Tag Archives: labeling

Karen Everstine, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

A Look at Fraudulent Labeling Practices

By Karen Everstine, Ph.D.
No Comments
Karen Everstine, Decernis

Food fraud happens in many ways, and it can be challenging to categorize the various methods of fraud. Dilution and/or substitution involves the intentional addition of an alternate product with the intent to replace weight or volume (olive oil, juices and fish are prone to this type of fraud). Artificial enhancement is the addition of a substance that is not intended to replace weight or volume, but to have a functional effect (such as the use of industrial dyes in spices). Certain forms of food fraud, such as theft/resale, counterfeit packaging, or overruns may not involve the addition of alternate ingredients. However, as customers and consumers, we would be taking a risk to trust the safety of any foods that are intentionally misrepresented.

Food Fraud
Categories of methods by which food fraud happens (as defined in the Food Fraud Database1). Graphic courtesy of Decernis

While all forms of fraud can be considered “mislabeling” in one way or another, we consider fraudulent labeling claims to be defined as misrepresentation of a label attribute that implies a particular production technique. Examples include representing non-organic products as organically produced, the sale of foods as halal that do not meet the appropriate standards, changing poultry expiration dates, and labeling products such as eggs and Iberian ham as “free range.” In 2017, a company in Canada was fined for selling falsely labeled kosher cheese. More recently, in Malaysia, millions of products were seized based on the use of fraudulent halal labels.

We have compiled more than 300 records of food fraud involving the use of fraudulent labeling claims. The most common fraudulent claims identified in our records are shown in the chart below.

Fraudulent labeling claims
Fraudulent labeling claims based on records reported in the Food Fraud Database.1

Consumer interest in organic foods is increasing and NSF cites “added value claims” such as organic and free range as one of the important factors driving food fraud risk.2 There continues to be a need for robust analytical tools for the authentication of organic foods. However, recent research has indicated it may be unlikely that authentication of these food products can be can be achieved by a single analytical method or the measurement of a single marker.3,4 Given the technical complexity and cost of ensuring the authenticity of organic label claims through analytical testing, preventing this type of food fraud also requires strong supply chain management and trustworthy supplier relationships along with effective auditing programs.

References

  1. The Decernis Food Fraud Database is a continuously updated collection of food fraud records curated specifically to support vulnerability assessments. Information is gathered from the scientific literature, regulatory reports, media publications, judicial records, and trade associations from around the world and is searchable by ingredient, adulterant, country, and hazard classification.
  2. NSF, “Risk Modelling Of Food Fraud Motivation – ‘NSF Fraud Protection Model’ Intelligent Risk Model Scoping Project FS 246004.” (2014). Retrieved from https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/NSF%20Final%20report.pdf.
  3. Inacio, CT and Chalk, PM. (January 2017) Principles and limitations of stable isotopes in differentiating organic and conventional foodstuffs: 2. Animal products. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr.. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25849871
  4. Capuano, E., et al. (September 11, 2012). Analytical authentication of organic products: an overview of markers. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. (Vol. 93) No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.5914
Gabriela Lopez, 3M Food Safety
Allergen Alley

Establishing an Effective Food Allergen Control Plan

By Gabriela Lopez-Velasco, Ph.D.
No Comments
Gabriela Lopez, 3M Food Safety

It’s nearly 2019: Do you know where your allergen control plan is? The need for food manufacturers to have a clearly defined allergen control plan in place has never been more essential. Today, as food allergies are a growing health problem around the world to both children and adults, control measures to prevent food allergenic reactions simply must be established and enforced within the food manufacturing environment.

How did we arrive here? After all, it wasn’t that long ago that the approach to prevent an allergic reaction caused by a particular food relied on avoidance of the consumption of that food by reading product labels. Allergic individuals would merely rely on the information provided on the label to determine whether the ingredients include a food that may be a source of a potential allergen.

That approach started to become more stringent in January 2006 when the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA) took effect in the United States. The law requires that food labels specifically and clearly declare the presence of what is commonly referred to as the Big 8 Food Allergens: Milk, egg, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat and soy. (Outside the United States, the European Union, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and other countries have similar requirements for these and other known food allergens.) Despite U.S. law now requiring the declaration of allergens on food labels, estimates of food recalls due to mislabeling is at more than 40% in the United States—alarming evidence for the need for a strong and structured allergen control plan. According to the USDA, the number of recalls due to undeclared allergens and ingredients considered a public concern increased from 13% in 2008 to 35% in 2012. The most common causes of recalls stem from changes in product formulation, changes in supplier’s ingredient formulation, regulatory inspections or consumer complaints.

