Tag Archives: partnerships

By Mitzi Baum

At Stop Foodborne Illness, or STOP, we know about collaborative partnerships. For more than 26 years, affiliating with like-minded organizations to prevent foodborne disease is the mainstay of our success and continues to provide beneficial results today.

The mission to prevent illness and death due to contaminated food resonates with our allies and aligns with their goals to coordinate and expand efforts. At any given moment, STOP is working with a diverse spectrum of individuals and industries to move the needle on foodborne illness prevention. Today, STOP’s work is focused on constituent services and food safety policy with the overarching goal of public health. Below are examples of current collaborative projects that are uniquely effective.

Alliance to Stop Foodborne Illness

The Alliance to Stop Foodborne Illness (Alliance) is an initiative of STOP, leading food companies, and other organizations committed to the goal of preventing foodborne illness. For 25 years, Stop Foodborne Illness has communicated the compelling personal stories of people and families who have experienced serious foodborne illness or the death of loved ones. The goals of communicating these personal stories are to make clear why food safety must be a central value of the food system and to help motivate people in both the food industry and government to do their best every day to reduce hazards and prevent illness. Through the Alliance, STOP and leading food companies are collaborating to expand the reach and impact of personal stories to strengthen food safety cultures and prevent foodborne illness.

The Alliance to Stop Foodborne Illness has a mission to:

Forge partnerships between STOP and leading food companies to build trust and support strong food safety cultures.
Collaboratively design and implement innovative, well-tailored programs that make compelling personal stories an integral motivational element of food safety culture and training programs.
Expand the reach and impact of personal stories through outreach to the small- and medium-size companies that are key contributors to modern supply chains.

Current Alliance members: Costco, Cargill, Conagra Brands, Coca-Cola, Yum! Brands, Nestle USA, LGMA, Empirical Foods, Maple Leaf Foods, Mars, Walmart, Wegmans, and Amazon.

Constituent/Advocate Engagement

Working with those who have been impacted by severe foodborne illness is base to our prevention work. We engage our constituent/advocates in many projects and continually seek additional opportunities.

STOP’s new website houses a navigational map for anyone who is in crisis, post-crisis or managing the long-term consequences of surviving severe foodborne disease. This structured, informational composition was created by constituent/advocates that are sharing their lived experiences. This incisive work provides incredible insight into the journey that may lie ahead and how to manage the potential labyrinth.
With our partner, Center for Science in the Public Interest, we have created a national platform for survivors of salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis to speak about their experiences surviving these diseases.
The Alliance has created multiple working partnerships with individual constituent/advocates.
STOP’s speaker’s bureau provides opportunities for our constituent/advocates to share their personal stories with large groups in person or virtually.
A recent college graduate who is a constituent/advocate is leading the creation of a new program for the organization.

Dave Theno Fellowship

Dave Theno Fellowship is a partnership with Michigan State University (MSU) that provides a recent public health, food science, animal science or political science graduate (undergraduate or graduate degree) the opportunity to conduct two distinct research projects, engage in STOP programming, participate on coalition calls and earn a certificate in food safety from MSU.

STOP is working with MSU to create a new course for its Online Food Safety Program that focuses on food safety failures and the impact of those system breakdowns on consumers.

Early Detection of Foodborne Illness Research

In conjunction with North Carolina State University, Michigan State University, Eastern Carolina University and University of Michigan, STOP is engaging in research to identify gaps in knowledge and application of the 2017 Infectious Disease Society of America Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Diagnosis and Management of Infectious Diarrhea (IDSA) for healthcare workers. Our early findings have identified that most healthcare workers do not know about nor follow the IDSA guidelines, which include reporting of cases of infectious diarrhea and identification of the pathogen for identification and prevention of potential widespread outbreaks.

To support this research, STOP is completing a systematic literature review with the intent to publish.

Recall Modernization Working Group

STOP has been convening a group of experts comprised of individuals from academia, Alliance members, external industry partners, food industry associations, public health organizations, and industry consultants to deep dive into food recalls to define the current landscape, discuss systemic changes necessary for expedient and efficient execution of recalls for both industry and consumers and develop recommendations on how to accomplish those changes.

