pounds of fresh vegetables from those fields.
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that:
54% of world food waste occurs during production, handling and storage
46% occurs during processing & distribution
These numbers are not only staggering, but they illustrate the seriousness of this issue.
Many of these mishaps occur when standard recording procedures are done manually, which leads to improper documentation that invalidates the integrity of shipments—to which the above figures illustrate and corroborate.
But can shippers, loaders, receivers and the like secure their procedures and eliminate wasted product by implementing stricter digital HACCP solutions?
Lost Food
While improper execution of best practices can lead to FDA imposed sanctions and profit loss, it also perpetuates the problem of food waste globally. This issue has become an epidemic and one that greatly affects the lives of many.
In a recent National Geographic article, The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) suggests the following:1
One-third of food produced for global human consumption is annually lost or wasted along the supply chain
Food waste equates to 2.8 trillion pounds each year, which is enough to feed 3 billion people per year
Consider this: The World Food Programme estimates that nearly 795 million people in the world do not have access to the proper amount of food needed to live a healthy, active life, which equates to roughly one in nine people on earth.
The amount of waste created along the supply chain each year is enough to feed the hungry and malnourished people of the world three-times over. While waste is inevitable, even a 50% improvement would be able to feed those most in need.
We understand the nature of business is overcoming competition while expending the least capital possible, ultimately leading to profit. However, food-related businesses along the supply chain must ask themselves whether or not they are their own competition. Are best practices being properly executed? How can they ensure this in order to mitigate waste?
Ultimately, however, it becomes a human issue. Companies must be responsible and possess the empathy to understand this. While domestically we may not feel the effects of global hunger as much as other third-world countries, these businesses must be aware of the epidemic in order to elucidate this topic while simultaneously maximizing its businesses potential.
By leveraging new food safety solutions such as mobile devices, the cloud, IoT, sensors and more, you can better protect your customers while also gaining a tangible ROI. Wherever consumers purchase and shop for food today, they are likely to find a larger selection than ever before. From the bread aisle to the cheese counter to the produce section, food options and manufacturing processes today are more diverse than ever. While variety is positive on a consumer and cultural level, it can create challenges for food safety from farm to fork.
At least 17 countries have been hit with the European egg scandal involving insecticide contamination. Ground zero of the problem has not been definitively identified, as Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany are reportedly pointing fingers over which country is to blame and how long they knew about the problem. Dutch authorities may have known about the problem as far back as November 2016.
The eggs have been tainted with the pesticide Fipronil, doses of which are not harmful to humans engaging in short-term consumption. When consumed in large doses, it can cause damage to the kidneys, liver and thyroid glands.
Farmers in the Netherlands used a company, Chickfriend, to delouse their chickens, but this company reportedly mixed fipronil into the cleaning solution and could have contaminated nearly 180 farms in the country as a result, according to The New York Times. As many as 20% of Dutch egg-laying chickens could be affected. Chickfriend was recently raided by authorities and two of its directors were arrested. Antwerp-based Poultry-Vision stated that it provided Chickfriend with fipronil via a source in Romania, according to The Guardian.
Contaminated eggs, which have been distributed to at least 17 countries (mainly in Europe) have also been found at producers in Belgium, France and Germany, and as a result, millions of eggs have either been destroyed or removed from store shelves.
This week FDA released three guidances to help food producers understand how the FSMA rules apply to their commodities. The regulations covered in the guidances pertain to low-acid canned foods (LACF), juice HACCP and seafood HACCP. Since FDA’s regulations for HACCP and LACF were in place before the FSMA final rules were established, the agency is clarifying the FSMA requirements as well as exemptions for these products.
The following guidances are available on FDA’s website:
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.