So, what should today’s food manufacturers do? They must declare any allergens in their food to consumers, and they should follow Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and keep ingredients segregated within the plant. However, with increased food demand, this is more challenging than ever. As more food and food varieties are produced, the practice of sharing lines for allergen-containing and allergen-free foods is now commonplace. If a company shares production lines within its plant, then it needs to take steps to minimize the risk of cross contact and the unintentional addition of allergens during food production.

The FSMA final rule for Preventive Controls for Human Foods requires facilities to have a food safety plan in place that should consider a risk-based analysis of hazards and preventive controls to minimize or eliminate chemical, physical and biological hazards in the food supply chain. Within these preventive controls, food allergen controls should be in place as written and implemented procedures to control cross contact and ensure proper labeling.

For food and beverage manufacturers looking to establish a food allergen control plan, there are three key steps:

  1. Risk Assessment: Is there a chance that unintentional allergens could be present in the food or manufacturing equipment in your plant? Risk assessment involves a hazard analysis by a multifunctional team that includes members from such departments as manufacturing, quality, food safety, sanitation, research and development, and regulatory compliance. Risk assessment helps identify potential sources of food allergens and maps their path through each step of the manufacturing process. Once the path is identified, controls can be put in place in target areas such as reception and storage, scheduling of production runs, variations in production, equipment design and supply and cleaning materials. It is important to periodically review and reassess your risk assessment as new products, formulation changes or vendor changes may change production conditions.
  2. Risk Management: Now that risks have been identified, they need to be managed. The key to successful risk management is developing work instructions and standard operating procedures that control the possibility of unintentional allergen contamination. These procedures and instructions include quality requirements for vendors’ ingredients, segregation, production controls, manufacturing scheduling, equipment and plant design, as well as cleaning and sanitation procedures. It is important to validate that these procedures and practices are effective using a science-based approach. In addition, these activities should be routinely reviewed and evaluated for effectiveness. A successful allergen control plan relies on continuous training, clear explanation of procedures and documentation of the existence and effectiveness of the plan.
  3. Risk Communication: The next step after assessment and management is communication. If you have an allergenic food in your plant that could be unintentionally found in the finished food product, it is essential that this information appears on the food label. Risk assessment can help define the nature of the potential allergen. Is the final product manufactured from ingredients that contain allergens or is it manufactured on equipment that is in direct contact with allergenic ingredients? This analysis can ensure proper labeling, either in the food ingredients or as a precautionary allergen label (PAL).Ultimately, it is important to remember that food allergen control plans require management commitment to succeed. Continual communication and training increase the safety of manufactured products. Allergen control is but one of the many efforts to prevent and minimize foodborne illness in humans, but the development of and adherence to an effective allergen control plan will go far in protecting allergic consumers and reducing the food manufacturer’s risk to reputational and recall costs.
Prop 65 label

California Proposition 65 To Impact Food Labels

By Nick Recht
No Comments
Prop 65 label

The fast-approaching August 30th deadline for California’s Proposition 65 has food manufacturers of all sizes working to make sure affected labels comply with the new labeling requirements. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Proposition 65:

“…requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. These chemicals can be in the products that Californians purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. By requiring that this information be provided, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about their exposures to these chemicals.”

Proposition 65, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, is intended to help better equip Californians to make informed decisions about the products they purchase. The OEHHA is responsible for determining which chemicals meet the legal and scientific requirements for inclusion on the Proposition 65 list, a list which has grown to more than 900 chemicals since it was originally published in 1987.

The new law will be enforced by the California Attorney General’s Office as well as any district attorney or city attorney for cities whose population exceeds 750,000. Individuals acting in the public’s interest may also seek to enforce Proposition 65 by filing a lawsuit against companies alleged to be in violation. Companies that are found to be in violation may be fined as high as $2,500 per violation per day.

To ensure compliance with the new law, food manufacturers must reference the list of included chemicals to determine which of their products, if any, are impacted. Manufacturers must then provide “clear and reasonable warnings” that chemicals used in the production of their goods or products sold in California are known to cause cancer, birth defects and/or other reproductive harm. The ruling impacts goods sold in California as well as those sold via catalog or the internet.

Proposition 65 underscores the importance of an agile labeling environment for food manufacturers, particularly as it relates to their ability to adjust labels prior to compliance deadlines. It also implores manufacturers to look to automation to reduce the room for human error. For example, labeling software can be leveraged to create a table look up so if an impacted ingredient is included in a product and printed on a label, the required warning statement is also automatically included on the label.

Leveraging a database connection to apply such warnings can help businesses mitigate risk, as failing to include a required warning could result in fines, business disruption and lost revenue. It is also important to note that compliance with Proposition 65 will require food manufacturers to stay up to date on changes, as new chemicals may be added and/or revisions to law may continue to occur. Food retailers must also stay abreast of labeling changes required by Proposition 65 to ensure the products they sell are in compliance. Learn more about Proposition 65 at the OEHHA’s official website: https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov.

