Tag Archives: Listeria

May 29, 2023

bioMérieux Expands xPRO and Predictive Diagnostics Innovation Programs

By Food Safety Tech Staff

In vitro diagnostics provider bioMérieux recently announced its plans to open a new, 32,000 sq. ft. state-of-the-art molecular innovation center at the Navy Yard in Philadelphia. The new site will house the company’s xPRO Program, as well as the company’s Predictive Diagnostics Innovation Center.

The xPRO Program was created to speed development of advanced molecular diagnostics for food quality and safety departments in the food and beverage, nutraceutical and cannabis indsutries.

We spoke with Ben Pascal, head of xPRO at bioMérieux, about the program as well as the challenges and recent advances in the development of molecular assays and predictive diagnostics.

What is the xPro program?

Pascal: xPRO is an entrepreneurial engine for bioMérieux. We have had tremendous success with the molecular assays we’ve built over the years here, and we want to continue to invest in that innovation both in terms of the way we develop these assays, the speed with which we bring them to market, and we want to expand the partnerships that we’ve built with industry. All of these efforts are bolstered through the xPRO program and team.

What are some of the challenges in developing the molecular assays?

Pascal: In the clinical micro sector, you’ve got blood, saliva, and urine, and they are pretty uniform between everyone. When you come to the industrial micro sector, where you’re working with lettuce one day, ground beef the next and then nutraceuticals or spices, it is far more challenging to build a diagnostic that can work across all those matrices.

The challenge is how to create something that is compatible in multiple sectors, is faster and will deliver value over and over in a routine quality testing lab. Experience is crucial. Our team in Philadelphia has built and commercialized more than 30 molecular diagnostics, so we had the opportunity to put together a toolkit, if you will, to help us get through challenging matrices and speed things along with regards to recovery of target organisms.

When you talk about predictive diagnostics, is this related to gaining a better understanding of which pathogens are most likely to cause illness and at what levels?

Pascal: You do have these pathogens, but there’s a whole other concern related to spoilage. Day to day in the food and beverage sector, it’s spoilage that’s affecting quality and your brand reputation and causing recalls.

When it comes to pathogens that can cause foodborne illnesses, one cell is typically the law of the land. But when we say predictive diagnostics, we are isolating unique genes that are 100% predictive of spoilage. We know there are certain organisms that cause spoilage, but not all organisms that spoil are created equal. So what we try to tease out through our genomic and predictive diagnostic center is which unique genes allow one bug within the same species to cause spoilage, while another does not.

Traditionally, a quality director on the floor will say, I have this organism. It might spoil it might not. We’re taking the risk out of the equation. If you have a potential spoilage organism and you know that it has the specific genes that create spoilage, you can make more informed decisions on what you’re going to do with your product in terms of releasing it or remediating it.

For example, in brewing there is a yeast called saccharomyces cerevisiae that is often used. And there is a variant of saccharomyces cerevisiae that has some genes that allow it to use up residual starches in the product to produce gas, which causes the cans to swell and burst.

The problem is, you can’t tell from a culture plate whether your saccharomyces cerevisiae has this variant diastaticus or not—and not all diastaticus will go on to chew up those residual starches as an energy source and produce gas. We’ve identified a unique set of genes, and every time those genes are there, that diastaticus will go on to produce gas and create quality issues. That’s what we refer to as predictive diagnostics.

When you talk about rapid diagnostic testing, can these tests be performed in the food or beverage facility?

Pascal: Yes, they take our equipment and utilize it at their site, whether that be a third party laboratory, the production site of a brewery, a food processing facility or a nutraceutical manufacturer. We manufacture the equipment and the reagents that we’ve developed, and we put that into a test kit that customers can purchase after we’ve installed the equipment at their production site.

Are there any specific food areas that you’re focusing on now?

Pascal: Some of our key focuses relate to beverages, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic. We do quite a lot in nutraceuticals. We do quite a bit of work in cannabis, and in food safety, we’re focused on changing the game with regards to environmental monitoring. With environmental monitoring you’re looking for specific pathogens with the theory being, if you can control your environment, you can control what gets into your food products.

You’re typically looking for one of two pathogens: salmonella or listeria. We said, why not do them both together? And we created a universal medium. By providing specific data points for both pathogens within a single test, it can detect and enrich both salmonella and listeria from the environmental swab.

In all the work we do, our partnerships with industry are very important. The way that we build our pipeline is directly through partnerships with industry, which informs us on their key challenges as well as better ways to make tools. So, when we come out with a new tool, our goal is to not only meet the needs of our partner but meet or exceed the needs of their peers in the industry as well.

May 2, 2023

Lessons Learned from Listeria Recalls

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

Listeria monocytogenes continues to be a key factor in food recalls. While it is not the most common pathogen behind foodborne illness, it does have a high mortality rate. Listeria is hearty. It thrives in cold, moist environments, can grow under refrigeration temperatures and is salt tolerant. The risk of listeria contamination can be reduced through stringent sanitation, and environmental monitoring and testing. But far too often, it takes an outbreak or recall for companies to truly understand the efforts needed to find and destroy it in their facilities.

