Tag Archives: transparency

Jordan Anderson, PAR Technology Corp.
FST Soapbox

How the IoT Influences Restaurant Food Safety & Management

By Jordan Anderson
1 Comment
Jordan Anderson, PAR Technology Corp.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is changing the way restaurants do business in 2017. Today, business owners can trace products from point-of-purchase to their doorstep using IoT devices that monitor their location and more importantly, their temperature along the way. These devices are helping keep food safe, streamlining inventory management and giving owners the real-time information they need when managing multiple locations.

Monitoring Food Safety

Nothing gets the attention of a restaurant owner quicker than a foodborne illness outbreak. When it happens, they need to know which products were involved.

IoT devices allow owners to track their food from the time they order to the time it arrives. Even in the back of a tractor-trailer rolling down the highway, owners can check to see the temperature of their food, and can obtain the data trail during its entire journey to see how it was handled, and to ensure safety standards were met.

This data is especially important since the U.S. Federal Government enacted the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011, which intends to protect public health by reinforcing the U.S. food safety program. Food-based businesses are now required to establish preventative control systems modeled after HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) guidelines and prove their compliance by maintaining at least two-years of documentation.

Traceability measures utilizing IoT efficiently gathers and manages this information, giving owners the peace of mind they need to ensure their food has been handled properly. Not only that, but they have the data to prove it.

Inventory Control and Management

IoT devices help manage the cost of inventory by providing the real-time data that owners need when ordering stock and forecasting needs based on their menu. The data collected by the IoT devices ensures the freshest ingredients are available for dishes, and expired products are disposed of properly.

Tracking inventory from farm-to-fork prevents food waste, deters in-house theft and helps manage the cost of inventory.

Other questions and action items that IoT devices can help manage include:

  • Who placed the order, authorized the purchase, and accepted the delivery?
  • What was ordered and what are the products’ proper temperature ranges?
  • When did the order take place and when did it arrive? When is its expiration date?
  • What is the origin of the product and how did it travel to get to you?

This can help specifically within the restaurant retail market where pick-up and deliveries are becoming more prevalent.

For example: If a customer changes their scheduled pick-up, or drop-off times, retailers must have technology in place that will monitor food safety best practices. Deli, produce and dairy related products could use pre-determined checklists that will verify items were picked correctly, bagged properly and temperatures are checked to FDA regulated standards. While FDA regulations pertaining to FSMA are stricter than ever, it has never been more important for food safety technology to be integrated within the adoption of omnichannel restaurant practices. The likes of digitalized checklist management, temperature control and traceability will have a tremendous impact on continued growth and service within the marketplace.

IoT Devices and Temperature Control

Utilizing the IoT is a critical aspect of quality control. These devices are equipped with a temperature probe, barcode scanner and RFID infrared temperature reader that monitors and tracks your food throughout its journey in the supply chain.

Here’s how it works:

  • The probe, infrared and RFID scanner track and measure the temperature of each product.
  • The IoT software prompts employees to complete checklists, including temperature checks on a regular basis.
  • Each time the data is collected, it is immediately uploaded to a secure cloud and is accessible anytime, from anywhere.
  • While in the cloud, you can customize, store, filter and analyze the information.
  • Users are alerted immediately if any steps are overlooked, like non-observed items, missed checklists and violations, in addition to any corrective actions that address temperature concerns.
  • Should an issue arise, you have the detailed, automated audit trail to prove your company followed proper food safety protocol.

IoT Devices Can Create Modern Dining Experiences

Aside from helping to streamline and manage day-to-day operations, IoT devices can create a unique dining experience for your customers.

For example, if you love seafood – some restaurants are using IoT devices to track where and when seafood is harvested. One example of this kind of initiative is the Boat-to-Plate project funded by a grant from the Mid-Coast Fishermen’s Association. This project developed an app for anglers to upload information regarding their catch. Restaurant owners are using IoT information like this to create unique dining experiences.

IoT and You

How do you plan to use IoT technology in 2017? Integrating IoT practices gives your business the food safety solution needed to help keep food safe, improve supply chain traceability, manage your inventory and gain better control over your bottom-line.