Prop 65 label
Label design products can help a company add a warning statement to a current label. Image courtesy of TEKLYNX.
Nick Recht, TEKLYNX
FST Soapbox

Enterprise Label Management for Better Food Labeling

By Nick Recht
No Comments
Nick Recht, TEKLYNX

The concept of a food label is simple. Labels identify products, provide customers with necessary information and enable companies to receive and ship products worldwide. Yet growing customer demands, changing labeling regulations and an increasingly competitive global marketplace continue to have food and beverage manufacturers scrambling to maintain some semblance of simplicity in an increasingly complicated labeling environment. Furthermore, the stakes are high for managing labels. Food recalls continue to make headlines, and a growing number of consumers rely on identified allergens to be properly labeled so they can select food and beverages that are safe to consume.

Now, food and beverage manufacturers of all sizes are re-thinking how they manage their labeling environments to navigate this increasingly complicated labeling landscape. For these manufacturers, doing so often begins with a closer look at how labeling is viewed throughout their enterprise. When labeling is treated as a discrete operation within the food and beverage manufacturing process, the labeling environment often relies too heavily on manual processes and is prone to human error. By contrast, when labeling is viewed as an integrated component of the manufacturing process, food and beverage manufacturers greatly improve labeling accuracy, efficiency and agility.

So what does labeling look like as integrated component of the manufacturing process? Enter enterprise label management (ELM), a centralized approach to labeling that leverages existing business systems, eliminates manual process, and reduces IT overheard and the room for human error. It integrates label design, approval, security and print automation and holds the key to improving labeling speed, accuracy and agility.

ELM centralizes label management and integrates labeling with other business or ERP systems. It consists of these four primary label management components:

  1. The ability to create and print barcode labels used for shipping, inventory, products and more.
  2. Label approval, traceability, security, storage and version control for all labels created and printed.
  3. Print automation to remove human interaction from the printing process.
  4. A configurable browser printing interface for seamless label printing locally and around the globe.

Food and beverage manufacturers of all sizes can benefit from ELM. Typically, companies look to ELM when they are looking to reduce waste, mitigate risk or reduce disparate system management. ELM is also a natural fit within lean manufacturing initiatives because its integrated approach allows organizations to leverage existing business systems and often reduces IT overhead. And because ELM incorporates label approval, traceability, security and version control, food and beverage manufacturers that leverage it are better equipped to respond to and execute a food recall should that situation arise.

From an efficiency standpoint, food and beverage manufacturers realize many benefits from ELM implementations. ELM eliminates manual approval processes that often result in production delays. It also reduces manual, error-prone processes. The use of label templates allows food manufacturers to quickly adjust labels, making it easier to respond to changing label requirements such as the FDA’s new Nutrition Facts requirements or those items required by FSMA.

With ELM, the use of a configurable browser printing interface allows food and beverage manufacturers to manage labels at one location while enabling users to print labels at locations around the globe. This greatly improves a manufacturer’s ability to manage labels across its network of production facilities and distribution centers, and provides a labeling environment that can easily adjust as the company grows.

ELM can also serve as a competitive advantage for food and beverage manufacturers. For one leading consumer goods manufacturer, an ELM solution provided a way to become more competitive in the marketplace. The manufacturer was facing challenges, as its former labeling process relied too heavily on manual processes. Specifically, its manual data entry was time-consuming and error-prone. Its labeling environment was also unable to accommodate label changes without costly, custom development time. Labeling errors meant the company was at risk of losing customers and market share, and the inability to quickly accommodate label changes negatively impacted its ability to comply with changing customer requirements.

With ELM, the manufacturer realized a 75% reduction in label development time, resulting in an equal decrease in labor costs. In addition, access to label templates gave them complete flexibility to quickly respond to business and customer requirements. And because its label creation was now automated and integrated with its existing SAP system as part of the ELM implementation, the company was able to increase labeling efficiency while reducing errors.

For food and beverage manufacturers, the benefits of ELM are too compelling to ignore. Here are four signs your company may benefit from ELM:

  1. Your barcode label printing is manual and disjointed, with many clicks.
  2. Your label templates are decentralized and difficult to manage.
  3. You have manual label approval workflows and can’t apply securities and controls for design vs. print users.
  4. You have many local print installations.