At Food Safety Tech’s Hazards Conference in Columbus, Ohio, in April, Stacy Vernon, Food Safety Operations and Program Manager at CIFT, an Ohio Manufacturing Partner, shared lessons learned from food companies that have experienced Listeria in their facilities and resulting product recalls.

Lesson Learned: Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory requirements related control of listeria monocytogenes can be found at USDA 9 CFR Part 430.4 and FDA 21 CFR Part 117. Both agencies offer guidance documents that serve as valuable resources that food companies can use to build their food safety programs:

USDA FSIS: FSIS-GD-2014-0001 “Controlling Listeria monocytogenes in Post-lethality Exposed Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Products”

FDA: FDA-2008-D-0096 “Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-to-Eat Foods”

“The question is, are your people reading these? Are they aware they exist?” asked Vernon. “In speaking with companies who have gone through recalls, many were not even aware these guidance documents existed or were not utilizing them.”

Lesson Learned: Sanitation Program Shortcomings

“Sanitation is the No. 1 program that you need to have on point,” said Vernon. “Unfortunately, labor shortages and turnover have made this a big challenge in recent years.”

Issues that companies uncovered following recalls include:

A lack of understanding of the difference between cleaning and sanitizing
Sanitation teams not given enough time to properly sanitize equipment
Lack of easy access to the tools needed to sanitize properly
Lack of training on or understanding of the seven steps of sanitation
Lack of training on what biofilms are and how to detect them

“Sanitation teams tend to be small, and they need to be everywhere,” said Vernon. “Are you looking at their foot traffic? Your sanitation team should get, at least, general training on food safety and pathogens. Make sure this department is not overlooked because they do pose one of the highest risks of cross contamination.”

Lesson Learned: Poor Sanitary Design

Companies cited similar shortcomings in sanitary design. Vernon recommended that companies implement the following practices, if they are not currently following them:

Involve your food safety professionals in the purchase of new equipment
If purchasing used equipment, make sure that it has been maintained
Google “Sanitary Design Checklist.” These free downloads are available from the American Meat Institute, U.S. Dairy and other organizations and are great resources
Look for facility and equipment design flaws, such as cracks or separations in the floor, exposed threads, hallow pipes not sealed, bad welds, and water/product accumulation points

“Drain maintenance is also key. One company uses a snake to swab their drains, so they know if they have listeria before it works its way back up into the facility,” said Vernon.

Lesson Learned: Poor Environmental Monitoring Programs

The goals of an environmental monitoring program (EMP) is to aggressively seek and destroy pathogens. “You need to know where listeria is entering the facility, where it harbors and how it moves in your facility so you can effectively eradicate it,” said Vernon. “There is still a mentality that people are scared to find it, so they swab the safest areas. We need to change that mindset to ‘I want to find it and I want to eliminate it.’”

EMPs need to be tailored to your specific facility. Some of the issues companies found with their EMPs following recalls included a lack of internal knowledge to build a comprehensive and custom program and failure to swab properly. “Ask yourself, who is responsible for setting up our EMP and can they do it alone, or do we need outside expertise?” said Vernon.

When swabbing, you need to apply pressure and seek out hard to reach areas. When determining which zones to swab, consider the following:

Your risk assessment and hazard analysis
Previous environmental monitoring data collected
Visual appearance of surface
Products produced and intended users
Potential for growth after packaging

“Focus on areas where RTE products are exposed. Companies often do not want to swab Zone 1, but one company that went through a recall has implemented swabbing in Zone 1 while they are sampling their products,” said Vernon. “Their reasoning is, the products are already on hold and if they have to throw one shift of product away, it costs much less than a recall or outbreak.”

Lesson Learned: Lack of Employee Knowledge

Several of the companies Vernon spoke with found that they had inadequate food safety and pathogen training and knowledge at all levels; and that they did not have a good sense of employee traffic flow and habits. “When is the last time you stepped back to evaluate traffic flow in your facility?” asked Vernon. “Companies that took the time to evaluate traffic flow and employee practices were often surprised that they did not understand their employees’ movement within the facility or work habits.”

Key areas to investigate include:

How do employees and product move through your facility?
What is your footwear policy?
Are employees following appropriate GMPs for handwashing, PPE, product handling, etc.?
Are sanitation employees cleaning properly?

“Changing employee practices doesn’t take a lot of capital,” said Vernon. “It is one of the cheapest ways to mitigate risk.”

Lesson Learned: Not Reassessing Programs

EMP and sanitation programs should be reassessed when findings occur or changes happen in the facility, including anytime you bring in new equipment. “Start with a document review and then reassessment of your environmental monitoring program,” said Vernon.

April 18, 2023

Now is the Time to Reassess the Food Industry’s Approach to Managing Risk

By George Gansner

No Comments

The food industry is under intense scrutiny, with concerns about food safety and quality making headlines around the world. Today, the industry faces unprecedented challenges when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of the global food supply chain. Leaders need to manage known concerns such as foodborne pathogens, food fraud and contamination, as well as emerging challenges, including ingredient scarcity and changes in consumer preferences that have created the need to reformulate recipes quickly, source from new suppliers, and increase imports—all of which contribute to increased risks.

