Tag Archives: hazards

Supply chain

Next Week: Virtual Event Targets Hazards in the Food Supply Chain

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Supply chain

Next week Food Safety Tech is hosting a virtual event that brings together subject matter experts with decades of experience at food companies who will help attendees recognize when and how to pivot in the face of global supply chain issues, how to be nimble during these challenges, and how to establish the adaptable mindset required to navigate these ever-changing circumstances.

Food Safety Tech Hazards Series: Supply Chain takes place on Wednesday, May 18 at 12 pm ET.

Presentations are as follows:

  • Pivoting on a Dime: How and When to Adjust Your Supply Chain Program, with Elise Forward, President & Principal Consultant, Forward Food Solutions
  • Remaining Agile During Supply Chain Disruptions: A Manufacturer’s Point of View, with April Bishop, Sr. Director Food Safety, TreeHouse Foods
  • Be a Game Changer to Manage Supply Chain Risk, with Liliana Casal-Wardle, Ph.D., Sr. Director Food Safety, the Acheson Group

The presentations will be followed by a panel discussion with the speakers.

This event is sponsored by SGS. Register now for Food Safety Tech Hazards Series: Supply Chain.

Alert

Family Dollar Recall Highlights Need for Sound Pest Management Plan

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Alert

After finding evidence of rodent infestation during an inspection of a Family Dollar distribution facility in Arkansas, the FDA warned the public of usage and consumption of products purchased at certain stores from January 1 through present time. The affected products, which include food, were distributed to Family Dollar stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.

“Families rely on stores like Family Dollar for products such as food and medicine. They deserve products that are safe,” said Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs, FDA, Judith McMeekin, Pharm.D. in an agency press release. “No one should be subjected to products stored in the kind of unacceptable conditions that we found in this Family Dollar distribution facility. These conditions appear to be violations of federal law that could put families’ health at risk. We will continue to work to protect consumers.”

The FDA inspection followed a consumer complaint and found both live and dead rodents, rodent feces and urine, and evidence of rodent presence, along with dead birds and bird droppings, throughout the facility in West Memphis, Arkansas. After fumigating the facility, 1100 dead rodents were recovered. FDA’s review of company records also revealed a history of infestation, with more than 2300 rodents collected between March 29 and September 17, 2021.

Among the range of hazards associated with rodents include Salmonella.

Family Dollar, Inc. initiated a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products that were stored and shipped from the infested facility. The company states that it is unaware of any reports of illnesses related to the recall.

COVID-19 has not slowed down pests, and the last thing a company needs is a failed audit due to preventable pest issues.

 

Food Safety Tech Hazards Series:  Salmonella

From leafy greens to poultry, Salmonella continues to cause outbreaks and trigger recalls in food products. Experts will review the incidence of Salmonella and relevant recalls, and how companies can approach reducing the pathogen’s presence, along with a review of the incidence of Salmonella in food products and strategies that focus on prevention as the goal.

Alert

New Physical Security Guidance Seeks to Provide Risk-Based Food Defense Insights to the Food and Beverage Industry

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Alert

The ASIS Food Defense and Agriculture Community (FDASC) released a recently developed resource and is currently seeking contributions and feedback to ensure that all perspectives are considered and represented. The document, “Physical Security Guidance for the Food and Beverage Industry to Improve Food Defense Outcomes” was developed through a partnership of food defense professionals, intending to provide a “security lens” to help the food and beverage industry consider these risk-based mitigation strategies.

Comments and feedback on the document are welcome by February 15, 2022. Please return comments to Frank Pisciotta (Business Protection Specialists) and/or Rich Widup (Reckitt).

When providing comments on the guidance document draft, please specify the following:

  • Page number
  • Line # start and line # end
  • Observation on current content
  • Proposed resolution
  • Reference (if applicable)

In addition, FDASC will be hosting an upcoming session to discuss comments received prior to January 28, 2022. If you are interested in providing comments or joining the working session on February 1, 2022, please contact ASIS FDASC Chairman Frank Pisciotta or vice-chair Jason Bashura.

The ASIS FDASC plans to talk through the Physical Security guidance during a future Food Defense Consortium meeting that will be convened during the next Food Safety Consortium. More information on these events is forthcoming. More information about the Food Defense Consortium can be found in Food Safety Tech’s Food Defense Resource Center.

