Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
• Dave Theno • Larry Keener • Lone Jespersen • Steve Taylor • John Spink • Joe Corby
• Scott Brooks • Bill Sperber • Mike Taylor • David Acheson • Patricia Wester • Hal King
• Will Daniels • Lee-Ann Jaykus • Mike Cramer • Bill Marler • Mike Robach
Produced by
Listen and subscribe on your favorite podcast player
or visit our website: www.foodsafetymagazine.com/podcast
Proven Preparation, Tailored Pharma Expert Pharma & State-of-the-Art Lab & Pioneering Lab Trusted Analytical
Separation, Filtration & Biopharma Raw Biopharma Manufacturing Production Materials Water Solutions Products
& Testing Products Material Solutions & Testing Services
#howwesolve
FEATURES COLUMNS
10 Hygienic Zoning
28 COVER STORY The Importance of Hygienic Zoning to
The Foreign Supplier Verification Prevent Product Contamination
By Richard Brouillette
Program: Boon or Bane?
By Dr. Ramakrishnan Nara 14 Op-Ed
The Costs of Foodborne Illness,
Product Recalls Make the Case for
40 BAKED GOODS Food Safety Investments
Handling Food Safety Risks By Stephen Ostroff, M.D.
75
B U I L D I N G O N
YEARS OF
TRUST
D I A M O N D V For more information, visit www.diamondv.com
A Year of Milestones
CEO, The Target Group Inc. Don Meeker
on his role in the Jack in the Box event. Additionally, this Advertising Sales
Bobby Meeker • 818.842.2829
year’s Food Safety Magazine Distinguished Service Award bobby@foodsafetymagazine.com
will be presented to Dr. Darin Detwiler, who lost his son, Adam Haas • 321.804.4319
Riley, because of the Jack in the Box outbreak, at the annual adam@foodsafetymagazine.com
meeting of the International Association for Food Protection
in Salt Lake City in July. At that same meeting, Dr. Ann
Marie McNamara, one of our Editorial Advisory Board
Food Safety Magazine (ISSN 1084-5984) is published bimonthly by
members, will be delivering the John H. Silliker lecture on
The Target Group Inc., 1945 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201;
“Heroes Past and Future.” It’s no secret, given her history at (818) 842-4777; Fax (818) 955-9504; E-mail info@foodsafety-
magazine.com. Periodicals Postage Rate paid at Glendale, CA, and
Jack in the Box, what she will talk about. additional mailing offices. Subscriptions: Free to qualified subscribers
As we remember those tragic events of 25 years ago, let’s as defined on the subscription card; $85.00 per year for nonqualified
subscribers. Back Issues: $10.00 per copy, prepaid. Change of Address:
also not forget the critically important work that everyone, Notices should be sent promptly; provide old mailing label as well as
from the CEO to the line worker, does to safeguard the new address. Allow two months for change. Editorial Contributions:
Unsolicited manuscripts should be submitted to: Barbara
world’s food supply. And let’s not forget to tip our hats once VanRenterghem, Ph.D., Editorial Director at: barbara@foodsafety-
again to Dave, for showing us the way it’s done. magazine.com. Notice—Every precaution is taken to ensure accuracy
of content; however, the publishers cannot accept responsibility for
the correctness of the information supplied or advertised or for any
Best Regards, opinion expressed herein. Postmaster: Send address changes to Food
Safety Magazine, 1945 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201. ©2018
by The Target Group Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or
part without written permission is strictly prohibited. The publishers
do not warrant, either expressly or by implication, the factual accuracy
Barbara VanRenterghem, Ph.D. of the articles or descriptions herein, nor do they so warrant any views
or opinions offered by the authors of said articles and descriptions.
Editorial Director
LuciPac
TM
Official Distributor
Find out more at IAFP, July 9-11. See a demonstration at Kikkoman Booth 1010 or Weber Scientific at Booth 711
F R O M F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E
Download the
complete collection today!
go.foodsafetymagazine.com/culture
See page 46 in this issue for the first installment
Sponsored by:
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 9
Contamination
(RTE) products. Some of the sources to
consider will be air, people, and materi-
als.
To assess microbial risk, processors
will determine whether RTE products
can support growth of spoilage microor-
ganisms or pathogens, or their survival.