Everyone is susceptible to foodborne illness; thus, we need a varied, coordinated approach. Each of these partnerships helps our colleagues meet their goals while promoting prevention of foodborne illness by straddling both industry and consumer focused work. Executing our mission takes many forms and that requires diversity in partnerships, a shared vision and tangible, sustainable results.

May 14, 2020

COVID-19 Puts More Emphasis on Supply Chain Visibility and Data Quality: A Conversation with Angela Fernandez of GS1 US

By Maria Fontanazza

No Comments

The food industry is adapting in completely new ways as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Retailers are scrambling to keep certain items on store shelves and manufacturers are adjusting their production strategies based on realistic and ever-shifting needs. In a recent discussion with Food Safety Tech, Angela Fernandez, VP of community engagement at GS1 US and FST editorial advisory board member, talks about how companies can improve relationships with trading partners in the face of COVID-19.

Food Safety Tech: What issues do you see happening in the supply chain right now?

Angela Fernandez: Our food supply chain is experiencing overwhelming demand. As an organization that collaborates with both the retail grocery and foodservice sectors to solve supply chain challenges, we’re working with industry on how we can make our supply chain more efficient in the short term, and make it more resilient in the long term.

Consumers are frustrated by empty shelves and the demand created by the pandemic is changing the movement of products. Right now, products are not always accounted for in transit, there are production issues depending on category, and food produced for foodservice outlets like restaurants, schools, and hotels can’t always be easily diverted to a supermarket. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is lifting restrictions on the sale of food so that it is possible for items that may have been produced for foodservice “sale” to be sold in a supermarket.

FST: In what particular areas are you seeing inventory shortages that are impacting retailers and suppliers?

Fernandez: We’re seeing a couple of different dynamics. For suppliers that produce products for both retail and foodservice channels, we see a shift in reducing production on foodservice items and an increasing manufacturing on their retail product lines. We’re also seeing foodservice suppliers that have not serviced the retail channel previously are now looking to establish new relationships with retailers and recession-proof their businesses. This is not happening as fast as consumer demand for perimeter products like dairy and produce, so we see shortages and products expiring before they can be sold to these new retail customers.

Additionally, food product variation and customization is decreasing. If you think about your own experience going to the grocery store today, or arranging for a delivery, you’re seeing fewer flavors of a product available and fewer brand names you’re familiar with. Suppliers are continuing to shift back to mainstream production of their core product lines just to keep store shelves stocked. I think that’s what we’re going to continue to see—the reduction of customized and specialty items.

For retailers, they have a prioritized the focus on ramping up their e-commerce strategy to relieve the pressure on their stores and service more consumers online. This poses a particular challenge when retailers have limited IT resources and a need to set up a new item supplied from a new foodservice manufacturer that is trying to divert their products to the retail channel to support the demand. And in some cases unfortunately, foodservice suppliers maybe unable to redirect some of their products due to the fact they are not marked for individual sale with the traditional U.P.C. and other retailer requirements.

FST: Is there a better way that food companies, retailers and suppliers can work together during this pandemic?

Fernandez: Food companies can improve the way they work together if they focus on supply chain visibility and data quality. Visibility is key as suppliers are ramping up production on those mainstream products and trying to get them to the proper locations when retailers need them. That’s where I would look at GS1 Standards such as the Global Trade Item Number (GTIN) for product identification and the advance ship notice (ASN) transaction, which lets a partner know when something is ready and being shipped. Global data standards enable the visibility to what delivery a retailer can expect and when, and being able to account for that inventory once it’s inside the DC [distribution center] location so that they can update an online platform. This can help ensure that a retailer has accurate information for the consumer and ability minimize the substitutions that can occur.

The second piece is the data quality aspect—making sure we have the right information around those core items that we are trying to keep stocked on the shelves for consumers who are purchasing those items today. The retail grocery and foodservice industries have been working on making product data more complete and accurate for a number of years, but we’ve seen a heightened focus on it now, knowing that consumers are relying on digital information to be correct since they cannot see the product in person right now. Expanding the data set for the consumer is critical.

FST: What is GS1 US doing right now to help customers better navigate today’s environment?

Fernandez: GS1 US is helping trading partners work with the capabilities they have to implement greater supply chain visibility, improve data quality and ramp up e-commerce operations. Depending on what was already implemented by the manufacturer or retailer, we’re looking at how we can leverage existing capabilities to help partners work together more efficiently to meet demand. How we can help connect the physical product and the digital data, knowing how important that is online right now, not only for trading partners but also for consumers?