Due to climate change and shifting environmental factors we are seeing crop failures, and new bacteria and antimicrobial resistance to foodborne pathogens, which increase the cost of managing food safety. As consumers demand greater transparency and look to place more trust in the food chain, changing buyer habits further compound these challenges by putting a greater onus on food handling, production, manufacturing, and supply companies to provide more education to consumers about foodborne illnesses.

Recalls are the biggest threat to a brand’s profitability and reputation, and this threat is growing. According to FDA reports, recalls increased by 700% in 2022, with undeclared allergens being the leading cause for the last five years. The Food Safety Authority in the UK tells a similar story with undeclared allergens accounting for 84 of the 150 recalls last year, followed by salmonella, listeria, and foreign body contamination.

As food regulations become more complex to navigate, it is now essential to reassess the industry’s approach to managing risk. Protocols such as VACCP and TACCP are regularly used as part of a solid food defense program to identify risks. But the traditional approach of relying solely on regulations and compliance-based systems is no longer sufficient to ensure food safety in today’s complex, volatile and globalized food supply chains. Now is the time to implement a more holistic and dynamic risk-based approach to managing food safety more effectively.

What Is a Risk-Based Approach to Food Safety?

A risk-based approach allows the industry to proactively identify potential food safety risks and take appropriate measures to mitigate them, rather than simply responding to problems as they arise. For example, mature food businesses are building on food safety management systems with food safety audits to identify and manage risk to stay ahead of the curve. A risk-based approach helps underpin the continuous improvement process and, by doing so, demonstrates the ability of a company to be a trusted partner in the global food supply chain.

One of the key aspects of a risk-based approach to managing food safety is proactive intervention and control, using relevant data analysis stored in a cloud-based platform. All stakeholders need access to accurate and actionable data during risk assessment and management to make informed decisions. However, there are many barriers to accessing risk-related data for smaller operators, many of which are still working in a largely manual way.

Data must be collated from across the business, and multiple data sources need to be collected and appropriately analyzed to protect both the brand and public health. It is estimated that we are at least 10 years away from any type of interoperability of industry data, which will allow better transparency and visibility of risk across the supply chain.

Stay Ahead of Emerging Legislation

Visibility of the emerging legislation in source countries of ingredients and raw materials is critical, as are contingency sourcing plans and good risk analysis protocols. Food integrity needs to be a standing agenda point as part of internal meetings, and ESG policies need to be visibly delivered. The industry needs to ensure that it is aware of changes in regulations that could impact the safety and quality of its products through horizon scanning tools. There is also an onus on the industry to make its risk assessments more dynamic to incorporate change at a frequency that is appropriate for risk evaluation with effective crisis management plans in place.

Supply Chain Management Is Critical

Sourcing raw materials and ingredients across supply chains requires best practices. You must ensure that your supply chain partners and suppliers know how to manage a crisis and that emerging risks are shared across the supply chain. Quality, food safety, and regulatory divisions must actively participate in risk assessments and receive relevant data and communication. ESG policies also need to include the supply chain; leaders in this space need to be able to verify that these policies are delivering.

Marketing claims must be vetted and aligned with regulations and markets where products are sold. Procurement, supply chain and communication, and external partners such as NGOs and consumer associations are important groups to involve in risk profiling and ongoing management. While managing emerging issues and horizon scanning is critical, it is also important to remain vigilant on the basics, as most food safety and allergen incidents are known risks.

Detecting Food Fraud

Opportunistic food fraud cases are rising in the high food inflation market, with recent examples including everything from adulterated honey to the mislabeling of beef. To deter food fraud, businesses need to focus on risk-based auditing and testing through sampling programs. Knowing your supply chain, shopping around safely, being vigilant about ingredients and specifications, utilizing training, and building awareness and readiness are imperative to deter food fraud and create a culture of confidence and greater food safety.

Think Differently About Managing Risk

Now is the time for the food industry to reassess its approach to managing risk. A risk-based approach focusing on prevention, continuous improvement, and stakeholder collaboration is necessary to ensure a safe and secure food supply chain in an increasingly complex and challenging environment. The industry must prioritize data accessibility and accuracy, have a crisis management plan, be aware of emerging legislation, and include ESG policies in its risk management strategies. By focusing on risk-based auditing and testing, the industry can deter food fraud and create a culture of confidence.

The probability of eliminating all risks is very low, so the food industry must pivot and be agile to challenge the traditional approaches to managing food safety. It is time to think differently about managing risk and adopt new practices that promote prevention and collaboration.

April 11, 2023

Highlights from Food Safety Tech’s Hazards Conference

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

The Food Safety Tech’s Hazards Conference + CFI Think Tank “Industry & Academia Advancing Food Safety Practices, Technology and Research” took place April 3-5 in Columbus, Ohio. The event offered two days of practical education on the detection, mitigation, control and regulation of key food hazards, followed by discussion geared toward identifying gaps for research and innovation.

Sandra Eskin, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA FSIS, opened the program to discuss the agency’s proposed Salmonella in poultry framework. She highlighted the need for a more comprehensive approach that includes incentives to bring down the Salmonella load in birds entering the slaughterhouse, enhanced monitoring of safety measures within the facility, and enforceable product standards for raw poultry products.