 

About ASIS International

Founded in 1955, ASIS International is a global community of security professionals, educators, and 11 practitioners, all of whom has a role in the protection of assets – people, property, and/or information. Our members represent virtually every industry in the public and private sectors, and organizations of all 14 sizes. From entry-level managers to Chief Security Officers (CSOs) to CEOs, from security veterans to 15 consultants and those transitioning from law enforcement or the military, the ASIS community is global and 16 diverse.

About the Food Defense Consortium

The Food Defense Consortium is a voluntary, collaborative opportunity for Food and Beverage (F&B) Industry & non-government organizations (NGOs) to communicate in an Anti-trust environment to advocate for F&B industry perspectives pertaining to developing and sharing Food Defense best practices and helping firms to gain insights to aid in compliance with the FSMA Intentional Adulteration (IA) Rule.

FDA

FDA Publishes Public Dashboard from Reportable Food Registry for Easier Analysis of Agency Data

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
FDA

FDA has published an interactive Reportable Food Registry (RFR) Data Dashboard to provide faster access to better data about hazards and dangerous food products. Called FDA-TRACK, the new RFR will be published annually, and contains 10 years of data (from September 2009–2019), encompassing 28 commodities and 20 food safety hazards. Users can interact with data points in an effort to obtain customized information. They can also change the graphs and charts, and view trends based on commodities, hazards and time frames.

The interactive dashboard provides more “access and transparency with state and local partners who use the data to better [their] workplan and determine how to target their own sampling assignments to concerns that are more common in their area, allows industry to educate themselves on trends and identify areas were additional good manufacturing practices and preventive controls could better prevent future outbreaks or contamination in their products; and offers a robust data set to researchers and others who are interested in studying the safety of our food system,” according to a CFSAN update.

The RFR was established by Congress to help FDA more effectively track patterns of food and feed adulteration. “Overall, this will be a more efficient, less resource-intensive process for FDA to provide data,” the agency stated.

When a company uncovers a food product that is hazardous, it must submit an RFR to the FDA using the electronic portal. This year the agency will launch a project that allows companies to export RFR data from their own business systems or from third party applications directly into the portal.

ASI Food Safety
FST Soapbox

The Costs Of Food Safety: Correction vs. Prevention

By Matt Regusci
1 Comment
ASI Food Safety

Every company that grows, produces, packs, processes, distributes and serves food has a food safety culture. In the food industry, when looking at food safety culture there are essentially two groups: The correction and the prevention groups. Basically, the prevention group is constantly improving their food safety practices to minimize foodborne illness while the correction group waits until there is an outbreak to make changes.

The correction group isn’t proactive and has a number of excuses that keep them from implementing a food safety program. Oftentimes owners or managers think, “The chances of my company being involved in a food safety outbreak are so rare, I just won’t worry about it.” Or they think, “The cost of having a food safety program is so prohibitive that I’d rather handle the consequences of an outbreak if it were to arise.” Also, sometimes there’s a lack of knowledge and some producers don’t even know about food safety programs and don’t have or want to take the time to learn about them.

If your food company is in the corrective group, you are not alone. Three years ago a private study was done to see how many food facilities could pass a basic Good Agriculture Practice (GAP) and/or Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) audit. It was discovered that less than 20% of these companies would be able to pass the most basic food safety audit. This number is staggering and unfortunately the correction group is much larger than anyone thinks—it equals a majority of the facilities at around 80% of the food industry. This statistic is frightening and needs to be addressed to help reduce outbreaks.

What does the preventative group look like? Well it is more of an investment up front, but in the end helps reduce risk and costs. Companies that take on this responsibility go through an audit and implement procedures that prevent outbreaks. That is level one. The next level of protection involves applying and gaining a certification. All of these procedures help to give your organization a barrier against costs such as crisis management with a PR firm, a recall that leads to lost product and sales, and a thorough clean-up process.

Food safety prevention is an ongoing journey of understanding your many risks and implementing procedures and processes to minimize these risks. Prevention is not a one person job, but rather the whole company needs to join the common cause of protecting the brand and more importantly customers lives.

The cost though is always a huge consideration and can become a deterrent to implementation. Oftentimes owners or managers of facilities will say, “The cost of food safety prevention is so prohibitive that we can’t implement a program.” Yes, there is a cost to building, implementing, and maintaining a preventative food safety program. However, this cost pales in comparison to a corrective program.