Based on this determination, barriers
Different plants require and hurdles will be identified to protect
the product. A product supporting the
different approaches for growth of pathogenic or spoilage micro-
organisms will require more protection
zoning to prevent foodborne illness and quality
issues than a product in which microbes
I
will die off. The barriers may not only
be part of the infrastructure but may
f you are building a food processing facility, when do also be part of the product package
you begin thinking about hygienic zoning? Starting itself. A product that is pasteurized in
from the principles that the production environment package, aseptically filled, or retorted
should not be a source of biological, chemical, or will be protected by its packaging from
physical contamination for the product, we will ex- potential microbial contamination after
amine the different steps to mitigate those risks. the microbial log reduction; therefore,
The commercialization process really begins with the the building may not need to offer as
location of the property. If the piece of land is located much protection as it will for an RTE
in proximity to other industries presenting a biological product exposed to the environment
hazard (e.g., near a slaughter plant or waste disposal after the microbial reduction step. The
site), chemical contaminants (oil refinery, chemical building and infrastructure need to pro-
plant, contaminated soil, etc.) or physical contaminants vide the necessary conditions for prod-
(particles emitted during harvest, dust/sand storm, ucts to be made in hygienic conditions.
etc.), the barriers and hurdles necessary to protect food Different audit schemes and stan-
product are likely to be more robust than for a facility dards define hygienic zones differently.
located away from such contaminants. Before the different areas are named, it
The next question is where to locate the building on is useful to understand the risk to the
the property. Again, we would want to limit potential product. Some questions to consider:
contamination; if there is a retention pond or wastewa- Does the product already contain a haz-
ter treatment plant, the food processing building should ard? Is the product formulation bacteri-
be located farther away. Or if the property has a low cidal? Will pathogenic/spoilage organ-
point where water can accumulate, the building should isms survive in the RTE product? Will
be on higher ground. The Grocery Manufacturers As- pathogenic/spoilage organisms grow in
sociation facility design checklist is a useful tool to assess the RTE product?
different risks from buildings and infrastructure.1 The For example, in a bakery, the flour
checklist applies to greenfield land; some sections can receiving/storage and mixing areas basi-
also be used for existing facilities. cally have the same microbial risk (flour
Introducing the
LuciPac Sanitation System
TM
IN
G
IER
800-328-8378 • weberscientific.com RA
PL
TO RY SUP
O
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 13
Illness, Product Recalls Make for a food recall in the United States
was $10 million. That number was just
for the direct costs to the company,
the Case for Food Safety such as the retrieval and disposal of the
recalled product. There are also indirect
costs, including lawsuits, damage to a
S
involve undeclared allergens or misla-
beling, some involve particulates (e.g.,
ince assuming the role of deputy commissioner glass, metal, or plastic), and some are
for foods and veterinary medicine at the U.S. due to microbial contamination.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016, If anything, the cost of a recall today
I’ve had numerous occasions to speak publicly is higher than it was in 2012. But even if
about food safety. On one of these occasions, you use the 2012 average figure of $10
I was part of a panel asked to address this topic: Taking million and multiply it by 700 recalls,
food safety from risk management to growth generator. that comes out to $7 billion in direct
Knowing that many in the food industry look at costs alone to industry annually. Throw
regulations as something that costs them money—money in another $3 billion for the indirect
that could be invested instead in such areas as product costs to industry, and you’re talking a
innovation, facility upgrades, marketing, or other profit- lowball estimate of $10 billion a year. In
generating components of the company—I want to focus addition, there are numerous examples
here as well on the growth-generating potential of food of significant damage to the reputation
safety regulations. of brands and commodities, with an
Let’s consider some statistics on the economic accompanying loss of market share. In
cost of foodborne illness in the United States, such some instances, market share never fully
as medical expenses and deaths, along with lost wages recovers or takes years to occur. There
and economic productivity. A 2014 estimate from the are reasons to think the indirect costs of
U.S. Department of Agriculture placed the direct and recalls could be much higher.
indirect costs associated with illnesses caused by major Food safety problems are not bad
foodborne pathogens at $15.6 billion per year. A more just for companies that recall products.