If you’ve answered yes to one or more of these signs, ELM warrants a closer look. ELM implementations can run smoothly when you partner with an experienced barcode labeling solutions provider, and your company will be better positioned to navigate what has become a very complicated food and beverage labeling environment.

magnifying glass

Avoiding Total Recalls: Regulatory Labeling for the Food and Beverage Industry

By Josh Roffman
No Comments
magnifying glass

In recent memory, no time has more effectively demonstrated the challenges facing the food and beverage industry than spring 2018. In addition to a widely publicized recall of romaine lettuce, several other companies have instituted noteworthy product recalls. For example:

While demoralizing for food and beverage manufacturers, these recalls may also be an unavoidable part of doing business. Plants are grown outdoors, livestock lives outdoors, and no method of sterilization or disinfection is perfect. This is why regulations exist, such as FSMA or EU 1169, so that when recalls do occur, companies can efficiently find and eliminate their contaminated products, and then find the point in the supply chain where the contaminants were introduced.

Despite their necessity, food labeling and packaging regulations represent a huge challenge for food and beverage (F&B) manufacturers—and these challenges don’t exist in a vacuum. The labeling and packaging process is already a huge challenge, which includes customer requirements such as branding, cultural and linguistic localization, 2-D barcodes, and more. How can F&B companies enmesh their regulatory requirements with these existing challenges without adding to the complexity and expense of the entire undertaking?

Challenges of the Regulatory Environment

Since 2011, FSMA has been changing the way that F&B manufacturers produce, package, ship and sell food. In a departure with previous tradition, government inspectors no longer form the first line of defense against contaminated or mislabeled food. Rather, food producers and manufacturers themselves must bear the responsibility to implement procedures that prevent foodborne illness.

In short, FSMA will force F&B manufacturers to implement full transparency and traceability within their supply chains. Artwork and product labeling must be used to support these endeavors—ideally, one would be able to scan the barcode on a food package to instantly determine its origin as well as the chain of distributors that it passed through in order to reach your hands. Right now, the industry standard is well below this benchmark.

Right now, a seven-day timeline is the best-case scenario for traceability throughout the F&B supply chain. Although the endpoints of the supply chain—grocery stores and restaurants—may use modern digital records, you’ll find growers and transportation companies still using Excel and paper records.

In the meantime, a new European Union regulation known as EU 1169 went into effect in December 2016. It made a number of changes to food labeling laws, creating a uniform standard for nutritional facts information. Manufacturers must meet minimum standards for legibility, attain a minimum font size, and notify consumers about potential allergens.

Purely by coincidence, a new FDA food labeling law has also recently gone into effect. Announced in May 2016, this rule will update serving sizes found on most food packaging, alert consumers to added sugars, and more. Although these rules were originally slated to take effect in 2018, they’ve been delayed to 2020 for companies with more than $10 million in revenue, and delayed to 2021 for smaller F&B manufacturers.

To encapsulate, F&B manufacturers must now adjust to the following factors:

  • The FDA is becoming much more serious about preventing foodborne illnesses
  • To this extent, it’s begun to demand instant traceability from F&B manufacturers
  • In addition, the EU will force manufacturers to update their nutritional labeling
  • Manufacturers must update their nutritional labels in the United States as well—but differently

Barcodes and labeling already pose a complicated challenge for manufacturers, causing product recalls and packaging write-offs. Putting additional regulation on top of that solves problems in one sense, by making recalls less likely, but also creates problems in another sense—by putting pressure on artwork and labeling departments that are already overworked. After all, regulations alone aren’t the only sources of change and challenge when it comes to labeling and packaging.

Other Stressors on Labeling and Packaging within F&B Manufacturers

Changing consumer tastes, changing marketing methods, and changing technologies all play their role in adding stress to the job of labeling and packaging within the F&B manufacturing industry.

  • New Branding Needs. Packaging drives 36% of purchase decisions, which means that new and eye-catching label designs are always a must. Good design is subjective, however, and tastes change. For example, most Americans are now driven towards brands that are driven towards social and environmental causes. In other words, many F&B manufacturers may soon reorient their product artwork design to reflect this new concern.
  • International Expansion. If EU 1169 is a concern for you, it probably means that you’re selling into countries where English isn’t the only language. It’s easy to make missteps in this realm. For example, it’s possible to accidentally approve poorly translated copy, or to approve copy that’s in the wrong language entirely.
  • New Technologies. In addition to the UPC, many brands are now incorporating 2-D barcodes (such as QR codes), which provide product information when scanned by a smartphone. Although these codes are supposed to provide more information to consumers, only 34% of consumers actually scanned them as of 2014. The challenge for the labeling department is to make these codes more useful and user-friendly.

These new techniques, regions and branding requirements pose challenges. Think about the possibility of approving the right logo for the wrong country, approving out-of-date artwork, or substituting an FDA-compliant label for one that should comply with EU-1199. These things will happen, and they will necessarily lead to recalls. Here’s the question: How do you structure your artwork and labeling departments to minimize these risks?