Overall Cost of Correction: FDA – Lives – Individual Companies (Restaurants and Farms)

Just recently CDC posted that the economic impact of pathogenic food safety outbreaks is $17.6 billion which is $2 billion higher than 2013. The CDC calculates this based on medical expenses, productive decreases in wages, and ultimately loss of American lives. This large number and massive increase in economic cost has made headlines recently as a huge problem, but few in the media understand this number is small compared to the true cost of foodborne illness.

So what is the true cost annually of the collective in the corrective group to the food industry and America as a whole? To come up with that number we need to look at all the costs of an outbreak: Legal costs, fines, bankruptcies, decrease of overall commodity market share, decrease in public trust, and jail time. And let’s not forget, the real cost is that lives were lost due to lack of prevention.

To understand the cost, let’s look at a few examples, starting with Chipotle. Last year the company agreed to pay the largest fine in history of $25 million for its part in multiple outbreaks from 2015–1018 sickening more than 1,000 people. This fine is tiny in comparison to the stock market loss. In 2015 the stock went from $740 a share to a low of $250, and in fact Chipotle’s stock did not get back to $740 until July of 2019. That is billions of market opportunities lost.

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health did a study and concluded that foodborne illness costs the American food service industry $55.5 billion annually. On average each food safety outbreak costs the establishment between $6,330 to $2.1 million, depending on size of the operation and how widespread the outbreak is. Chipotle has a lot of resources to manage and recover from a crisis; many small and/or over-extended companies go bankrupt and are forced to close down.

There are plenty of examples on the supply chain side. The first example is the Salmonella outbreak of Peanut Corporation of America. The largest part of this tragedy is that 714 people got sick, about half of whom were kids, and nine people lost their lives. Due to this, three executives went to jail, not for a few months for decades. The economic cost is astounding; Peanut Corp of America had an annual revenue of around $25 million, but the cost of the outbreak was over $1 billion. This may seem like a very large number, but don’t forget peanuts are an ingredient in many other products. Kellogg’s estimates they lost $65–70 million in products they needed to recall from this one outbreak, and Kellogg’s is just one of many Peanut Corp of America customers.

Another example is the Jensen Farms Listeria outbreak that sickened 147 people and of those 33 died. The brothers, of this multiple generation farm, Eric and Ryan Jenson, went bankrupt and were sentenced to five years probation and six months of home detention; each had to pay a $150,000 fine. Again, this small family’s operations outbreak had massive ramifications for the cantaloupe industry, which suffered significant damage as a result. Walmart reached a settlement for an undisclosed amount in 23 lawsuits involving the Listeria outbreak linked to the cantaloupes

Overall Cost of Prevention: Internal Programs, Supplier Programs, Testing and Audits

The FDA has conducted a few studies on the industry cost of the many leafy greens outbreaks. One study showed the spinach industry alone lost more than $200 million just in retail sales and many more millions in opportunity sales from the 2006 E. coli outbreak. And a recent leafy green outbreak in 2018 cost the industry an estimated $350 million. With staggering numbers like these, the LGMA was created in 2007 to help raise the bar for food safety prevention in this high-risk product. The LGMA study found that their members, which are large leafy green marketers, including Dole, Taylor Farms and Ready Pack, increased their spending three times for true prevention measures.

What does it look like to go from the corrective group to the preventative group? First you have to make the decision of implementation and get buy-in from your entire team. If you are starting from zero, asking your clients and competitors what standards they are utilizing and being audited to, or should be audited to, is a good starting point. This will help in developing a plan of action.

Once you have the checklist, audit human resources. Do you have a Food Safety and/or QA person or team? Are they capable of guiding the executives on this journey? If not, hire a consultant to help you get started.

Once they are on the journey of prevention, people see their entire operation in a different way. They see risks where they never previously saw them—risks with people, equipment, products, building, and the surrounding area. This can get super overwhelming, but if they don’t panic they will be excited about the future. The paradigm will change and they can build, implement and maintain practices to minimize risks one by one, starting with the biggest risks.

