Tag Archives: Supply Chain

Allergens

Key Trends Reinforce Food Allergen Testing Market Across North America

By Saloni Walimbe
No Comments
Allergens

The food allergen testing industry has garnered considerable traction across North America, especially due to the high volume of processed food and beverages consumed daily. Allergens are becoming a significant cause for concern in the present food processing industry worldwide. Food allergies, which refer to abnormal reactions or hypersensitivity produced by the body’s immune system, are considered a major food safety challenge in recent years and are placing an immense burden on both personal and public health.

In 2019, the most common reason behind recalls issued by the USDA FSIS and the FDA was undeclared allergens. In light of this growing pressure, food producers are taking various steps to ensure complete transparency regarding the presence of allergenic ingredients, as well as to mitigate risk from, or possibly even prevent contact with, unintended allergens. One of these steps is food allergen testing.

Allergen detection tests are a key aspect of allergen management systems in food processing plants and are executed at nearly every step of the process. These tests can be carried out on work surfaces, as well as the products, to detect any cross contamination or allergen presence, and to test the effectiveness of a food processing unit’s cleaning measures.
There has been a surge in awareness among consumers about food allergies and tackling the risk of illnesses that may arise from consuming any ingredient. One of the key reasons for a higher awareness is efforts to educate the public. In Canada, for example, May has been designated “Food Allergy Awareness Month”. It is estimated that more than 3 million people in Canada are affected by food allergies.

The size of the global food allergen testing market is anticipated to gain significant momentum over the coming years, with consistent expansion of the dairy, processed food and confectionary segments.

Understanding the Prevailing Trends in Food Allergen Testing Industry

Food allergies risen nearly 50% in the last 10 years, with a staggering 700% increase observed in hospitalizations due to anaphylaxis. Studies also suggest that food allergies are a growing health concern, with more than 250 million people worldwide estimated to be affected.

Although more than 170 foods have been identified as causing food allergies in sensitive consumers, the USDA and the FDA have identified eight major allergenic foods, based on the 2004 FALCPA (the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act). These include eggs, milk, shellfish, fish, peanuts, tree nuts, soybean, and wheat, which are responsible for 90% of allergic reactions caused due to food consumption. In April 2021, the FASTER (Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research) Act was signed into law, which categorized sesame as the ninth major food allergen.

This ever-increasing prevalence of allergy-inducing foods has presented lucrative opportunities for the food allergen testing industry in recent years since food processing business operators are placing a strong emphasis on ensuring transparency in their products’ ingredient lists. By testing for allergens in food products, organizations can accurately mention each ingredient, and thereby allow people with specific food allergies to avoid consuming them.

Several allergen detection methods are used in the food processing industry, including mass spectrometry, DNA-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as well as ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), to name a few. The FDA, for instance, created a food allergen detection assay, called xMAP, designed to simultaneously identify 16 allergens, including sesame, within a single analysis, along with the ability to expand for the targeting of additional food allergens. Such industry advancements are improving the monitoring process for undeclared allergen presence in the food supply chain and enabling timely intervention upon detection.

Furthermore, initiatives, such as the Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling (VITAL), created and managed by the Allergen Bureau, are also shedding light on the importance of allergen testing in food production. The VITAL program is designed to support allergen management with the help of a scientific process for risk assessment, in order to comply with food safety systems like the HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point), with allergen analysis playing a key role in its application.

ELISA Gains Prominence as Ideal Tool for Food Allergen Testing

In life sciences, the detection and quantification of various antibodies or antigens in a cost-effective and timely manner is of utmost importance. Detection of select protein expression on a cell surface, identification of immune responses in individuals, or execution of quality control testing—all these assessments require a dedicated tool.

ELISA is one such tool proving to be instrumental for both diagnostics as well as research). Described as an immunological assay, ELISA is used commonly for the measurement of antibodies or antigens in biological samples, including glycoproteins or proteins.

While its utility continues to grow, ELISA-based testing has historically demonstrated excellent sensitivity in food allergen testing applications, in some cases down to ppm (parts per million). It has a distinct advantage over other allergen detection methods like PCR, owing to the ability to adapt to certain foods like milk and oils, where its counterparts tend to struggle. The FDA is one of the major promoters of ELISA for allergen testing in food production, involving the testing of food samples using two different ELISA kits, prior to confirming results.

Many major entities are also taking heed of the growing interest in the use of ELISA for food allergen diagnostics. A notable example of this is laboratory analyses test kits and systems supplier, Eurofins, which introduced its SENSISpec Soy Total protein ELISA kit in September 2020. The enzyme immunoassay, designed for quantitative identification of soy protein in swab and food samples, has been developed by Eurofins Immunolab to measure residues of processed protein in various food products, including instant meals, chocolate, baby food, ice cream, cereals, sausage, and cookies, among others.