One example of how GS1 Standards can be extended is if a retailer is looking to shorten their supply chain and purchase from a local farm. Standards provide a blueprint for supply chain partners to work together in a consistent way. We want to help these companies leverage and extend the standards instead of proprietary systems and abandoning useful processes for item setup, data exchange and point of sale checkout. Those are the types of discussions that we’re having—how GS1 US members can extend the standards that lead to operational efficiency and more easily bring in new partners to help fulfill demand.

March 6, 2017

GFSI 2017: Working for International Partnerships and Global Harmonization

By Food Safety Tech Staff

No Comments

There were several common threads during last week’s GFSI conference—collaboration to build stronger and more transparent food safety systems, international partnerships, and a global supply chain. This year’s event saw a record-breaking turnout, with nearly 1200 industry professionals from 54 countries in attendance.

For the first time, GFSI entered into a public-private partnership with the Mexican National Service of Health, Food safety and Agro-Food Quality (SENASICA) that will help the entities to reach the goal of continuous improvement in food safety management systems. GFSI and SENASICA will sign a letter of intent this week in Mexico City. The partnership will focus on enabling private schemes to act under Mexican regulation (in addition to the Certification of the official scheme) to increase the amount of officially certified products. The two entities will also work together to enhance Mexico’s Global Markets Programme. The hope is that the partnership will be a model for other countries and will promote the adoption of third-party certification that facilitates the harmonization of food safety systems and global requirements.

Other highlights included a G30 summit held by 30 countries to talk about food safety and international harmonization; the work between GFSI and Certification Programme Owners to improve auditor performance; and the first GFSI award, which went to Champion Petfoods.

August 2, 2016

Pathogens, Partnerships and FSMA: Where FDA Is Headed

By Maria Fontanazza

No Comments

This year is a big year for food safety at FDA. All seven of the FSMA rules have been finalized, and the first compliance date is right around the corner (compliance with the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule starts in September for large companies). Stephen Ostroff, M.D., just took the helm from Michael Taylor as the agency’s deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine. And finally, FDA is taking a hard line in both improving the tools and methods used to detect outbreaks as well as working with the Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement actions against companies that introduce adulterated foods into the supply chain.

Yesterday Ostroff provided an update on FDA’s recent initiatives and its plan of action to achieve success in FSMA implementation and pathogen detection at the IAFP annual meeting in St. Louis. Ostroff highlighted several tenets of FSMA:

Keys to FSMA success will be dependent upon achieving high rates of compliance
Domestic and import parity
Education before and while regulating (establishment of training and education networks)
Taking a risk-based approach to inspection and planning
Partnerships are critical

Industry can expect three more rulemakings as required by FSMA in the areas of lab accreditation, a reportable food registry and product tracing. In addition, FDA is working on guidances related to the preventive controls, produce, and foreign supplier verification program rules. “We’re tantalizingly close so stay tuned,” Ostroff said.

Expect to see more program alignment with the Office of Regulatory Affairs as well. The inspection and compliance staff will be trained as specialists and there will be horizontal integration of programs between field activity and agency headquarters. Although the next fiscal year will be a transition year, Ostroff is hopeful that changes that need to be made at the agency, along with program alignment, will be in place by fiscal year 2018.

Other notable actions at FDA over the past year include:

In response to the OIG’s conclusion that FDA’s food recall program is not efficient or effective, the agency is ramping up its use of the strategic CORE (Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation) network in order to examine recalls that might not be moving as smoothly or quickly as the agency prefers. FDA is also leveraging greater application of whole genome sequencing (WGS).
GenomeTrakr network and WGS. More than 50,000 genome sequences have been added to the database (largely Salmonella). Ostroff called WGS a game changer that holds the opportunity to more quickly identify problems and detect outbreaks while they’re still quite small. In partnership with the CDC, FDA set up a successful module for WGS of Listeria and the agency hopes to expand the model for use with other pathogens.
Nutrition (Not just what consumers are eating, but how much of it): The move that declared partially hydrogenated oils as no longer GRAS with compliance required by 2018. The agency also issued a final guidance on menu and vending labeling in May, issued levels for arsenic in infant rice cereal, made determination for folic acid fortification in corn/masa, made revisions to nutrition facts labels that takes effect in 2018, issued a draft guidance on voluntary sodium reduction, and will continue to exam the terms “natural” and “healthy”.
Genetic engineering. FDA approval of GE salmon following one of the longest reviews in the history of FDA (20-year review), along with issuing voluntary labeling guidance.
Monitoring antimicrobial resistance through NARMS (National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System). FDA will be collecting antimicrobial sales by species and, in cooperation with USDA, hopes to release farm-based data about antimicrobial use at the farm level.