Julie McGill

Make Your Food Chain Recall Ready At The 2017 Food Safety Consortium

By Julie McGill
No Comments
Julie McGill

As we reflect back on 2017, food recalls continued to dominate our headlines even after the implementation of FSMA. Our industry has taken corrective actions to limit risk. We want to protect consumers as well as our brands, limiting the financial and reputational damage that a recall can inflict on a company. We, along with consumers, are also more aware and in tune with the news due to social media and the 24-hour news cycle. It may appear that there are more recalls, but I would argue that the industry is more proactive and more accountable by submitting itself to voluntary recalls. Without a doubt, the food industry is under increased pressure.

Looking forward to 2018, we are reminded that it was 25 years since the E. coli outbreak at Jack in the Box. It was a monumental turning point in food safety that sparked the industry to modernize and examine processes. Since then, the food industry as a whole has come a long way. During my 16 years at GS1 US, working on programs such as the Foodservice GS1 US Standards Initiative, I saw food companies embrace global standards to increase efficiencies and build a foundation for traceability and supply chain visibility. Now adding Blockchain, Smart Labels, and IoT data to the technology mix will continue to advance the modernization of the food industry.

The good news for our industry is that consumers are patronizing companies that are embracing transparency as a strategic business strategy and these are the companies who are winning the market share as a result.

As stewards of our industry, we will always review our processes, continue to train and educate our employees and adopt better ways of guarding the supply chain. One way to become better at protecting the food chain and the public is exchanging ideas with our peers. We are stronger together.

That is why I am excited to bring together a diverse group of industry leaders for this year’s Food Safety Consortium to discuss this very topic. Titled, Is Your Food Chain Recall Ready?, I will be joined on Thursday, November 30th at 2:30pm CST by Jessica Jones, sr. specialist of Supplier Quality & Safety at Chick-Fil-A; Barbara Hullick, senior director of Food Safety at Produce Alliance and Bryan Cohn, vice president of Operations at Seal the Seasons.

During this panel session, we will discuss:

  • Best practices for FSMA compliance before, during and after a recall.
  • Best practices to execute precise, data-driven and timely recalls and stock withdrawals.
  • Establish and execute a process for escalation and post-recall audit reporting.
  • Work and communicate with suppliers and distributors on “what if” scenarios and what they can expect when quality issues arise.
  • Create a food safety culture which works in concert with legal, marketing and other internal teams.

I hope you will join us in person at the Renaissance Schaumburg Convention Center Hotel for the entire conference but if not, join us virtually! Registration details can be found on the Food Safety Consortium website.

Melanie Neumann, Neumann Risk Services

Today’s Inspection and Audit Reality: The New Normal

By Melanie J. Neumann
2 Comments
Melanie Neumann, Neumann Risk Services

Food industry inspection and audit protocols are evolving at a rapid pace, and rightly so. This is not surprising given today’s regulatory, audit and ever-changing risk landscapes, which are driving further complexity and expansion of requirements to ensure the industry is, “audit ready, all the time.”

This evolution of inspections and audits has been primarily triggered by newer regulations such as FSMA and private standards, such as GFSI and its certification programme owners (CPO’s, fka Scheme Owners) like SQF, BRC, FSSC 22000, IFS, etc. Heightened customer demand and consumer visibility into food safety incidents –many thanks to mainstream and social media– and the resulting increased demand for information has also fueled this evolution, compelling industry to focus on higher levels of transparency, both internally and throughout the supply chain.

The changes above are driving the food industry to face a new reality. One where the following questions continue to rise to the surface:

  • How have “yesterday’s” inspection and audit expectations changed from what companies are experiencing today?
  • Based on this evolution, how will “tomorrow’s” inspection and audit expectations change?
  • In short, what does the new reality or the “new normal” look like now for inspection and audit readiness?

We will take a look at what some of the first inspections are shaping up to look like under the Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF) Rule and the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) Rule. Some common themes and some tips to successfully manage regulatory inspections as well as audit readiness tips are set forth below.

More Inspectors

Roll out the welcome mat because more inspectors are coming to the party. We are seeing an average of three to upwards of six regulatory inspectors performing the inspections under the PCHF rule. This may cause an initial shock wave but when you stop to consider the rationale it has a certain level of reasonableness to it. Industry has invested in its personnel for nearly two years in updated training to meet new FSMA regulations such as preventive controls qualified individual (PCQI) training, updated current GMP training and perhaps qualified auditor training, if applicable. It makes sense that FDA needs to make a similar investment in its people to ensure its inspectors are prepared to knowledgeably perform FSMA-related inspections.