In accounting for the physical costs of prevention, the largest will come from the human resources component. Hiring people to build, implement and manage your food safety program will be your largest expense. Another human resources cost is the continued training for the entire staff on food safety expectations. After that cost drops significantly, annual audits and microbiological testing come into play, and the cost will vary on the size of your operation and the risk of your products. For instance the LGMA study showed on average the cost of their members went from $200,000 to about $600,000 annually for prevention, but these are very large multiregional organizations with a very high risk product.

The most important things in life come with hard work and at a price. Every person who has climbed Mount Everest did so one step at a time. Food safety prevention is no different. Is there a cost in money, time, and stress? Yes. Is that cost less than sitting on the beach with your head in the sand of the correction camp? No doubt. But the choice of leaving the majority that are wrong to the minority that are right is yours. Hopefully, you make the right decision.

FDA

FDA Wants to Change Agricultural Water Requirements in Produce Safety Rule

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
FDA

After years of foodborne illness outbreaks that have been suspected to originate in pre-harvest agricultural water, FDA is proposing changes to the FSMA Produce Safety Rule. The proposed rule would revise subpart E, changing certain pre-harvest agricultural water requirements for covered produce other than sprouts.

“There have been far too many foodborne illness outbreaks possibly linked to pre-harvest agricultural water in recent years, including water coming from lands nearby produce farms. As a federal government agency charged with protecting public health, the FDA is committed to implementing effective modern, science-based measures designed to prevent these outbreaks from occurring in the future,” said Frank Yiannas, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response in an agency update. “The proposed rule is the latest action taken by the FDA to continue working towards implementation of key provisions of FSMA. If finalized, we’re confident this proposal would result in fewer outbreaks in the U.S. related to produce, protecting public health and saving lives. This proposed rule is a monumental step towards further improving the safety of the fruits and vegetables Americans serve their families every day, and the FDA looks forward to engaging with stakeholders on the proposed changes.”

Under the proposed rule, farms would be required to conduct yearly systems-based agricultural water assessments to assess and guide measures that would reduce risks related to pre-harvest agricultural water. According to the FDA, the assessment would consist of evaluating the water system, agricultural water use practices, crop characteristics, environmental conditions, potential impacts on source water by activities conducted on adjacent and nearby land.

With the current agricultural water compliance dates for covered produce other than sprouts set to begin in January 2022, the FDA plans to exercise enforcement discretion for those requirements while also proposing another rule that extends the compliance dates for all agricultural water requirements under the Produce Safety Rule.

The full details of the FSMA Proposed Rule on Agricultural Water are available on FDA’s website.

Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Coffee That’s Not Just Full of Beans

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Coffee fraud
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database, owned and operated by Decernis, a Food Safety Tech advertiser. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne

Fraudulent food and beverage products can sometimes have serious health implications. A fake soluble coffee product made its way to some small retailers in Germany and contains dangerous glass and plastic shards. The public is requested to report the counterfeit product. The investigation of this very serious, hazardous fraud is ongoing.

Resource

  1. Von Redaktion, B. (October 22, 2021). “Warnung: Erhebliche Gesundheitsgefahr durch gefährliche Produktfälschung von löslichem Kaffee”. ProductWarnung D-A-CH.

Learn more about foreign matter contamination in food during the upcoming Food Safety Tech complimentary virtual event, “Food Safety Hazards Series: Physical Hazards“, on Thursday, December 16 at 12 pm ET.

Food Safety Consortium Virtual Conference Series

2021 FSC Episode 8 Preview: Food Defense: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Food Safety Consortium Virtual Conference Series

You don’t want to miss this week’s episode of the 2021 Food Safety Consortium Virtual Conference Series. The session, Food Defense: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, will discuss pre-FSMA IA Rule voluntary food defense programs, compliance timelines, and regulatory compliance vs. enterprise risk based approaches to food defense. Presenters will address the status of Food Defense plan quick checks and share insights on Food Defense Plan reanalysis. Participants will gain insights on threat intelligence sources and food defense-based research updates. Other topics to be covered include a brief overview of recently released insider risk mitigation reference material, cyber/IT “vulnerabilities”, critical infrastructure protection and how an all-hazards mindset to “all of the above” can help to contribute to a Food Protection Culture.

The following is the line up of speakers for Thursday’s episode, which begins at 12 pm ET.