Minimize Risks with Standardized, Centralized Labeling and Artwork Management

The secret to producing compliant labeling with up-to-date branding and correct localization is to create a system that gives you as little choice as possible. In other words, you should not find yourself wandering through a nest of file folders wondering which asset is the most up-to-date or find yourself developing separate label templates for each separate region you sell into.

Instead, your labeling and packaging artwork should be able to integrate with other business applications and content libraries to ensure your accessing the correct, most up-to-date approved content and assets. In an ideal world, if you start creating a label and select “Spain” as your target market, your labeling solution would immediately retrieve the relevant content for that target market. With the right kind of integrated, dynamic, data-driven solution you can be confident that you’ll only be dealing with complete with approved Spanish-language content for your packaging and your labeling. You would have peace of mind that your solution would generate an EU 1199-compliant nutrition label template, auto-populated with the appropriate nutrition facts. Additionally, if this label is intended for food sold only by a particular supermarket chain, you would feel confident that your solution would retrieve all of the correct content, images and barcodes required for that brand.

Improve Traceability by Replacing Sources of Confusion with Sources of Truth

To ensure accuracy and consistency, your labeling solution should integrate with your “sources of truth,” namely your ERP systems, but also potentially including your manufacturing execution systems, warehouse management systems, and more. You should be able to leverage existing business processes and vital data sources to drive labeling—to avoid replication of data and potential error, and instead automate and streamline your processes.

Recalls may be a fact of life, but using the right labeling and packaging solution will let you narrow their scope—and trace contamination to its source within a much faster window. The fastest solve for this problem involves creating a true “closed loop” for artwork and labeling—a comprehensive, integrated and automated solution to provide accurate and consistent labeling.

Katy Jones, Foodlogiq
FST Soapbox

3 Ways to Make Transparency a Successful Business Strategy

By Katy Jones
1 Comment
Katy Jones, Foodlogiq

Transparency. It’s been top of mind for years. But because of the shift in public’s interest in healthy ingredients and where they come from, businesses are responding by making transparency part of their strategic business initiatives. This includes providing a complete list of ingredients, known allergens and their nutritional information. They also want to know where and how products are sourced and handled. If this information isn’t available, it creates an air of distrust with today’s savvy consumers.

FoodLogiQ, FoodSafety Tech
EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Food Safety Tech recently spoke with Katy Jones about consumer preferences and their expectations during a product recall. Watch the video

This information is becoming increasingly mandatory, not just because of FSMA and other regulations but because customers are demanding it. With globalization and increased imports from foreign suppliers, regulations as well as consumer expectations for food quality and safety has dramatically risen in the past few years. It is now one of the most critical ways you can earn consumer trust and loyalty. Here are three ways to incorporate transparency into your business plan.

1. Supplier Engagement Makes Good Business Sense

To offer transparency to customers, you must engage with your suppliers. You can’t offer your consumers the transparency they are demanding if you are not getting the information from your suppliers. Plus, it is critical to know who your suppliers’ suppliers are to mitigate risk.

Leveraging a supplier management technology solution will save you time by automating processes such as supplier onboarding and will help you keep track of documents, certificates and audits that you require.

It also helps support supplier communications so you can establish an open dialogue, which is critical when problems arise. You can’t expect a supplier to fulfill your requirements around safety and brand promise if you aren’t open about your expectations. It’s a two-way relationship that can make a huge difference in your business.

FoodLogiQ’s recent survey, “A Food Company’s Guide to What Consumers Care About in the Age of Transparency” (click to enlarge)

2. Label Transparency

FoodLogiQ recently published a survey that revealed supply chain transparency by food companies is a critical driver in consumer purchasing decisions and brand loyalty. Fifty-four percent of respondents want as much information as possible on the label, and nearly 40% want country of origin, allergen alerts and GMOs all identified on the label.

In this survey, those who identify as “caring deeply about the quality of food they eat,” are overwhelmingly in favor of more transparent labeling, with 86% of that demographic expecting country of origin, allergen alerts and genetically modified ingredients to be noted, and they ask that “as much information as possible” be included on the label (or menu) itself.

If a brand doesn’t provide this information, consumers will look elsewhere for it. This puts companies in a vulnerable position.

3. Building a Transparent Culture and Backing Marketing Claims

Food safety professionals and the marketing department are now working together to communicate their transparent farm-to-fork story. This cross-departmental collaboration will not only meet business goals but the teamwork strengthens the overall business.

To maintain a positive reputation, it starts with being open and honest, and engaging your customers in an authentic way. And once a brand establishes itself as being transparent, consumers are more open to trying other products from that company. Building a culture of transparency that is focused on safety and quality can be an incredible marketing advantage and give food companies an edge over competitors.