FDA has implemented a robust training program for its inspectors. Regarding PCHF inspections for example, only inspectors who have successfully completed the PCQI training plus FDA’s internal training will lead other inspectors through the facility inspections as an in-field training exercise. So, the good news is at least one inspector is fully trained under FDA’s training program standards. This said, with more inspectors, there are more eyes, and with more eyes, more opportunities to see risk through different perspectives. It’s best to be on your game, with a tested playbook so you have confidence you are prepared when the team of inspectors arrive at your facility. Conduct a mock inspection against your policies, procedures and food safety plan that have been updated for the new PCHF and other applicable FSMA requirements. You will be thankful you did.

Digging Deeper

Into Records: FSMA and the seven rules that comprise it requires more controls, monitoring and verification activities by the food industry, thus naturally giving inspectors more records to access and review. Further, FDA received expanded records access authority upon the signing of FSMA. FSMA allows FDA to access records relating to articles of food for which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, the article of food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. Before FSMA the standard FDA had to meet to access records was “credible evidence”; now its “reasonable probability”—a standard that is far lower and subjective—allowing access to more types of records than before. Another new addition is FDA now may access records beyond those relating to the specific suspect food if the agency reasonably believes that other food articles are likely to be affected in a similar manner.

Example: If you have a potential problem on production line 1, and you firmly believe the issue is contained to line 1, but that line is in even arguably close physical proximity to line 2, depending on the issue an inspector may invoke this new authority and ask for all records associated with line 2 in addition to line 1 for the same time period to be sure that the situation indeed did not spread or otherwise impact line 2. (e.g. confirm no risk for cross contamination or allergen cross-contact).

This should not mean it’s open season on all your records, but it certainly means more records are open to review and scrutiny, so having a robust record retention and management system becomes mission-critical. How sound is yours? Record-keeping and document management have long been important to GFSI / CPO’s. However, many food companies do not have a certification from one of these entities, which begs the question whether the scope of your third-party audit, or that of a supplier you are currently evaluating for approval, adequately evaluates this important area.

Into your Hazard Analysis: Inspectors are spending significant time reviewing the adequacy of the hazard analysis performed as part of the requirement of the food safety plan under the PCHF Rule and as part of the foreign supplier verification plan requirement under the FSVP rule. If facilities do not identify all the hazards of concern that require a preventive control associated with their facility and foods they produce, then the rest of the food safety plan falls apart. If you work with peanuts to produce peanut butter and identify Salmonella as a hazard requiring a preventive control but not aflatoxin or peanut allergen you have likely missed the mark.You may not have the appropriate preventive controls, monitoring, verification activities, validations and corrective actions identified in your hazard analysis and food safety plan to control for the most significant hazards your facility / the finished food is facing from a food safety risk perspective. (note the identification of hazards requiring preventive controls is highly dependent on the food, facility, processing methods of the manufacturer, upstream supplier and will vary if products are RTE or nRTE)

How are auditors tackling this issue? Many third-party audit firms have invested in providing PCQI training for its auditors so they are better prepared to evaluate the sufficiency or gaps in the hazard analysis. It is a good idea to ask your audit firm what updated skills and training have been given to its auditors to ensure you are getting the assistance you need.

Continue to page 2 below.

Katy Jones, Foodlogiq
FST Soapbox

3 Ways to Make Transparency a Successful Business Strategy

By Katy Jones
1 Comment
Katy Jones, Foodlogiq

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

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

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

1. Supplier Engagement Makes Good Business Sense

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

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

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

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

2. Label Transparency

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

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

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

3. Building a Transparent Culture and Backing Marketing Claims

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

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

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

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

How to Meet Transparency Business Goals

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

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

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

Food Safety Tech

Recall Consequences: What Consumers Think

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Food Safety Tech

Consumer preferences have clearly shifted to a more personal, hands-on experience that requires food companies to maintain trust by being completely forthright about what is in their products. And when a company is involved in a recall, consumers expect a fast response—within days, according to a recent survey. Half of the survey participants expect a company to address a recall within one to two days. In addition, if a brand or restaurant has a recall or contamination that leads to illness, 23% said they would never use the brand or visit the restaurant again and 35% said they would avoid it for a few months and “maybe” come back.