Day one continued with a focus on Salmonella and Listeria. Barb Masters, VP of Regulatory Policy at Tyson Foods presented “Salmonella: What We’ve Learned and Remaining Gaps in Detection and Mitigation.” Masters highlighted key gaps in Salmonella detection, mitigation and research including:

Correlating what comes from the farm to what is entering a plant
Potential benefits of quantification testing
A better understanding of products that have the highest levels of Salmonella
Identification of virulence factors of different serotypes
The need for rapid testing methods that can be used at the plant level

Sanja Ilic, Ph.D., presented findings on the risks and most effective mitigation methods for listeria in hydroponic systems, followed by a session from Stacy Vernon, Ph.D., on recent listeria outbreaks in RTE meats and ice cream.

Attorneys Bill Marler, founder of Marler Clark, and Shawn Stevens of the Food Industry Counsel opened day two with an overview of the legal and financial risks of food safety hazards. The program continued with a focus on detection and mitigation of pathogens and biofilms.

Session Highlights

Application of Ozone for Decontamination of Fresh Produce with Al Baroudi, Ph.D., VP of Quality Assurance and Food Safety, The Cheesecake Factory, and Ahmed Yousef, Ph.D., Professor and Researcher with the Department of Food Science & Technology, OSU

Estimating Mycotoxin Exposure in Guatemala and Nigeria with Ariel Garsow, Ph.D., Food Safety Technical Specialist at the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN)

Mitigating the Risks of Salmonella and Listeria in Your Facility & Products with Sanjay Gummalla of the American Frozen Food Institute, and Rashmi Rani, Senior Manager of Food Safety and Quality Assurance, Schwan’s Foods

How to Use Whole Genome Sequencing in Operations To Improve Food Safety and Root Cause Analysis with Fabien Robert, Head of Zone AMS, Nestlé

Biofilm Prevention and Control Practices with Charles Giambrone, Food Safety Manager, Rochester Midland

On April 5, attendees joined the Ohio State University Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention (CFI), founded and directed by Barbara Kowalcyk, for its annual “Think Tank.” The program featured student research presentations and an “Einstein Lunch” that brought members of industry together with graduate students and OSU researchers to identify gaps in research in the areas of pathogen detection and mitigation, handwashing and mycotoxins.

“We’re hoping this is the first of future collaborations with CFI and Food Safety Tech, where we have industry and academia presenting together,” said Rick Biros, founder of Food Safety Tech, the Food Safety Consortium and the Food Safety Tech Hazards Conference series. “This is something I feel both academia and industry benefit from, and I look forward to working with Barbara and CFI in the future.”

“I learned a lot myself, and it was great to see this program come together,” said Kowalcyk. “I want to thank the presenters, attendees and all the people who worked behind the scenes to make this event happen.”

Scenes from Food Safety Hazards Conference + CFI Thinktank

March 21, 2023

FDA Releases Listeriosis Prevention Strategy for Soft Fresh Queso Fresco Cheese

No Comments

Between 2014-2017, the FDA’s Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation (CORE) network investigated five listeriosis outbreaks linked to the consumption of soft fresh queso fresco type (QFT) cheeses. Most recently, in 2021 CORE investigated an outbreak linked to soft fresh QFT cheeses that sickened 13 people. In response, the FDA has released a summary of a new strategy aimed at reducing foodborne outbreaks and illness associated with the consumption of soft fresh Queso Fresco type cheeses.

The agency noted that, historically QFT cheese-related outbreaks were found to be associated with unpasteurized milk; however, recent investigations have included cheeses made from pasteurized milk with contamination occurring during the cheese making process.

The prevention strategy is based on review of the outbreak findings, historical data, and engagements with industry and other stakeholders, and includes:

Prioritizing inspections with environmental sampling at soft fresh QFT manufacturing firms.
Engaging with state partners to increase sampling of QFT cheese at retail operations in the U.S. for the presence of L. monocytogenes.
Developing and distributing a publication that outlines the potential causes of recent listeriosis outbreaks in soft cheeses and a fact sheet that describes requirements for Listeria control in cheese manufacturing.
Collaborating with states and other food safety partners to disseminate training and education materials to producers and consumers of soft fresh QFT.

By implementing these activities, the FDA hopes to:

Ensure that the cheese industry is aware of regulatory requirements applicable to the production of QFT.
Enhance compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements by producers of QFT.
Verify through inspections and sampling that producers of QFT are adhering to those requirements.

As part of the prevention strategy the FDA has also released a fact sheet to help manufacturers of soft queso fresco-type cheeses better understand food safety risks the can occur during production. The fact sheet also identifies food safety resources available to manufacturers.

March 20, 2023

From the Editor’s Desk

Call For Abstracts: 2023 Food Safety Consortium

No Comments

Are you ready to share your knowledge, experience or research with fellow food safety and quality assurance professionals? Food Safety Tech is requesting abstracts for the 11^th Annual Food Safety Consortium, which will take place October 16-18, 2023, at the Hilton in Parsippany, New Jersey.

We are accepting abstracts for educational presentations, panel discussions and Posters for a new Poster Session. All abstracts, which are due by March 31, will be judged based on the educational value.

Submit abstracts here.