A recall, stock withdrawal or a report of a foodborne illness can wreak havoc on a business. But the worst thing you can do is hide it. If a brand has ever been under fire for false information, low-quality ingredients or a major recall, consumers know. They are more informed about your products through their online research and social media. It is better for consumers to receive this information directly from the brand than through a third-party site.

If a company is faced with a recall, it is important to involve multiple business units that each have a stake in resolving the issues as quickly as possible. Include the marketing department in your food safety plan and preventative controls so if you are faced with a recall, you have a communication plan in place.

How to Meet Transparency Business Goals

For food companies to provide this transparency, protect their brand image and earn their customers’ trust, they need full end-to-end supply chain traceability technology to modernize their processes and access real-time data. Centralizing your data creates a single source of truth to make data-informed decisions and remain compliant, all while empowering consumers to make safer, more informed decisions about the food they eat.

The good news is that food companies making transparency a priority are being rewarded by customer loyalty, as consumers are willing to pay more for those products. The previously mentioned survey revealed that 88% of respondents—from all demographics, Millennials to Boomers—were willing to pay more for healthier foods including those that are GMO-free, have no artificial coloring/flavors and are deemed all natural.

Transparency transcends all categories: From restaurant menus to labels on consumer package goods. So no matter what business you are in, implement these strategies to systematically impact on your bottom line and keep your food chain safe.

Gluten free

FDA Project Finds Gluten-Free Labeled Products Meeting Standards

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Gluten free

Accurate labeling of gluten-free products is a big deal for consumers who have celiac disease, as they can suffer potentially serious health issues when they eat gluten. FDA set standards for the labeling of gluten-free products in August 2013 (with a compliance date of August 5, 2014) and recently announced results of a sampling assignment that was conducted to assess compliance with the final rule.

Of the 702 samples taken from 250 products labeled as “gluten-free”, FDA found that more than 99.5% of the samples to be in compliance with the agency’s requirement.

“Of the total number tested, five samples from one product source contained gluten in excess of the regulatory limit of 20 parts per million (ppm), for a product-based rate of compliance with that requirement greater than 99.5 percent. A voluntary recall was conducted to address concerns related to the violative samples. In addition to carrying out the recall, the manufacturer conducted an extensive root cause analysis and immediately implemented additional corrective actions to prevent recurrence.” ­ – FDA

The analytical results are available on FDA’s website.

Dagan Xavier, Label Insight

Food Transparency Movement Driving Changes in Labeling

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Dagan Xavier, Label Insight

Recently the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) announced an initiative to reduce the amount of confusion that consumers experience regarding the “sell by”, “use by” and other date-specific labeling on food packaging. It is also part of an effort to reduce food waste.

The new initiative is completely voluntary, but GMA and FMI are hoping that retailers and manufacturers adopt the standard by the summer of 2018. It streamlines the labeling terminology to two simple phrases:

  • “BEST If Used By”. Describes product quality, indicating the date by which the product may not taste or perform as expected but it is still safe to consume
  • “USE By”. Applies to highly perishable products and/or products that have a food safety concern over a period of time that warrants a date by which the products should either be consumed or discarded

A variety of factors well beyond “sell by”/”use by” dates contribute to consumer confusion. The following Q&A is a brief discussion with Dagan Xavier, co-founder and vice president, customer intelligence at Label Insight on the impact of incorrectly labeling products (erosion of brand trust) and the challenge food companies face in providing transparent information on their products.

Food Safety Tech: How is the demand for transparency both from consumers and regulators changing the food product labeling landscape?

Dagan Xavier, Label Insight
Dagan Xavier, Label Insight

Dagan Xavier: Transparency sounds easy, but in reality, it is complex. For companies, managing compliance and consumer demands is not cut and dry.

Thankfully, brands and consumers are usually on the same page. But there are times when it’s not the case—and that causes trust issues. For one, brands need to use specific, compliant wording. That wording can sometimes be more complex than a preferred consumer-friendly phrasing. For example, USDA’s proposed labeling of GM-containing products refers to them as “genetically engineered.” Except, consumers are far more familiar with the term “genetically modified.”

Regardless of these nuances, regulations around transparency are in place to help consumers. The regulations set clear definitions about what products or ingredients can or cannot qualify for a labeling claim.

We currently live at a time where there is a general distrust of the food industry from consumers. Having strict regulations in place that add factual meaning behind claims is incredibly important. Meaningful and understandable claims, logos, and certifications are slowly beginning to help build trust back up from consumers.

FST:  What challenges are food companies facing in labeling their products?