A company’s supply chain can be the weakest link in its food safety program. Learn how to mitigate these risks at the Food Safety Supply Chain conference | June 5-6, 2017

The survey, commissioned by FoodLogiQ and titled, “What Consumers Care About in the Age of Transparency”, polled more than 2000 people. It also found that the same consumers who expect a one- to two-day turnaround in addressing a recall also care a great deal about clarity in food labeling: 57% want to see as much information on a label as possible. This includes country of origin, allergen information and identification of genetically modified ingredients.

With the number of recalls occurring four times as often as they did five years ago, food companies are at an even higher risk of facing a negative financial impact and losing consumer confidence. Maintaining transparency throughout the supply chain is a crucial part of managing consumer expectations and executing effective risk mitigation.

“Open, constant and transparent communication with your suppliers is a must for addressing these issues. After all, you can’t offer consumers the information they crave about your product and processes if you aren’t getting that information from your suppliers and brokers,” state the survey authors. “You cannot expect a supplier to fulfill your requirements around safety and brand promise if you aren’t open about your expectations. It’s a two-way relationship that can make a huge difference in your business.”

The authors offer recommendations on how companies can keep a clear line of communication open with consumers, including:

  • Transparency throughout the supply chain, including from where food is sourced
  • List all product ingredients and include information about allergens and animal products
  • Have open communication concerning mislabeling, and contamination and recalls
Sean Crossey, arc-net
FST Soapbox

5 Problems Facing the Global Food Supply Chain

By Sean Crossey
No Comments
Sean Crossey, arc-net

The food we eat is a lot less secure than we would like to imagine. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, food fraud is estimated to be a $40 billion a year problem, with instances of fraud becoming worryingly frequent—from wood shavings discovered in our parmesan to the 2013 horsemeat scandal in the UK.1-3 Not only do these incidents damage the faith consumers have in their food, but as seen in the 2009 salmonella peanut butter outbreak, which resulted in the death of 9 Americans and sickening of 714, they can have fatal consequences.4 Indeed, the World Health Organization estimates that nearly 1 in 10 people become ill every year from eating contaminated food.5

While it may be uncomfortable to imagine our food supply can be susceptible to such high profile attacks, what is more unsettling is that our food supply chain has grown so complex that it has become almost impossible for food producers to guarantee the provenance of their products—meaning consumers can never entirely trust in the food they eat. In this article I will identify five main issues the global food supply chain faces, and what steps can be taken to address them.

Exchange knowledge about managing your supply chain at the Best Practices in Food Safety Supply Chain conference | June 5–6, 2017 | LEARN MORE1. Consumer demand for traceability

Traceability is no longer a request from consumers, but a demand, and one that is only growing stronger. A recent transparency survey found that consumers want to see everything from a complete ingredient breakdown to sourcing information, with 94% of respondents saying they are likely to be more loyal to a brand that offers complete transparency.6 While a new study discovered that more than half of Canadians are concerned about food fraud.7

If we take seafood products as an example, almost half (46%) of respondents to an independent research survey conducted by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) agreed that they trust brands that use ecolabels (a form of third-party certification) more than those that do not.8 The survey also found that 66% of respondents felt that traceability of the product was the primary factor determining seafood purchasing decisions.

This kind of consumer driven, high-quality information opens up a world of possibilities for companies that recognize the significance of its demand. Brand protection, demand forecasting and consumer loyalty all becomes possible for early adapters who show themselves to be taking practical steps to guarantee the authenticity of their products.

2. Lack of communication between actors

One of the biggest challenges preventing full traceability of our food is the fragmented nature of the supply chain. For even the most seemingly simple of food items there can be a huge number of actors involved that are spread around the globe with little to no knowledge of one another’s actions.

For instance, to trace your hamburger from farm to fork may involve tracing your lettuce back to the farm in which it was grown (but not what happens to it before it reaches your supermarkets shelves), tracing the beef back to the cattle (with no guarantee, as seen with the horsemeat scandal, that the end product is 100% beef) and any number of logistical barriers.

It is vital then that stakeholders within the chain prioritize communication with their suppliers, either through the implementation of traceability solutions, or the commitment to engage only with suppliers they know they can trust. Not only is this beneficial to the end consumer, but to the food producers themselves, allowing them to ensure that their organizational reputation remains solely their responsibility and not left in the hands of unknown and uncontrollable third parties.