In essence, food allergens continue to prevail as high-risk factors for the food production industry. Unlike other pathogens like bacteria, allergenic proteins are heat resistant and stable, and cannot easily be removed once present in the food supply chain. In this situation, diagnostic allergen testing, complete segregation of allergenic substances, and accurate food allergen labeling are emerging as the ideal courses of action for allergen management in the modern food production ecosystem, with advanced technologies like molecular-based food allergy diagnostics expected to take up a prominent role over the years ahead.

Kathryn Birmingham, ImEpik

Ask the Expert: ImEPIK Discusses Supply Chain Controls and PCQI Responsibilities Under FSMA

No Comments
Kathryn Birmingham, ImEpik

Dr. Kathryn Birmingham, one of ImEPIK’s PCQI training experts, provides guidance to Juan, a future PCQI in a plant that receives ingredients for ready-to-eat energy bars.

Juan: I’m new on the food safety team at a small company and the next person to be trained as a PCQI. Our team wants to make sure we are meeting the requirements in our food safety plan under the Preventive Controls for Human Food Rule in FSMA. There are a lot of players along our ingredients supply chain. Who is ultimately responsible for product safety?

Kathryn Birmingham: As you know Juan, if you manufacture, process, hold or pack an ingredient or food product, food safety is your responsibility. For all of the players along the supply chain FSMA focuses on risk assessment and identifying hazards and preventive controls when required. Your team must have a plan and implement verification activities for the supply chain preventive controls for the food ingredients with hazards you have identified needing a control.

Juan: So, we are sourcing chocolate from a number of suppliers or our bars. They all provide COAs with the shipment that tell us the chocolate is manufactured to be free of pathogens like Salmonella. Usually we get a laboratory report on the sample testing for vegetative pathogens from the supplier for each shipment. We put that in our food safety plan to verify that the hazard was controlled by the supplier. But one of the suppliers has not provided sample testing results we requested. We have finished product to get out the door, but we have to ensure our product doesn’t harm consumers. On top of that, we can’t risk a costly product recall.

Kathryn: Right, Juan. That Certificate of Analysis may not be enough to verify that your chocolate supplier is effectively controlling for the hazard of Salmonella. For your product process flow the chocolate will never have a kill step to mitigate the hazard. If you cannot be sure that the hazard has been significantly minimized or prevented before receipt of the chocolate – per section 117.410 in the PCHF Rule – you have some choices to make. If you are using a foreign supplier there are considerations if the supplier is or is not in compliance with the FDA’s Foreign Supplier Verification Program.

Juan: So it looks like we may have to take on the cost and additional time of sample testing?

Kathryn: Remember, supplier approval is based on performance. If your supplier does not give you the evidence for verification you may need to conduct an onsite audit, perform sampling and testing and review other supplier records. You decide if the supplier meets your Supply Chain Control Program or Foreign Supply Chain Control Program.

Juan: My team members need to learn more about what we need to do to comply with FSMA and the PCHF Rule. Tell me about what we can learn through PCQI training.

Kathryn: Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals are trained in a methodical process for decision-making on hazards and preventive controls. The best training fosters a positive food safety culture and includes practice on team scenarios.

A PCQI must be able to identify hazards associated with a product and process, determine the appropriate preventive controls and develop associated monitoring and corrective actions for hazards that are identified. PCQIs must also establish and implement appropriate verification activities for the application of preventive controls. All of that is included in the food safety plan they oversee.

Juan: What choices do we have for online PCQI training?

Kathryn: First choose your food safety team members. If your company is registering with the FDA you are required to have at least one PCQI at each facility. Most companies train multiple or back up employees for the PCQI role to ensure they are covered during vacations, sick time, various shifts or employee turnover.

Look for courses that include the FDA’s standard curriculum, like ImEPIK’s PCQI Online. The PCHF Rule does not require that PCQIs hold a specific training certificate, but FDA inspectors want to see that the PCQI has been successful in a training with the requisite learning objectives and content. There are many PCQI training options on the market. Some providers claim that their training is the only accepted training – that’s simply not true.

Look for courses that have a multiple of scenarios with different food products and challenge situations for practice and wider breadth of learning.

ImEPIK’s PCQI Course is interactive and 100% online. The ten-module training is entirely self-paced thus does not require travel or scheduling on-line webinars or sessions. You simply log in, work through the course as you have time, and earn your completion certificate to document in your food safety plan. If you take a break, the work you have done will be saved, and you pick up where you left off when you return to the course. This allows for reflection and practice in the workplace as you move through the modules.

It’s an ever changing environment for the food safety professional and quality training makes a big difference in keeping up with changes and staying regulatory compliant. Take PCQI Online and position yourself and your facility for food safety success.

About Kathryn Birmingham, Ph.D

Kathryn Birmingham, ImEpikKathryn Birmingham, Ph.D., is Chief Operating Officer of ImEPIK. Birmingham leads the company’s course development teams and ensures that the online training solutions are of high quality. She is certified as a Lead Instructor to teach the FSPCA’s Preventive Controls Qualified Individual course.