Xavier: One of the biggest hurdles companies face in labeling is fitting as much information as possible on the package. Between mandatory components (like allergens, nutrients, ingredients) and desired content (marketing copy and images), something almost always gets left off. What gets left off? It tends to be sourcing facts, “Made in America” logos, and other data that consumers find valuable but rank lower on a brand’s priority list.

In reality, 100% complete product information is nearly impossible to fit within the confined space of most product packaging.

The good news is that according to a recent study by Label Insight, most consumers (88%) say they would be interested in accessing a complete set of product information digitally.

SmartLabel (an initiative by the Grocery Manufacturers Association) is an easy solution. SmartLabels save companies space on their packaging, while still allowing them to communicate all product information with consumers digitally.

Most consumers (79%) say they are very likely or somewhat likely to use SmartLabel technology if it was offered by a brand. 44% say they would trust a brand more if it participated in the GMA SmartLabel initiative.

FST: Related to labeling, what are the complicating factors when a company is producing organic, GMO-free, gluten free, etc.—especially when working with suppliers?

Xavier: Having a trusting relationship and open communication with suppliers is key.

Because regulations around organic and gluten-free are so stringent here in the United States, brands need to rely on their suppliers to have ongoing robust certification audits, inspections, documentation and renewal programs.

We expect regulations around GMO-containing products to follow suit.

For companies with dozens of suppliers, it can get tricky managing the documentation of certifications. This is especially complicated if suppliers are overseas and their audits are not delivered through the same certifying agencies that retailers or importers would like.

Adding logos and certifications to packages can be expensive and add risk to brands if a supplier falls out of compliance. In the end, it is important for both brands and suppliers to have robust documentation and a good communication channel. This ensures that all information on-pack is always the most accurate information for consumers and retailers.

Pages: 1 2
Organic, NonGMO, Natural, Labeling

Achieving Transparency in Organic and Natural Product Claims

By Lori Carlson
No Comments
Organic, NonGMO, Natural, Labeling

Consumer preference for organic and “all natural” foods remains on the rise, according to market trend research and retailer sales.1,2 The Organic Trade Association (OTA) recorded $40 billion in U.S. organic food sales for 2015, stating that sales have nearly doubled since 2008.3 Pair this with $21 billion in sales for Q1 2016 for non-GMO labeled foods and $1.6 billion in 2015 gluten-free sales and, it is hard to ignore this thriving market sector, which seeks to support consumers in their quest for fresh, healthy and transparently-labeled foods.4,5

As a result of these trends, the industry is experiencing a surge in natural food and beverage start-up companies as well as the acquisition of organic and natural product companies by manufacturing giants such as Campbell Soup Co., Danone and General Mills, Inc. But in complex—and especially global—supply chains, achieving transparency comes with hurdles for verifying product claims  such as “all-natural”, non-GMO, antibiotic-free, and other nutrient content or functional claims.

Organic and other natural food manufacturers are under increasing regulatory and consumer scrutiny for tracing claims back to the source for all ingredients. Failing to verify the authenticity or identity preservation (IP) status of materials, maintain chain of custody and ensure the accuracy of labels can have devastating consequences for a manufacturer, including regulatory action and consumer fraud class action law suits.6 It’s not just consumers demanding the “right to know” where food comes from, but manufacturers must also push this sentiment back through their supply chain to drive transparency for ensuring safety, brand protection and verifying product claims.

With the goal of meeting consumer demands for healthy food products, improved transparency in food production and clean labels, how can organic, non-GMO and natural food manufacturers stay ahead of the curve when it comes to ensuring that product claims provide the value consumers seek?

Consider the following tasks for achieving transparency in organic and natural product claims.

Analyze Your Ingredients for Risk

Get to know the pitfalls, which can affect the integrity of product claims. Many of these stem from cross contamination, authenticity or mislabeling issues for sourced materials. To prevent these pitfalls, analyze each ingredient for supply chain risks. Identifying potential risks, which may affect the integrity of claims creating liability for misbranding, is a critical step in achieving transparency.

For example, is there a potential for cross contamination from a non-organic source? This is a common risk where a supplier engages in the co-production of organic and non-organic materials. A lack of segregation and clear product identification during transportation, storage and processing activities can lead to commingling or cross-contamination, which affects material integrity and thus, any downstream product claims. Ensuring suppliers and the manufacturer have clear measures in place for segregation is an important consideration when determining risk.

Or, consider adulteration from a non-authentic material, which can affect the integrity of the claim. Identifying vulnerabilities within the supply chain is necessary to reduce opportunities for perpetrating food fraud. Materials such as organic products and some natural ingredients are at greater risk for fraud where limited availability is an issue and/or the material is a high-value commodity or product. Mislabeling, counterfeit production or economically motivated adulteration, such as the substitution or dilution of ingredients in a sourced material, has a significant impact on downstream product claims.