Presented by Food Safety Tech, the Food Safety Consortium is a business-to-business conference that brings together food safety and quality assurance professionals for education, networking and discussion geared toward solving the key challenges facing the food safety industry today.

In addition to two full days of high-level panel discussions, this year’s program will include a second Food Safety Hazards track. These “Boots on the Ground” sessions build on the success of Food Safety Tech’s virtual Food Safety Hazards program by providing two days of education on the detection, mitigation, control and regulation of key pathogen, pest, chemical and physical food hazards.

Call for Abstracts Now Open

Also new this year is a strategic co-location with the Cannabis Quality Conference, as well as several pre-conference workshops to be held on October 16, including:

Advanced Listeria Workshop
Food Safety Recalls Workshop
Food Safety Auditor Re-certification Training
Infused Products Workshop

Registration Opening Soon!

“We are bringing two great conferences together under one roof,” says Rick Biros, president of Innovative Publishing and director of the Food Safety Consortium. “The Food Safety Consortium will continue its strategic meeting of the minds format, but we are complementing that with the practical, boots-on-the-ground Food Safety Hazards track. Co-location with the CQC allows attendees to take advantage of additional education on product testing and quality assurance in the burgeoning cannabis market, as well as preconference workshops delving into infused product safety and compliance that will appeal to both food safety and cannabis professionals.”

For sponsorship and exhibitor inquiries, contact RJ Palermo, Director of Sales. Stay tuned for registration and early bird specials.

March 14, 2023

Food Safety Think Tank

It is Time for Industry to Embrace Whole Genome Sequencing

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) has become a powerful tool to track the origins of foodborne illness, but if industry views WGS simply as a tool for regulators, it is missing out on a valuable instrument to improve food safety within its facilities. Join Fabien Robert, head of zone AMS for Nestlé Quality Assurance centres, and Food Safety Tech on April 3-5 at Ohio State University, as we take a closer look at:

How WGS can help industry mitigate food safety risks and enhance root cause analysis
How to use WGS in your operations to improve food safety

The Food Safety Tech’s Hazards Conference + CFI Think Tank brings together leading minds in industry and academia for two days of practical education on the detection, mitigation, control and regulation of key food hazards, followed by discussion geared toward identifying gaps for research and innovation.

In person and virtual registration options available

Additional speakers include:

Biofilm Prevention and Control Practices

Charles Giambrone, Food Safety Manager, Rochester Midland

Giambrone received his M.S. degree in Microbiology from Rutgers University in 1978, where his research focus was applied and environmental microbiology. In his current and previous roles as VP & Sr. Technical Support Manager for Rochester Midland Corp, he provides applied research and technical support in the whole area of food safety and sanitation including processing and preparation, membrane cleaning, and water treatment systems plus supervision of R & D projects. Giambrone has a broad and in-depth expertise in the areas of hygiene, disinfection, and biocides. This includes working with systems to remove or prevent biofilm formation in food processing and water system lines as well as other applications.

The USDA’s Proposed Approach to Salmonella Control in Poultry Products

Sandra Eskin, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA

Sandra Eskin leads the Office of Food Safety at the USDA, overseeing the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which has regulatory oversight for ensuring that meat, poultry and egg products are safe, wholesome and accurately labeled. Prior to joining USDA, Eskin was the Project Director for Food Safety at The Pew Charitable Trusts in Washington, D.C. She also served as the Deputy Director of the Produce Safety Project (PSP), a Pew-funded initiative at Georgetown University from 2008-2009.

RTE Meats and Ice Cream – Mitigating Listeria Risks & Responding to Contamination

Stacy Vernon, Food Safety Specialist & Project Manager, CIFT

Stacy Vernon is the Food Safety and Operations Program Manager at CIFT, where she works alongside food manufactures of all sizes to help them achieve their food safety goals and objectives. She delivers business solutions and technical expertise to her clients as they work towards achieving, maintaining and improving their regulatory and third party food safety certification compliance. Stacy has over 15 years of experience in the food and beverages industry as prior to joining CIFT in 2016, she worked in food safety and quality assurance management roles for Smithfield Foods, Inc. and Rudolph Foods Company.

View the full agenda

Listeria in the Retail Food Environment

Janet Buffer, Center for Foodborne Illness & Prevention, OSU

Janet Buffer’s expertise spans across multidisciplinary medical and clinical research centers, higher education institutions, extension agencies, and regulatory departments. Throughout her 28-year professional career, Janet has served in various capacities; relentlessly utilizing her unique skill sets and ability to connect with students and consumers, to thoroughly educate and actively train those around her. She has spearheaded food safety information accuracy efforts and prioritized food production and food safety regulatory compliance in the healthcare and business spheres above all else. All the while, advising and aiding in corporate administration and the improvement of food technologies.