Dr. Birmingham taught graduate and doctoral students at the University of Florida and served as Dean of Arts and Sciences at Florida State College. At the latter she lead the Biotechnology Degree program and Institute for Food Safety analytical lab. She was Principal Investigator (PI) for its National Science Foundation studies.

Content Sponsored by ImEPIK.

Greg Staley, SynergySuite
Retail Food Safety Forum

Pathway to Progress: How to Invest in Food Safety Technology when Future Is Uncertain

By Greg Staley
No Comments
Greg Staley, SynergySuite

The last 18 months have been tremendously difficult for the restaurant industry. Six years of growth were undone by a global pandemic, and industry sales were $240 billion dollars lower than pre-COVID-19 projections, according to the National Restaurant Association.

While the pandemic accelerated the adoption of trends like online ordering, off-premise dining and delivery, it also brought others to a halt. Revenue loss from the pandemic meant many restaurants had to put other technology upgrades on hold.

Now, despite diners eagerly returning to dine in, other costs have not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Supply chain and labor disruptions, rent, and other operational costs are still making margins razor thin. This likely means the technology teams at many brands will be looking to do more with less for several years as the industry normalizes again. And oftentimes that means food safety will take a back seat.

Traditional ways of trimming budgets are no longer feasible, so operators looking to restore profitability will need to find new ways to boost operational efficiencies. These challenges do not mean you can’t make strategic investments, but they do mean you will have to be thoughtful about how and where you put those tech budgets.

Operators are facing a number of challenges while trying to regain their footing as COVID restrictions wind down. However, there are ways you can still invest in food safety technology, even while profits are recovering. Let’s look at what roadblocks are potentially introducing risk into your food safety program and how you can still create an effective food safety culture to protect employees and guests.

The Challenges

The following are just a few of the issues introducing risk into your food safety processes.

Challenge 1: Staffing shortages have employees spread thin.
Many people left the restaurant industry during the pandemic, exacerbating an already tight labor market. This has led to closing for some days or specific times, slower service, drive thru or take out only, and routine tasks falling behind.

While safe food handling should be routine, time crunches put pressure on even the best staff. Your employees may be fudging line checks, not throwing out food that reached unsafe temperatures, or forgetting specific tasks at the busiest times.

Challenge 2: Supply chain and transportation disruptions threaten safe food supplies.
Global supply chains are still fluctuating, and transportation has been disrupted as well. This means many restaurants are not getting the entire inventory they need when they need it. Trucks may take longer to transport food and high temperatures across North America could mean food is going out of temp when it normally wouldn’t. This is particularly troubling if employees aren’t checking deliveries, as you won’t know if food has been delivered outside safe temperatures.

Challenge 3: Dropping revenue leads to more manual processes and temp checks.
According to the National Restaurant Association’s annual report, 86% of restaurants say profitability is lower than it was prior to the pandemic. This is not an unexpected statistic in a year that saw unprecedented challenges to the industry, but it has had a number of domino effects.
One of those effects is restaurants that may previously have been using operational software to monitor and report on safe food practices returned to spreadsheets or clipboards to save on tech costs. Or those that had smart devices such as Bluetooth temperature probes or fridge and freezer monitors replaced them with non-smart devices if they broke or became out of date.

Challenge 4: Employee turnover threatens food safety culture and institutional knowledge.
It’s no secret that a food handler’s permit is not the end-all-be-all of food safety in a restaurant. The longer employees work in foodservice, the more experience they have with safe food handling practices, and they are able to pass this down to new employees to reinforce best practices.

However, the loss of many longtime foodservice employees leaving the industry has left huge gaps in institutional knowledge that affect everything from how smoothly a restaurant runs to how well employees follow safe food handling.

The Solutions

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for every restaurant. However, here are a few things operators can focus on to help bolster food safety practices and bring in modern food safety technology even while profitability is lower than it was prior to the pandemic.

Solution 1: Look for improvements in existing processes or technology.
You don’t have to immediately look to new technology. There is a lot to be gained from optimizing what you already have that’s working well. This can mean looking for new ways to take advantage of technology you already have in place or making small adjustments to processes that work well but could be tweaked to be more efficient.

For example, if you are using some sort of digital checklist tool, think about ways you can integrate a previously manual food safety process into it. You may not think it’s a big change, but even skipping the step of having to transcribe data from checklists or spreadsheets means you will get faster, more accurate reporting. Or you can use existing temperature probes and add the step of checking deliveries as they arrive to ensure they are within a safe temperature range.

Then talk to the customer success manager at any company you already use. There may be features you are paying for and don’t even realize you aren’t using. One example is that many inventory systems also carry food safety capabilities as a side offering, and their customers aren’t using it because they originally signed up for inventory help.

You can begin with seemingly small changes that will ultimately add up to a big reduction in risk as you snowball strategies and build safer processes.

Solution 2: Look for places where you can consolidate technology.
In today’s restaurant technology ecosystem, you can find virtually anything you want. If you’ve been building a piecemeal tech stack, it’s time to take another look at what’s out there. Many restaurants are paying for separate software for things like operations checklists, inventory, food safety, scheduling and training.