Unverified packaging and labels are other sources of risk with the potential to affect the integrity of product claims. Ensure your supplier’s labeling practices include controls to verify the correct packaging and labels when producing IP materials or other ingredients with nutrient content or functional claims.

With a clear understanding of material risks, what attributes of an ingredient should be prioritized, tested and/or verified when considering the integrity of finished product claims?

Once material risks are analyzed, establish clear specifications for raw materials, which are agreed upon between the supplier and manufacturer. This serves as the basis for verifying material claims and subsequently, downstream product claims. Where specifications are in place, material verification may be performed through a variety methods including: testing, mass balance, COA review and audits. Verifying materials against agreed upon specifications not only supports due diligence in product claims but also brings manufacturers closer to their suppliers, steering us towards the next task.

Get to Know Your Suppliers

At the heart of food production transparency is the relationship a manufacturer has with its suppliers. Even the simplest of manufactured foods have a handful of ingredients, which are typically sourced through a global supply chain network. Due to the seasonality of produce or supply chain risks such as market fluctuations, business disruptions, natural disasters, or transportation failures; manufacturers can’t rely on a single supplier for the sourcing of a particular ingredient.

This leads to reliance on multiple suppliers, which may be geographically dispersed. Sourcing from multiple suppliers—especially when this occurs for multiple ingredients across multiple products—can create hurdles to relationship building for enhanced transparency due to time and resource constraints for acquiring first-hand knowledge of a supplier’s operation. Thus, proactive supply chain management, which enables a manufacturer to learn about the supplier’s history and operation, is essential for transparency.

This can be accomplished by establishing supplier approval criteria to provide a baseline for getting to know your supplier and establish minimum criteria for sourcing. Building upon this, is the use of approved suppliers to solidify the relationship and develop out a stable supply chain network. And finally, it is best practice to visit the supplier’s site to learn more about operational practices and the people responsible for ensuring material specifications and identity status are consistently achieved.

Apply Supply Chain Management Best Practices

Effective management of suppliers to prevent or reduce risks, which can lead to mislabeling and false claims, relies on the risk assessment conducted for materials and suppliers, applied controls (e.g., segregation) and verification that the supplier’s controls consistently ensure material integrity.

GFSI benchmarked schemes paved the way for enhanced supply chain management and risk mitigation when it comes to sourcing materials to ensure food safety and legal status. Some schemes additionally require controls and verification activities such as the validation of health claims or verification of nutrient content to provide a framework for helping manufacturers develop a system, which ensures product integrity. For food sold in the United States, a GFSI-based system is now reinforced by the  FSMA Preventive Controls rule, which requires supply chain-applied controls to mitigate material risks along with additional controls to ensure that food is not adulterated or misbranded under the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act.

It is important to note that while the FSMA Preventive Controls rule regulates most processors and manufacturers, organic raw agricultural commodities (RAC’s), dietary supplements and unprocessed meats are not covered by the rule as they are covered by other U.S. food regulations. Since these products may be included in organic and natural product formulations, manufacturers may want to consider applying a Preventive Controls methodology to their supply chain or pursue certification to a recognized food safety standard such as a GFSI benchmarked scheme where this is not already in place.

Simplify Your Supply Chain

Complex supply chains reduce visibility, add latency into monitoring, and increase opportunities for contamination or fraud.7,8

Simplifying your supply chain can take a variety of forms such as the sourcing of local or domestic materials.

Continue reading the article by clicking on page 2 below.

Pages: 1 2

Senate Deal Requires Nationwide GMO Labeling

By Food Safety Tech Staff
3 Comments

The U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has come to an agreement on the first-of-its-kind nationwide mandatory labeling of food products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  Although the deal requires labeling on far more products than those required under the Vermont GMO labeling law (which goes into effect July 1), the way in which disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients is revealed on food products is not as straightforward as it seems.  Under the bill, disclosure methods of GMOs on labeling includes on the actual packaging; an electronic/digital link that a consumer can scan with a smartphone to retrieve more information online; or a phone number in which a consumer can call to get more information. Thus, companies are not required to include all of the information on the product label.

The Center for Food Safety estimates that 75% of processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients.The Senate Agriculture Committee praises the bill as a “win for consumers”, but there are industry folks who disagree. “While we are pleased this proposal will finally create a national, mandatory GMO disclosure system, protects organic labels, and will cover more food than Vermont’s groundbreaking GMO labeling law, we are disappointed that the proposal will require many consumers to rely on smart-phones to learn basic information about their food.,” said Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield Farm and advocacy group Just Label It in a release.

The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard is available on the Senate Agriculture Committee’s website.