Application of Ozone for Decontamination of Fresh Produce

Al Baroudi, Ph.D., Vice President of Quality Assurance & Food Safety, The Cheesecake Factory

In addition to his current role, Dr. Baroudi has conducted workshops, published White Papers and introduced the HACCP program to developing countries on behalf of the U.S. government. He is the recipient of Borden’s “President Award”, the Sani “Food Safety Champion Award”, and the “Outstanding Food Safety Program Innovation Award,” and the Southern California IFT “Distinguished Achievement Award.” In 2022, NR News named, Dr. Baroudi as one of the top 50 most influential restaurant executives in the country, and The NRA presented him their inaugural Lifetime Achievement Award for “Outstanding Leader in Food Safety.” He was instrumental in passing the Food Facilities Sanitization Bill “AB 1427” in the California State Assembly that cleared the way for the ozone to be approved in California Cal Code (2012).

Ahmed Yousef, Ph.D., Department of Food Science & Technology, Ohio State University

Dr. Yousef earned his Ph.D. in Food Science from University of Wisconsin-Madison. He worked as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison before joining Ohio State as an Assistant Professor in 1991. Since the late 1990s, Dr. Yousef and his research team have worked to develop methods to pasteurize shell eggs and to decontaminate fresh produce while maintaining products’ fresh qualities. His ozone research led to developing methods to decontaminate spinach, apples, and other fresh produce. As a result of this research, Dr. Yousef established the largest ozone research laboratory in the U.S. at Ohio State.

View the full agenda and register here.

March 7, 2023

From the Editor’s Desk

Detection, Mitigation and Control of Listeria and Salmonella: What We Know and Where We’re Heading

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

The detection and mitigation of foodborne illness-causing pathogens continue to be a challenge for all aspects of the food industry from farm to fork. Join Food Safety Tech and the Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention at the Fawcett Center at The Ohio State University on April 3-5 in Columbus, Ohio, for three days of food safety hazards education.

The USDA’s Proposed Approach to Salmonella Control in Poultry Products

Sandra Eskin, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA

Salmonella: What We’ve Learned and Remaining Gaps in Detection and Mitigation

Barbara Masters, Vice President, Regulatory Policy, Food & Agriculture, Tyson Foods

Dr. Masters is the Vice President of Regulatory Policy, Food and Agriculture at Tyson Foods, Inc., where she provides regulatory vision and support for food safety and quality policies and procedures. She serves on the Board of Directors for the Partnership for Food Safety Education and the Steering Committee for the Global Food Safety Initiative. Dr. Masters spent nine years as a Senior Policy Advisor at Olsson Frank Weeda, where she worked closely to advise with the meat and poultry industry to ensure regulatory compliance, and served as Administrator of the USDA FSIS.

The Legal and Financial Risks of Food Safety Hazards

Bill Marler, Food Safety Attorney, Marler Clark, The Food Safety Law Firm

An accomplished attorney and national expert in food safety, William (Bill) Marler has become the most prominent foodborne illness lawyer in America and a major force in food policy in the U.S. and around the world. Marler Clark, The Food Safety Law Firm, has represented thousands of individuals in claims against food companies whose contaminated products have caused life altering injury and even death.

Shawn Stevens, attorney with the Food Industry Counsel, LLC

Stevens is a nationally recognized food attorney and founding member of the Food Industry Counsel who has dedicated his firm to “Going All-In for Food and All-Out for Those Who Produce It.” He works closely throughout the U.S. and abroad with food industry clients (including the world’s largest growers, processors, restaurant chains, distributors and grocers) helping them protect their brand by complying with FDA and USDA food safety regulations, reducing food safety risk, managing recalls, and defending high-profile food safety cases.

Mitigating the Risks of Salmonella and Listeria in Your Facility & Products

Sanjay Gummalla, Vice President, Regulatory & Technical Affairs, American Frozen Food Institute

Gummalla has broad industry experience in food science, food safety, and nutrition. He is in the forefront of coordinating Listeria monocytogenes prevention and control programs and policy efforts on behalf of the frozen food industry. Prior to joining the American Frozen Food Institute, Gummalla served as VP of product development at Zentis NA. He currently serves on key committees representing the industry, including advisor on the U.S. Agricultural Trade Advisory Committee for Processed Foods, a committee member on IAFP’s Journal of Food Protection, President of the Capital Area Food Protection Association, and chair of the International Food Science Certification Commission.

Rashmi Rani, Senior Manager of Food Safety and Quality Assurance, Schwan’s Home Delivery

Rani has more than 18 years of experience in the food and beverage industry. In her current role she manages food safety programs, QMS, SQF of Florence facility, USDA and FDA compliance, and training. She works with cross functional teams on continuous improvement projects including reduction of nonconformance product cost and rework cost reduction. Prior to joining Schwan’s, Rani worked with AB-Inbev, BakeCo, McCormick Inc. and Wornick food (Baxter’s North America).

Registration is now open

Application of Ozone for Decontamination of Fresh Produce

Al Baroudi, Ph.D., Vice President of Quality Assurance & Food Safety, The Cheesecake Factory

Ahmed Yousef, Ph.D., Department of Food Science & Technology, Ohio State University

Biofilm Prevention and Control Practices

Charles Giambrone, Food Safety Manager, Rochester Midland

View the full agenda and register here.

February 8, 2023

Food Safety Think Tank

Food Safety Tech Hazards + CFI Think Tank Coming to Ohio April 3-5

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

The Food Safety Tech’s Hazards Conference Series + CFI Think Tank, “Industry & Academia Advancing Food Safety Practices, Technology and Research,” will take place April 3-5, 2023, at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.