If you’re using separate systems because you feel like that’s giving you the best technology, then carry on. But if it’s just because that’s how you added them, and you never took a look at where you could consolidate multiple systems into one platform, then get acquainted with your options. Many back-of-house platforms can help you cover multiple areas of your operations more efficiently and you’ll be able to bundle pricing rather than paying for disparate systems.

Solution 3: Focus on systems that pay for themselves.
The idea that software is only a cost center has been around for a long time. Some systems may not tie back directly to revenue, but there are more places than you realize that cover their own subscription costs with the money saved.

First, look for any areas you can consolidate technology and piggyback food safety tools into that. If you are gaining a new restaurant management system, odds are you will find food safety technology as part of that package, and you can justify the overall upgrade on food and labor savings.

Second, food safety is so reliant on employee buy-in and consistency that technology that improves retention and training will also have a positive effect on your food safety risk reduction. Labor management and scheduling systems will bring down one of the two major costs of running a restaurant, with a secondary benefit of making food safety practices stronger.

The longer you retain employees, the better they are at teaching correct practices to others as well as adhering to brand food safety practices. Plus, training systems that come with labor tools allow you to provide micro learning moments that reinforce proper practices for even the most experienced employees.

Life during the pandemic has taken a toll on all areas of restaurant operations, including food safety. Now that guests are dining out more, you don’t want to take a chance that a foodborne illness will destroy business just as it is being rebuilt. Times are tight to pay for new technology, but there are things operators can do to make food safety programs stronger without breaking the bank.

Sanjay Sharma, Roambee
FST Soapbox

The Need for Improved Visibility in the Fresh Produce Supply Chain

By Sanjay Sharma
No Comments
Sanjay Sharma, Roambee

The Ever Given eventually broke free, but the Suez Canal blockage was just one dramatic incident in a year full of “black swan” events exposing weaknesses in the global supply chain, including daily mini disruptions. Among the lessons to be learned is the need for verifiably better supply chain visibility that goes beyond crowdsourced carrier or telematics data. This article hones in on the significant challenges faced in the fresh produce supply chain, and strategies suppliers can implement in situations to help improve supply chain visibility and prepare for an unpredictable future.

The Reality of Today’s Food Supply Chains

As the global supply chain continues to expand, the distance fresh produce travels to reach the consumer is extended. According to the International Institute of Refrigeration, the lack of a functioning cold chain causes significant food loss; the Global Cold Chain Alliance (GCCA) reports that “one-third of food produced globally is lost or wasted between farm and fork.”

Multimodal shipping, as well as the change in hands before the harvested produce reaches the consumer, makes it hard for food to retain its freshness. Moreover, multiple parties involved in the supply chain create plenty of room for coordination issues, contributing to delays, damaged products, and increased costs. Potential challenges faced while transporting fresh produce include the following.

Reusability and Circular Economy of Plastic Containers

The best way to preserve quality and freshness from source to consumer, retail-ready transport packaging solutions are needed to optimize space, improve temperature control and protect quality into the retail distribution center. While it is an environmentally sustainable choice, renting returnable plastic containers (RPC) instead of corrugated boxes comes with its own challenges. These RPCs get lost or misplaced from the time they are rented, during use to ship products from consumer locations and during the return of the empty RPCs back to the renter.

Temperature Excursions During Transport & Transshipment

Transport losses in a fresh food cold chain are primarily related to temperature and humidity excursions, caused by delayed/improper cooling or refrigeration equipment failure. The biggest problem is not always the lack of data, but rather the lack of timely data that can be used to correct anomalies in time to prevent spoilage.Temperature excursions can occur both while in transit and at transshipment points. During the former, it can happen due to failure of cooling equipment, while for the latter, it can occur if active cooling containers or reefers are not plugged into power sockets for extended periods of time during handling or when on a ship. In air transport, the goods can face temperature excursions during loading, unloading and storage, such as on the tarmac on a hot day.

Damaged Packages

Early spoilage in fresh produce can be attributed to both handling as well as changes in external environment. An example is the impact of atmospheric pressure on bags of potato chips traveling through a mountainous region or by air. The financial impact of damaged packages—one of the leading reasons for increased cost of food logistics management—goes beyond the visible replacement and re-shipping costs; in the case of fresh food spoilage, not only can your brand be impacted, legal issues could result if consumer health is affected.

Safety/Security Issues

Fresh produce is easily contaminable and thus requires extra care in the chain of custody. Today, customers are not just demanding visibility into the authenticity of how their food was farmed, but also how safely it was transported. The right temperature and humidity play a vital role in maintain the quality of the fresh produce reaching the grocery store. Whether it is a Black Swan event like a widespread E. coli contamination of tomatoes that can endanger human lives, or just a daily product freshness issue, there’s considerable impact on the food brand and retail store.