Ostroff emphasized FDA’s strategic 10-year plan, released this year, pointing to public health as a first priority, maintaining partnerships as a key to success (including re-establishing overseas offices), continuing research as a foundation, and maintaining transparently.

Palmer Orlandi, FDA, Food Labs conference

March 15, 2016

FDA Pushing Proactive, Real-Time Analysis

By Maria Fontanazza

No Comments

Over the past year, FDA has been emphasizing the level of collaboration necessary with industry to drive a more preventive culture of food safety. Much of these efforts surround closely integrated partnerships between federal, state and local stakeholders, including a larger role that laboratories will play in FSMA implementation.

There will be greater reliance on the responsibilities and capabilities of laboratories as a result of the proactive movement in finding points of contamination, before they invade the home of the consumer, in real time. With the convergence of more laboratory analysis and the responsibilities that the FSMA regulations warrant, industry will be relying on the establishment of uniform and standardized lab-related processes and policies in order to bring uniformity and trust to the quality of data being generated and shared, according to Palmer Orlandi, Ph.D., acting chief science officer and research director at FDA’s Office of Food and Veterinary Medicine. Orlandi, speaking at the Food Labs Conference last week, said that FDA is moving in this direction. “The oversights we’re mandating moving forward for data sharing, data reporting and data acceptance are completely equivalent across the board,” he said. FDA is working toward providing more transparency in terms of laboratory oversight and how it intends on working with industry.

Within the five published final FSMA rules there is at least some component of lab support that is necessary. The rule that deals the most with lab involvement, especially laboratory accreditation, is the foreign supplier verification program, because the responsibility falls on the importer to assure and verify safety of the commodity, and this requires the submission of laboratory analysis, said Orlandi.

Palmer Orlandi, FDA, Food Safety Consortium — Palmer Orlandi discusses FSMA and laying the groundwork for data acceptance in lab partnerships at the Food Safety Consortium. WATCH NOW

Currently the majority of FDA’s work effort in the laboratory category falls under compliance program driven sampling, with domestic activities (i.e., inspections) and import activities coming in second and third respectively. Moving forward, environmental driven sampling will play a much larger role, as FSMA places greater emphasis on a risk-based approach and finding issues in real time, directly in the environment.

“We don’t want to be the agency that is just is responding to foodborne outbreaks or responding to problems with industry or farms or any of the commodities,” said Orlandi. “We want to work and become less of an enforcement agency and one of a partner so we can stop problems where they may occur. That involves making partners and leveraging our resources.”

FDA is expanding its responsibility for testing and sampling in the area of surveillance, verification (i.e., preventive controls and import controls), and compliance (i.e., removing adulterated products from the market, enforcement actions, and environmental assessment). The agency is taking a risk-based approach to deploying its resources, and where it does not have the capacity it will be relying on partners for assistance. It is also investing more resources in import testing and the criteria that go into accepting data for import testing, and will be preparing guidance for submission of data.

FDA Vs. USDA: Who Regulates What?
FDA Responsibilities	USDA Responsibilities
Manufacturers, processers, packers, holders, distributors, food transporters Growers of fresh fruits and vegetables, tree nuts and sprouts Dairy products Plant products and spices Grain-based products Seafood (except catfish) Beverages and bottled water Food and color additives Dietary supplements	Meat Poultry Frozen, dried and liquid eggs (FDA regulates whole eggs) Catfish
FDA tests foods for the presence of pesticides, toxic elements, mycotoxins, chemotherapeutics in seafood, and microbial hazards (bacterial, parasitic, viral)

Alliance to Stop Foodborne Illness

Constituent/Advocate Engagement

Dave Theno Fellowship

Early Detection of Foodborne Illness Research

Recall Modernization Working Group

How We Use Cookies