The program brings together leading minds in industry, academia, standards and regulation to provide in-depth education and discussion on the most significant pathogenic and chemical risks facing the food industry today.

Building on the popularity of the Food Safety Tech Hazards virtual series, the in-person event will offer practical guidance and cutting-edge research on the detection, mitigation, control and regulation of the most significant foodborne illness risks.

The CFI Food Safety Think Tank on April 5 will bring food safety experts together to take a deeper look at the hazards discussed during the first two days of the conference. Participants will brainstorm in small groups to develop a roadmap on research, innovation, policy, and prevention measures that need to be taken to make our food supply safer in the future.

“Food safety hazards continue to be a challenge for all aspects of the food industry from farm to fork.” said Rick Biros, publisher of Food Safety Tech and director of the Food Safety Consortium conference and Food Safety Tech Hazards series. “The detection, mitigation and control of food safety hazards issues must be discussed among peers and best practices must be shared, something you can’t do virtually. The human connection is so important for conference attendees. Whether it’s a random connection over lunch, a one-on-one question with a speaker after a presentation or a seat next to a new friend in a learning session—connecting with others is what makes events so valuable. We are excited to bring this program, designed to help facilitate this much needed critical thinking and sharing of best practices, to OSU.”

Learn more and register here.

For sponsorship and exhibit inquiries, contact RJ Palermo, Director of Sales.

About Food Safety Tech

Food Safety Tech is a digital media community for food industry professionals interested in food safety and quality. We inform, educate and connect food manufacturers and processors, retail & food service, food laboratories, growers, suppliers and vendors, and regulatory agencies with original, in-depth features and reports, curated industry news and user-contributed content, and live and virtual events that offer knowledge, perspectives, strategies and resources to facilitate an environment that fosters safer food for consumers.

About Food Safety Tech Hazards

Launched in 2020, the Food Safety Tech Hazards series brings together industry leaders, researchers and regulators to provide in-depth education and discussion on the detection, mitigation, control and regulations of the most significant pathogenic and chemical risks facing the food industry today.

February 6, 2023

Understanding the True Purpose of Environmental Monitoring Programs

By Wendy Wade White

No Comments

Salmonella and Listeria are among the most prevalent foodborne pathogens, causing untold illnesses and a significant number of recalls each year. Experts have determined that the source of this contamination often comes from the manufacturing facility. Five years ago, the FDA published, Draft Guidance for Industry: Control of Listeria Monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods (we’ve also been promised a similar guidance document for Salmonella). The Food Safety Modernization Act’s Preventive Controls for Human Foods also contains provisions for evaluation of environmental pathogens in a ready-to-eat hazard analysis.

Employee in cheese plant — A product’s risk level varies based on the amount of pre-packaging exposure to the environment and direct handling by employees.

The challenge with these pathogens is that they are often found in the surrounding environment, and once they enter a facility and become entrenched, these residential pathogens can cause sporadic contamination that is very hard to pinpoint. The best way to prevent this type of contamination is to design and implement a robust Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP), and many manufacturers have added these surveillance programs to their food safety systems.

Unfortunately, many do not understand that the true purpose of EMPs is to seek and destroy residential microorganisms of concern that are living inside facilities before they have a chance to proliferate and contaminate products. This key control involves swabbing surfaces around the facility in the hopes of finding any of these residential pathogens or spoilage organisms. Having a robust, written EMP that includes clear action levels for unsatisfactory results and corresponding corrective actions will help manage pathogen positives and mitigate disaster.

Defining the EMP Scope and Balancing Resources

When designing an EMP, it’s easy to understand how expensive they can become. The question is, “How extensive does your EMP really need to be?” It’s best to start with a risk assessment to understand the program size and then estimate a realistic budget.

These programs are more necessary for ready-to-eat facilities, especially ones in which the post-processed product is exposed to the environment before being safely packaged. Risk is determined by how much pre-packaging exposure the product receives, the amount of direct handling by employees, and the condition of the equipment and surrounding facility. Use this risk analysis to determine how much sampling must be done to properly survey the facility. The scope of the program (and therefore the budget) must be balanced with the risk (severity and likelihood) of contamination.

It is then important to understand the microorganism(s) of concern for your products, facility, and processes. For example, should you stick to true pathogen testing or indicator organisms, such as Aerobic Plate Count (APC or TPC), Enterobacter, or Total Coliform tests? If you do test for pathogens, Listeria is more appropriate for wet processing environments and Salmonella better for dry processing; you might need to test for both. Sometimes its beneficial to evaluate spoilage organisms, such as yeast and mold testing, depending on the risk. For example, a ketchup facility may be less worried about residential pathogens than osmophilic yeast.

Subscribe to the Food Safety Tech weekly newsletter to stay up to date on the latest news and information on food safety and quality.

Next, one must determine the frequency and number of swabs that should be taken. Most facilities are large and contain thousands of potential hiding spots for microorganisms. For this reason, understanding your facility’s risk and available resources, and prioritizing the swabbing site selection can help maximize efforts. Will a dozen swabs every quarter be sufficient? What is your level of confidence that the sampling program is sufficient to find any hidden biological hazards? Being logical about the target microorganisms and swab frequency/number can help control the budget and allow for better use of resources to accomplish the true EMP goal, minimizing risk to your product.