High Maintenance Costs

Maintaining the right conditions, ensuring quality packaging, and facilitating quick transportation increases the cost of a fresh produce supply chain significantly compared to other products.

Lack of Information Accuracy in Data Sharing

Every actor in the supply chain is working toward maintaining the freshness of a product, such as avocadoes imported from Mexico. But tying this data into a common thread is difficult due to disparate systems and processes in monitoring condition, handling and chain of custody. For example, the warehousing company may only measure temperature in a few corners of the warehouse where the fresh product wasn’t technically stored and the trucking company will only have the reefer’s temperature, but the product may have never traveled on that reefer owing to a missed connection. This makes data aggregation inaccurate and unactionable.

The Need for Improved Visibility

Whether it be food losses, increased costs, or food safety regulations, improving the verifiability of supply chain visibility from end to end can ultimately help eliminate these challenges. The following are some measures that can help contribute to food supply chain success.

Enhancing Information Transparency

A clear string of communication from end-to-end is critical to manage the supply chain. Increased information transparency and a clear chain of data can reduce food damages and losses.

Optimizing Maintenance

Maintenance costs can arise out of substandard packaging, lack of adherence to quality standards, and mishandling during transportation. Additional measures can be taken in order to reduce the overall maintenance costs, as well as time and effort spent tackling late or damaged product delivery. Such measures include adding more service locations, improving on time delivery, monitoring in real time, improving reusable packaging (if applicable), and performing thorough quality checks.

Building Faster, Flexible and Precise Supply Chains

Running a lean supply chain is vital to successfully delivering fresh food products. Many items such as yogurts or fresh produce have a short shelf life. Hence, the slightest reduction in transit time has significant benefits. Predictive analytics, image recognition and process automation offer timely alerts to improve actionability.

Where to Begin

You need to take a top-down, end-to-end approach to visibility because a supply chain involves several stakeholders and modes of transport from farm to fork.

Sensor-driven visibility helps implement a top-down, end-to-end approach because it is firsthand and not reliant for data from the actors in the chain of custody. Sensor-driven location and condition in real time offers transparency, collaboration and ultimately, reliable logistics automation.

End-to-end real-time data on inventory location and package conditions can result more transparency and control across the supply chain. The best, and often the only way to wade through both the visible and hidden business costs of in-transit damage is to keep track of your shipments from door to door with the help of an on-demand food and beverage monitoring solution.

When working with low shelf life products like food, reliable supply chain visibility is vital to prevent incidents that can contribute to financial loss. The loss of customer relationships, dealer loyalty, and cascading delays can have a ripple effect and result in further monetary losses as well as long-term business impacts that might take very long to resolve. Implementing the above recommendations can help supply chains recover from accidents and prepare for the inevitable future of “black swan” events and daily mini disruptions alike.

Ceci Snyder, FoodChain ID
FST Soapbox

Food Safety Training Research: What You’ve Missed in the Last Year

By Ceci Snyder
No Comments
Ceci Snyder, FoodChain ID

While many food safety professionals can point to specific professional challenges of the past year, one obstacle exists no matter what the year: How can I keep up on newly published training research?

For this common professional dilemma, I have a solution. With input from my colleagues, I’ve summarized a selection of the Top 5 Food Safety Training Articles in last year, with a link to the abstract or paper.

Any top papers you think we missed? Feel free to reach out and make a suggestion through the contact information listed below.

1. Computer-Based Training Proves Equally Valuable

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Food Safety and Hygiene Training on Food Handlers1

The paper reviews research on the effects of training interventions for food safety knowledge, attitude, and practices among food handlers at different stages of the food supply chain.

The authors concluded, “practical demonstration and continuous support might increase positive attitudes towards food safety and hygiene practices among food handlers, with the ultimate goal of minimizing the incidence and prevalence of foodborne hazards. Effective food safety training should be relevant to the situation, promote active learning, increase risk perception, and consider the work environment.” Computer-based training outcomes did not differ from face-to-face training.

The authors also identified positive results when food safety training was supported by resources, commitment, leadership, and a receptive management culture.

2. Produce Growers: An Important Target for Food Safety Education

Produce Growers’ On-Farm Food Safety Education: A Review2

The review summarizes findings by researchers who assessed the food safety knowledge and attitudes of produce growers, and the effectiveness of food safety educational programs. Study selection criteria included publication between 2000 and 2019, and a focus on one of six topics: “Handling of agricultural water, soil amendments, domesticated animal and wildlife management, worker health and hygiene, food safety plans and record-keeping, and cleaning and sanitation…Handling of agricultural water and soil amendments were the two topics least understood by growers, whereas worker health and hygiene as the best understood.” The majority of the studies involved in-person workshops and self-reported pre- and post-intervention knowledge assessments. They also reported increased knowledge, improved attitudes and perceived behavioral control; four of the studies reported behavioral changes.