  • Jason Bashura, PepsiCo (moderator)
  • Food Defense Yesterday with Raquel Maymir, General Mills
  • FBI HQ Perspectives of Food Defense with Helen S. Lawrence and Scott Mahloch, FBI
  • Food Defense Tomorrow with Frank Pisciotta, ASIS Food Defense & Ag Security Community and Cathy Baillie, Mars, Inc.
  • Risk-based Food Defense with Jessica Cox, Department of Homeland Security, Chemical Security Analysis Center
  • Food Defense & Supply Chain Perspectives: Regional Resilience Action Plan with Jose Dossantos, Department of Homeland Security/CISA

The Fall program runs every Thursday from October 7 through November 4. Haven’t registered? Follow this link to the 2021 Food Safety Consortium Virtual Conference Series, which provides access to all the episodes featuring critical industry insights from leading subject matter experts!

Jeff Witte, DNV

Does Your Organization Need a Tool to Assess Risks to the Psychological Well-being of Its Employees?

By Jeff Witte
No Comments
Jeff Witte, DNV

The current pandemic has faced us with unexpected feelings of uncertainty, loneliness and loss. For many people the hustling and bustling environment of productive interaction and communication was the world, within which they gladly spent most of their lives. Recognition, encouragement, appreciative looks, words of respect, collaboration, competition, and workplace friendships have been abruptly taken away. This has left us face to face with computer screens and outdated icons of co-worker’s faces.

As a result, the psychological well-being of employees has become a key factor in performance and productivity at work. To assist organizations with best practices in addressing employee well-being, the International Organization for Standardization has developed ISO 45003 standard.

ISO 45003 – Occupational health and safety management – Psychological health and safety at work – Guidelines for managing psychosocial risks, is an occupational health and safety management standard, which now covers “many areas that can impact a worker’s psychological health, including ineffective communication, excessive pressure, poor leadership and organizational culture”, as stated in the description on ISO.org. It will also help to meet the requirements of ISO 45001 (previously known as OHSAS), the world’s standard for a physical occupational health and safety management system.

Today, organizations can take preventative measures for securing their staff’s mental and physical well-being by implementing ISO 45003. This best practice guidance document covers elements such as:

  • How to identify, recognize and assess risk factors that may psychologically impair the workforce
  • How to determine necessary changes for improvement
  • How to control potential hazards and manage them effectively

Norma McCormick, Project Leader of the ISO technical committee that developed the standard, said on ISO.com, “While many have felt powerless about the impact of recent events, there are many things that can be done to build the resilience of staff and promote a strong organizational culture. This standard brings together international best practice in this area and is relevant to companies of all types and sizes.”

This global standard provides simple and practical ways for organizations to prioritize protection of employees, and others, who are associated with the organization’s activities.

This compilation of best practices will assist organizations with the recognition of psychosocial hazards and risks such as stress, bullying, harassment, violence in the workplace and the like.
These risks, if ignored or unchecked, can cause negative effects on the health, safety and well-being of employees, thus affecting total organizational performance. More importantly, these risks and hazards can lead to health conditions such as diabetes, cardio-vascular disorders and insomnia which, oftentimes, leads to behavior changes like overeating and alcohol and drug abuse.

The potential detrimental impact on employees’ commitment, productivity, and job satisfaction are clear. Organizations that do not recognize the risks and hazards, or choose to ignore them, will see increased absence from work due to sick leave, high turnover, declining quality of products and/or services, which in turn can cause additional expenses or layoffs, litigation and incident investigations resulting in low morale and damage to the brand.

If you’ve been looking for guidance and best practice in dealing with workforce health and safety in these trying times, take a look at 45003 and its potential benefits:

  1. High levels of discretionary effort
  2. Improved recruitment, retention and diversity
  3. Enhanced worker engagement
  4. Increased innovation
  5. Legal compliance
  6. Reduced absence from workplace due to stress, burnout, anxiety, and depression.1

As a guideline, ISO 45003 is a non-certifiable standard that can be assessed for compliance by an independent third party, like DNV. It can be conducted as a stand-alone assessment or in combination with an ISO 45001 (Occupational Health and Safety) management system certification audit.

Having achieved compliance to ISO 45003, you will demonstrate that you care and have the right measures in place for improvement of your workers’ health and well-being.

1Source: https://www.dnv.us/services/iso-45003-psychological-health-and-safety-at-work-204506