3. Influence of organized crime

When one thinks of the Mafia, it’s rare that olive oil is the first thing that comes to mind. Currently, however, it is the fraudulent manufacture of this and many other Italian exports (cheese, wine, etc.) that is fueling organized crime and ending up on our shelves.9

High-scale food fraud is not a naturally occurring phenomenon but rather exists as a result of highly organized criminal activity. In his 2014 UK government report, Professor Chris Elliot notes that “food fraud becomes food crime when it no longer involves random acts by “rogues” within the food industry, but becomes an organized activity by groups that knowingly set out to deceive and or injure, those purchasing food”.10

This is not just a problem for Italy; counterfeit food and drink occurs on a massive scale throughout the whole of Europe. A joint initiative by EUROPOL and INTERPOL last year led to the largest ever seizure of fake and adulterated projects. This project, known as OPSON V resulted in 11,000 tons and 1,440,000 liters of hazardous fake food and drink seized across 57 countries.11

In order to combat the growing threat organized crime has on our food supply, it is vital that governments devote resources to organizations with the sole responsibility of identifying food crime. In response to the horsemeat scandal, the UK government launched its National Food Crime Unit within the Food Standards Agency in London, while the FDA has a special focus on food defense.

The establishment of these organizations is important, as police forces traditionally have struggled to combat food fraud, either through a lack of time, resources, or simply understanding of the complexities of how fraud affects the supply chain. The creation of specialist taskforces not only legitimizes the fight against food fraud, but allows for easier intelligence share.

4. Lack of transparency throughout the supply chain

In her work on trust for the digital age, Racheal Botsman tells us that trust has evolved from an institutional based system to a distributed system. Nowhere has this more potential than with our food supply.

In such a complex system it becomes necessary to consider how the food industry can begin to move away from traditional systems of centralized trust. As Botsman points out, “institutional trust is not designed for the digital age”, the emergence of new technologies, most notably the blockchain, highlights the potential to introduce more trust in our food.12

Originally the technology underpinning Bitcoin, the blockchain has wide ranging applications beyond the world of FinTech. Blockchain is a transformative tool in the fight against food fraud, allowing an open and transparent ledger of our food products journey. This allows unalterable trust to be introduced into an untrustworthy system, ensuring every actor in the chain records and shares their interactions with our food.

This represents a huge opportunity for those companies who see the advantage of early adoption of blockchain infused traceability systems. Indeed by 2022, Gartner estimates an innovative business built on a blockchain will be worth $10 billion.13

5. Need for strong legislation

Steps have already been made in legislation to allow for earlier prevention of food safety incidents occurring, such as FSMA. While it is important that lawmakers are proactive in their response, the focus has primarily been on food safety, and there is still a difficulty in treating food fraud as its own separate entity.

Legislation regarding food labelling could also be more stringent, especially in Europe. At present only olive oil, fish (unless it’s canned or prepared), beef (fresh, chilled, frozen or minced), fresh or frozen poultry of non-EU origin, wine, most fresh fruit and vegetables, honey and eggs are required to be labelled. This means that origin information is largely missing on foods such as meat products (e.g., ham and sausages), yogurts and cheese, kitchen staples (e.g., oil, flour, sugar and pasta), biscuits and confectionery, or ready-meals.

Tighter legislation, leading to significant punitive measures taken against actors found to be committing fraud, would be a vital catalyst in ensuring that food in our supply chain is as secure as possible.

Conclusion

The growth of the global food supply chain may bring with it complexity and challenges, but also great opportunities. If actors can interject their processes with the kind of joined up thinking outlined above, with the help of technological tools that are becoming more and more accessible, the benefits will be significant, not just for them, but for all of us.