3. Consider New Technologies in Food Safety Training (and Still Wash Those Hands)

An Integrative Review of Hygiene Practice Studies in the Food Service Sector3

The article reviews studies relevant to food safety practices of food service workers published between 2014 to 2019. For the assessment of hygiene practices, hand washing observation was the most frequently used method. The article looks at new technologies in training, such as multimedia case studies, cognitive word association, behavior-focused training, wearable technology and simulation games. The paper emphasizes the importance of variables such as food handlers’ knowledge, attitude, risk perception, self-efficacy and optimistic bias.

4. New Ideas to Connect Food Safety Knowledge Sources to Effective Implementation

A New Approach to Food Safety Training: A Review of a Six-Step Knowledge Sharing Model4

This paper argues that training context and the implementation context often differ, creating challenges for the food handler to transfer learning into practice. “Understanding the connection between knowledge, the organization, and its environment is critical to knowledge implementation.” The review described a six-step knowledge-sharing model in order to change a practice or behavior. The authors organized their model based on knowledge transfer between researcher to educator, then educator and food handler. The paper provided suggested actions at each step of the knowledge sharing process.

5. Behavior-Based Food Safety Education is Most Effective

Improving Food Safety Practices in the Foodservice Industry5

With the volume of food consumed away from home, the foodservice industry plays a significant role in avoiding foodborne illness and protecting consumers’ health. This study explains how “behavior-based strategies improve food safety practices in the foodservice industry. This study highlighted the role of a proactive food safety culture and improved environment promoting behavior changes”. The authors conclude that organizational and environmental aspects affecting food safety are critical to improving food safety.

References

  1. Insfran-Rivarola, A., et al. (August 25, 2020). “A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Food Safety and Hygiene Training on Food Handlers”. Foods. 9(9):1169. doi: 10.3390/foods9091169.
  2. Chen, H., et al. (April 1, 2021). “Produce Growers’ On-Farm Food Safety Education: A Review”. Journal of Food Protection. 84(4):704-716. doi: 10.4315/JFP-20-320.
  3. Lee, J.H. and Seo, K.H. (December 1, 2020). “An Integrative Review of Hygiene Practice Studies in the Food Service Sector”. Journal of Food Protection. 83(12):2147-2157. doi: 10.4315/JFP-19-488.
  4. Yeargin, T.A., Gibson, K.E., Fraser, A. (2021). “A New Approach to Food Safety Training: A Review of a Six-Step Knowledge Sharing Model”. Journal of Food Protection. doi: https://doi.org/10.4315/JFP-21-146.
  5. Thimoteoda da Cunha, D. (December 2021). “Improving food safety practices in the foodservice industry”. Current Opinion in Food Science. 42: 127-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2021.05.010.
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Deter, Identify and Prosecute Food Fraud

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

A study from the Canadian Arrell Food Institute lays out the current status of the fight against food fraud and a comprehensive list of interventions for governments, industry, suppliers, consumers, NGOs and academia. The focus is on collaboration along all stages of the food supply chain. Examples are global harmonization of regulations and testing, implementation of traceability systems, raising awareness for food fraud, using science to identify fraud, and much more.

Resource

  1. Hanner, R.H. and Kelly, J. (June 16, 2021). “Food Fraud in Canada – Understanding the Risks and Exploring Opportunities for Leadership”. Arrell Food Institute, Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph.

 

Stephen Dombroski, QAD
FST Soapbox

Recent Recalls Emphasize Need for Quality Management Systems in the Food and Beverage Industry

By Stephen Dombroski
No Comments
Stephen Dombroski, QAD

Last month, federal authorities enacted a recall process for all Real Water brand products from AffinityLifestyles.com Inc., as a result of a fatality and multiple illnesses that might be linked to the product. In addition to the recall, there are a number of court orders being enacted to retrieve records, documentation and other information from the company. The product in question is bottled water that is chemically treated to enhance its “benefits.”

Over the last 20 or so years, as with many other food and beverage categories, the bottled water market has exploded. It began with Natural Spring Waters, then emerged into what was termed “purified waters.” Over time, carbonation and flavors, both natural and imitation, were added to enhance the products’ appeal to different demographics and to capture market share. The trend has continued to illustrate how both SKU proliferation and catering to the changing needs of the consumer has complicated the industry and made it increasingly complex. Complexity, of course, adds risk.

The Real Water situation brings to light potential issues both for the bottled water segment and for the food and beverage manufacturing industry on the whole. Beverage and food products often utilize additives to enhance flavor, add nutritional benefits, etc. In addition to these additives, many food and beverage products are produced with “reactionary” processes that claim to supercharge, enhance, and/or re-engineer something to a so-called better state. Government regulators monitor these processes to ensure that they do not cause health risks. Enhanced and more stringent labeling laws were enacted at the end of the Obama era and just recently, President Biden signed the FASTER Act that requires manufacturers to list sesame on their labels, as it is now a known allergen. In addition to additives, regulatory agencies monitor the new chemical and reactionary processes used in producing products to ensure that the integrity and safety of these products are not put at risk.