Creating an Acceptable Site List

Just as important as defining the microbe of concern and the frequency/number of swabs is creating a good site list. An EMP expert once advised to, “think like Salmonella.” Where is our target pathogen/microbe of concern most likely to be hiding? Factors to consider are potential ingress points (roof leaks, employee shoes), opportunities for travel (water/air flow points like drains, foot or wheeled traffic routes), and likely niches (cracks and crevasses). Also important are areas that are often missed by the sanitation crew due to inaccessibility.

Organizing surfaces into zones is a good means of prioritizing swabbing. Zone 1 (food-contact surfaces) and Zone 2 (surfaces adjacent to food-contact surfaces) are cleaned often and not as likely to harbor hidden caches of microbes. It’s important to conduct routine verification testing of these equipment surfaces to evaluate the performance of sanitation, but this is somewhat different than the true purpose of EMP, which is to seek and destroy residential biological hazards. Zone 3 surfaces (those inside production areas but not immediately near food-contact surfaces) are the best focus for an EMP site list, and most of the surface swabbing should be concentrated in these areas.

Consider areas within the facility that could harbor microorganisms and allow biofilms to develop. Cracks, areas regularly exposed to water, and places that are very hard to reach/clean are all likely candidates. These include underneath equipment frames, inside motor casings and pumps, deep inside drains, underneath ramps and stairs and inside air vents/AC units. Cast a wide net, ensuring that all areas are rotated through the swabbing list, while prioritizing the high-risk locations.

The main stumbling block that managers face when designing EMP is challenging themselves to find problems, because once you find an issue, you must deal with the consequences.

Having a Game Plan for Unsatisfactory Results

The best way to mitigate the fear of success (finding a residential pathogen or microbial issue) is to be prepared with an action plan. This starts by defining what constitutes an unacceptable result. Pathogen results are easy (the presence of a pathogen is always unsatisfactory) but the quantitative results from indicator organisms can be tricky. How high do your Enterobacter or yeast/mold results need to be before they trigger action? What is that action?

Family in grocery store — Environmental monitoring programs are most needed in facilities that process and package ready to eat foods.

It’s all too common for unsatisfactory swabs to reemerge a few weeks after initial corrective actions because the true source of the contamination wasn’t found. Requirements for EMP corrective actions are often limited to 1) Reclean 2) Reswab and 3) Retrain. This is extremely limited and doesn’t really address the root cause. Vector swabbing is a great tool to identify root cause, as well as conduct an evaluation of variables that could spread contamination. For example, Listeria found in a drain might have originated by an unsealed wall/floor junction, a perfect microbial niche. When the crack is flooded, the biofilm periodically releases fresh contamination to spread across the floor and into the original identified drain.

Different results should trigger different responses. Certainly, reclean/retest/retrain is a smart approach, but finding the true source of the contamination and taking steps to eliminate it is vital. This might involve special cleaning, such as fogging or hiring a consultant. It might require a redesign of equipment or replace and repair of damaged or vulnerable areas. Ensure that all unsatisfactory results involve an investigation, graph results to identify trends, and communication of findings to all appropriate stakeholders.

EMP Review and Reevaluation

EMP doesn’t have to be a static program, and there’s no “one-size fits all” approach. It’s recommended to design your program based on risk and the above-mentioned variables, implement, and monitor the results. If you never find unsatisfactory results, you might need to increase your frequency/number of swabs or reevaluate your site list. Are you properly challenging yourself? Are you REALLY trying to find problems or just going through the motions to satisfy some requirement? You know your products, facility, and employees and should be able to make these determinations. Don’t be afraid to revise your EMP as a result of historical data and changing variables inside the facility. This might involve increasing your frequency/number of swabs, but the reverse might also be appropriate. Sometimes EMP can be scaled back, and those resources better used elsewhere.

The best approach to a well-written EMP is to understand the scope by considering the risk and applicable variables, employing thoughtful and risk-based logic to the design, and planning for potential unsatisfactory results with thorough corrective actions. Be mindful the true purpose of Environmental Monitoring Programs, which is to seek and destroy harmful microorganisms of concern inside your facility. A robust EMP, coupled with proper training, implementation, monitoring/trending, and communication, will go a long way towards peace of mind that your facility isn’t harboring a potential, biological hazard threat.

Lesson Learned: Regulatory Requirements

Lesson Learned: Sanitation Program Shortcomings

Lesson Learned: Poor Sanitary Design

Lesson Learned: Poor Environmental Monitoring Programs

Lesson Learned: Lack of Employee Knowledge

Lesson Learned: Not Reassessing Programs

What Is a Risk-Based Approach to Food Safety?

Stay Ahead of Emerging Legislation

Supply Chain Management Is Critical

Detecting Food Fraud

Think Differently About Managing Risk

Session Highlights

Scenes from Food Safety Hazards Conference + CFI Thinktank

Defining the EMP Scope and Balancing Resources

Creating an Acceptable Site List

Having a Game Plan for Unsatisfactory Results

EMP Review and Reevaluation

How We Use Cookies