Resources

  1. PWC. (2016). Fighting $40bn food fraud to protect food supply [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://press.pwc.com/News-releases/fighting–40bn-food-fraud-to-protect-food-supply/s/44fd6210-10f7-46c7-8431-e55983286e22
  2. Mulvany, L. (February 16, 2016). The Parmesan Cheese You Sprinkle on Your Penne Could Be Wood. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-16/the-parmesan-cheese-you-sprinkle-on-your-penne-could-be-wood
  3. Grierson, J. (August 26, 2016). Three men charged over UK horsemeat scandal. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/26/three-men-charged-over-uk-horsemeat-scandal
  4. Andrews, J. (April 16, 2016). 2009 Peanut Butter Outbreak: Three Years On, Still No Resolution for Some. Retrieved from http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/2009-peanut-butter-outbreak-three-years-on-still-no-resolution-for-some/#.WD7tE6KLTpJ
  5. World Health Organization. (2015). WHO’s first ever global estimates of foodborne diseases find children under 5 account for almost one third of deaths [Press Release] Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/foodborne-disease-estimates/en/
  6. Label Insight (2016). The 2016 Label Insight Transparency ROI Study. Retrieved from https://www.labelinsight.com/hubf /2016_Transparency_ROI_Study_Label_Insight.pdf?t=1486676060862
  7. Sagan, A. (February 21, 2017). Study finds 63 per cent of Canadians are concerned about food fraud. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/study-finds-63-per-cent-of-canadians-are-concerned-about-food-fraud/article34094664/
  8. MSC (2014). MSC Consumer Survey 2014. Retrieved from https://www.msc.org/newsroom/news/new-research-shows-increasing-appetite-for-sustainable-seafood
    Bacchi, U. (February 21, 2017). Italian police break mafia ring exporting fake olive oil to U.S. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-crime-food-idUSKBN1602BD
  9. HM Government (2015) Elliot Review into Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350726/elliot-review-final-report-july2014.pdf
    EUROPOL (2016) largest ever seizures of fake food and drink in INTERPOL-EUROPOL operation [Press Release]. Retrieved from https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/largest-ever-seizures-of-fake-food-and-drink-in-interpol-europol-operation
  10. Botsman, R. (October 20, 2015). The Changing Rules of Trust in the Digital Age. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/10/the-changing-rules-of-trust-in-the-digital-age
  11. Panetta, K. (October 18, 2016) Gartner’s Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for 2017. Retrieved from http://linkis.com/www.econotimes.com/Zk8mh
Dagan Xavier, Label Insight

Food Transparency Movement Driving Changes in Labeling

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Dagan Xavier, Label Insight

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

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

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

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

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

Dagan Xavier, Label Insight
Dagan Xavier, Label Insight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organic, NonGMO, Natural, Labeling

Achieving Transparency in Organic and Natural Product Claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analyze Your Ingredients for Risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get to Know Your Suppliers

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

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

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

Apply Supply Chain Management Best Practices

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

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

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

Simplify Your Supply Chain

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

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

Continue reading the article by clicking on page 2 below.

University of Surrey, Food scare diagram

New Food Scare Categorization to Help Tackle Compromises in Supply Chain

By Food Safety Tech Staff
2 Comments
University of Surrey, Food scare diagram

Attend the Food Safety Supply Chain Conference, June 5–6, 2017 in Rockville, MD | LEARN MOREThe global complexity of the food supply chain is only increasing the amount of adverse issues that can occur. In an effort to help the industry mitigate the various risk factors and reduce the incidence of food scares, researchers from UK-based University of Surrey have developed a new system for classifying these “food scares” across the food chain. In a recent report, Food scares: a comprehensive categorization, published in the British Food Journal, a food scare is defined as “the response to a food incident (real or perceived) that causes a sudden disruption to the food supply chain and to food consumption patterns.” The term also takes into consideration consumer distrust in the food supply chain.

TraceGains Sponsored Content: How to Have a Strong Supplier Approval Program

Having a properly managed supplier program can help to ensure quality is met, while also reducing supplier risk. One key component to having an outstanding supplier program, however, is having a well-built and well-maintained supplier approval process. Download this eBook to learn how you can have a strong supplier approval program.

“With food scares becoming more frequent, it is important that we have a categorization system which enables efficient development of strategies to tackle such compromises to our food supply,” said report co-author Professor Angela Druckman from the University of Surrey in a press release.

“A food scare is the response to a food incident (real or perceived) that causes a sudden disruption to the food supply chain and to food consumption patterns.”

The researchers created a diagram (see Figure 1) that categorizes food scares by physical indicators such as chemical, physical or biological contamination and origin such as intentional deception, transparency and awareness issues.

University of Surrey, Food scare diagram
Figure 1. Categorization of food scare diagram. Courtesy of the University of Surrey

The authors note the importance of identifying the cause of contamination (as seen in the diagram), as the “method through which contamination occurs is key in devising food scare prevention strategies.”