Lessons Learned from the Real Water Recall

Where does the industry go from here, and what lessons can manufacturers take away from the Real Water incident and from the increasingly complex state of food and beverage manufacturing? First, we know regulations will continue to increase, especially as incidents become more commonplace. The industry has been on high alert since the outbreak of COVID-19. Governments and industry will continue to try to determine if the virus can in fact be transmitted through food or food packaging. As food manufacturers experiment with plant-based food alternatives, employ new technologies and react to recalls, they should prepare for continued scrutiny and regulations which will impact how businesses are run.

The question that needs to be answered is: What should food and beverage manufacturers do to prepare for future changes to regulations and prevent potential safety issues?

The answer is: They should implement a quality management system and related business processes and systems tailored for the unique challenges of their industry.

F&B Manufacturers Can Improve Quality Systems to Prepare for Future Regulation and Safety Changes

Many manufacturers already have parts of this system and the processes in place, but it is surprising how many have not integrated them with their other systems. If we use the Real Water issue as a case study, there are a number of things that a manufacturer needs to do from a quality perspective in terms of processes, procedures and systems.

Traceability. Accuracy and timing is critical in the face of any recall. Track and traceability functionality built into the central manufacturing and/or quality system is an absolute must. Technology is available to visually track and trace every lot that goes out the door, whether from a company facility or a co-packer, and note where in the market it has been distributed.

Document Control. The government demanded that AffinityLifestyles.com Inc. turn over all documentation related to its products’ ingredients, processes, etc. Manufacturers need to ensure their document management systems include food safety precautions and that all process and product information needs to be in place.

Product and Process Change Management. Integrating inspection processes with control plans ensures that inspection requirements stay connected during change management. This coupled with non-conformance creation based on inspection failures results in reductions in the cost, time and complexity of change management.

Audit Processes. To comply with ever-changing regulations, effective internal audit programs must be implemented to drive compliance and continual improvement. A closed-loop system should address product, process and system audits to help manage any findings of non-conformance prior to external audits and to allow for corrective actions to be implemented before an issue arises.

Supplier Quality Management. Food safety issues can often be due to a material or food ingredient issue. Monitoring all activities with suppliers by requiring and instituting best practices can help ensure supplier conformance.

Ensuring Ongoing Success and Profitability for F&B Manufacturers

All businesses operate to make money. Food and beverage manufacturers are no exception. But, when the products being made are consumables, the top priorities have to be safety, quality and food integrity. The food and beverage market is changing and evolving. Due to increasing customer demand, consumer preferences, sustainability initiatives and government regulations, manufacturers face more pressure to improve quality. These market changes have resulted in faster life cycles, shorter lead times, and the need for manufacturers to deliver more products faster than before, which puts pressure on the entire organization. Manufacturers in the food and beverage industry are under intense scrutiny to consistently produce safe food. Occasionally, issues occur that are out of a manufacturer’s control, but the producers of food and beverage products still have a responsibility to ensure that all precautions are in place to meet the safety needs of the end consumer. Efficient processes and systems to manage food safety not only meet the required compliance requirements but are a huge step in ensuring ongoing success and profitability.

Bryce Romney, RizePoint

Ask the Expert: Identifying the Best Fit in Quality Management Software

No Comments
Bryce Romney, RizePoint

Q: What leads a company to decide a quality management solution is necessary?

Bryce Romney: For many companies, the catalyst for beginning the procurement process is needing to better integrate with data across the brand. Safety and quality checks have traditionally been managed with clipboards, spreadsheets, and email. While these may have their place in a modern quality model, fully manual processes make it difficult to aggregate, visualize, and use data effectively as a company grows.

Companies may also start looking to a quality management software when:

  • Their supply chain is expanding and it’s no longer possible to track suppliers and vendors manually.
  • Specific certification bodies require digital audit submission and converting from manual to digital has become too time consuming.
  • Corrective actions are not being effectively tracked as a part of the continuous improvement process.
  • Other departments have begun modernizing and integrating data across the company has become difficult.

In essence, many companies look to quality management software when it becomes difficult to track quality with more traditional processes as the company grows.

Q: What common missteps do companies make when selecting a vendor?

Romney: One of the biggest issues I see companies make is believing the right quality management software will give them an effective quality model. No software will fix a broken quality system or create a good system where one doesn’t exist. It’s critical, then, to ensure you go into the procurement process with a good quality and safety model in place. If there are things that aren’t working now, automating them won’t help. Get consensus from your team on what the quality and safety framework should be before streamlining it with quality management software.

Something else I frequently see is having the wrong people involved in procurement, or not ensuring the correct teams have a voice in the process. Narrowing your vendor selection to the final choice involves more than the director of operations or head of supply chain. Ultimately, the stakeholders that should get involved include whichever executive will give final approval, someone from the IT team who will head implementation, the team that will have to manage the software, representatives from any departments who may interface with quality, and someone to represent the needs of any suppliers, factories, or other partners who may have to use it.

Finally, I see that often people try to begin without a clear idea of their goals and desired outcomes in mind when bringing in new software. When you assemble the correct group of stakeholders, it’s critical to work on creating a specific list of goals, and a corresponding list of necessary features and functions. Having specific needs is key to narrowing an initial broad selection to the shortlist to your final selection. It allows you to avoid emotional decision making and focus on which vendor can meet your company’s needs. After all, as the Cheshire Cat in “Alice in Wonderland” says, “If you don’t know where you want to go, then it doesn’t really matter which path you take.”

Q: Quality management systems are increasingly integrated with external partners, vendors, and suppliers. How do you ensure the vendor of choice is able to accommodate all the needs of a local and/or global brand?

Romney: Start with identifying which partners or suppliers will use audits or corrective actions within the software. Are there certifications they use that are already integrated with any of the vendors you’re considering? Do you need to be able to import audits from disparate systems into a single system, and can the new software vendor accommodate that?

When working with a global supply chain, you should also consider the complexities of how the system will be used. Will you be able to get Wi-Fi or data connection in the farms or factories you’re monitoring, and can the software work offline? Do you have vendors with complex business hierarchies that the software will need to work with? Is a trained auditor using the software or will different locations need to have the usability to perform self-assessments?

Once you have a clear idea of what the answers to questions like these are, you can begin to understand which platform will best help you meet those needs. While you may not be able to find a single vendor who can meet all of your business needs, as well as those of your partners, the more you can accommodate in a single system the better. This will reduce the amount of work needed to integrate data between systems and build integrity across the quality team.

Need a step-by-step guide for buying Quality Management Software that’s right for your company? Download this FREE ebook: The Smart Buyer’s Guide to the Best Quality Management Software.

Bryce Romney, RizePointAbout Bryce Romney

Bryce Romney is Director of Product at RizePoint. People, problems and solutions. That’s what keeps Bryce excited about moving the RizePoint platform forward. New customer journeys toward solutions for real problems is where he loves to focus. With the world moving as fast as it does, technology enhancements making leaps every year, Bryce enjoys chasing big visions, while remembering to focus on real people and the problems they still face today in their jobs and lives.

Content sponsored by RizePoint.

Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

A Shift In Fraudulent Activities

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

Many things have changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and here is some good news: Organized crime activity related to food crime has decreased during the first months of 2020; the crimes shifted to medicines and medical devices instead. Apparently, the pandemic has disrupted the criminal activities and supply chains. During another successful Europol and Interpol operation, OPSON IX, 12,000 tons of products with a value of $40 million were seized. The top of the list of affected products were animal feed, alcoholic beverages and produce. The two million liters of fraudulent and substandard alcoholic beverages seized show that these products continue to be a significant threat to human health.

Resource

  1. Europol. (May 27, 2021). “Operation OPSON IX – Analysis Report”.
Coronavirus

Pandemic Forced Food Companies to Assess Agility, Focus on Data

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Coronavirus

COVID-19 was an eye-opening public health emergency that brought a renewed focus on hygiene and safety across all industries. For McDonald’s Corp., this change prompted a deeper focus on science, including the use of analytical data, and consumer perception, according to the company’s Director of Global Food Safety Gary van Breda. “There are certain things that are important to our supplier base and for us moving forward, [including] harvesting information from different sources— information from audits, social media and being able to know whether we have the right inputs and algorithms in place to generate information to help us make decisions,” said van Breda in a panel discussion during the final episode of the Food Safety Consortium’s Spring Virtual Conference Series in May. These data-driven insights also helped the company take a closer look at attributes such as air quality and how to clean and sanitize high-touch areas in its restaurants.

Many organizations in the food industry were forced to completely change their strategic approach to doing business. “COVID was a once-in-a-generation disruption,” said Jorge Hernandez, vice president, quality assurance at The Wendy’s Company. “Many of the businesses didn’t survive, and many thrived. What’s the difference? In the leadership and approach: To be able to pivot, be flexible, and adapt to the changing circumstances—talk about flying a plane while you were building it.”

One of the key lessons learned from the pandemic was in the ability to remain flexible and make decisions based on the best information available at that time—and using the latest information to continuously improve processes, said Hernandez. For example, many food service and retail establishments took a giant leap forward in providing contactless ordering and delivery to customers—something that became an expectation versus a nice-to-have advantage. From an internal perspective, Wendy’s developed a much stronger connectivity between different job functions (i.e., operations, human resources, management) that helped them strengthen practices, guidance and procedures necessary to thrive during the pandemic.

During the pandemic, food safety fundamentals were brought to the forefront. “Handwashing became so critical. It would be silly not to take advantage of that moving forward,” said Hernandez. “Before the pandemic this was one of the biggest reasons for foodborne illness [outbreaks]. Now it’s up to us: With this pandemic, to use that momentum to move [these practices] forward and make it part of our routine. We have a unique opportunity to make that change to make safer food.”