recent estimate from Ohio State University that covered Even companies that market products
all causes of foodborne illness, not just illness from the similar to a recalled food can suffer,
major foodborne pathogens, was at least $55.5 billion. too. The worst thing that can happen
And what about costs associated with food recalls? In to a food sector or the food industry is
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 15
A
lieve there are physical contaminants in
a food product that may cause illness or
mericans spend about $500 billion on food injury to consumers, government agen-
annually.1 When we consume food or drink, cies, including the U.S. Food and Drug
we expect to enjoy it and do not expect to Administration (FDA) and the U.S. De-
get sick or injured. Ingestion of a piece of a partment of Agriculture (USDA) Food
hard or sharp material such as glass or metal Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS),
could cause an unsuspecting consumer severe injury, reject the food product from sale in the
require surgery, or have deadly consequences. Therefore, U.S. market or request food recalls.
food contamination has always been a major concern of Huge economic losses to businesses
the U.S. government, the food industry, and consumers. may occur when a physical hazard is
Most physical contaminants of foods, such as pieces discovered. There were 456 food recalls
of hard plastic or wood, can cause consumers immedi- in the U.S. in 2017 and 764 food recalls
ate injury; this includes all types of foods, including in 2016, which were announced by
beverages, bottled water, and nutritional and functional FDA and FSIS. Of those, foreign matter
products. Any physical material in food that does not caused 42 recalls in 2017 and 44 recalls
belong in the product may be classified as a physical in 2016.2,3 According to FSIS,4 16.51
contaminant. million pounds of food were withdrawn
Sources Examples of Contaminants
Field Rocks/stones/sand, asphalt, metals/bullets, concrete particles, bones, wood fragments,
and thorns
Processing Glass, ceramic/shards, metal fragments, staples, blades, clips, needles, keys,
screws, magnet fragments, washers, bolts, screening, plastic, grease/lubricants,
rubber, insulation/seal materials, nail polish, jewelry, coins, pieces of gloves, finger
cots, bandages, cigarette butts, gum, bones, pits, fruit stones, nut & animal shells,
medications/tablets/capsules, wood, pens, and pencils
Storage and distribution Metal, plastic, and wood fragments
Table 1. Sources of Physical Contaminants in Foods
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 19
I
ducing their testing volumes, the five
companies with the largest change rep-
t is no secret that food processors are battling Lis- resented approximately 70 percent of
teria. The number of reported incidents and recalls
Food Safety Insights is a related to Listeria has been increasing, and proces- 50.3%
sors are making efforts to rid their facilities of har-
collaboration between
borage organisms. And, of course, South Africa is
recovering from what is understood to be the world’s 35.2%
Food Safety Magazine
largest and most deadly listeriosis outbreak in history.
and the food safety In the U.S., these concerns for food safety, as well
as new regulations and guidelines, particularly the U.S. No
market experts at Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance
14.5%
published in mid-2017, have processors reevaluating
Strategic Consulting Inc. their testing programs—especially their environmental
monitoring (EM) programs. The onset of Food Safety
to bring you the latest Modernization Act (FSMA) compliance dates and the
Increase No Change Decrease
accompanying inspections along with the prospect of
market research, insights, Figure 1. How will your environmental
FDA “swab-a-thons” has only accelerated this trend.
monitoring program for Listeria change next
and trends in food It was clear to us that testing for Listeria was grow-
year?
ing faster than perhaps any other microbiological test-
safety, analytical testing, ing category, and we wanted to find out more. the change and a volume of just under
In February, we surveyed 262 food processors 30,000 samples annually. Of those in-
diagnostics, laboratory across all processing categories, including 200 in the dicating that they would increase their
U.S. and Canada and 62 international processors. We sampling, the five companies with the
services, sanitation, and asked about overall test volumes and how they have largest change represented about 90
changed or may be changing in the next few years. We percent of the change in the sample and
related topics in quality also asked questions about specific changes to their 100%
about 330,000 samples annually—an
Listeria testing programs. increase in sample volume more than
10 times that of the reduction.32.0%
and safety testing and
Changing Patterns in Testing
Percent of processing plants
11.7%
20 Food Safety Magazine
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 21
Ensuring the Safety of tion of food. Section 402 of the act de-
fines “adulterated food” as food that:
• Contains any poisonous or deleteri-
T
clude food additives and defines a “food
additive” as “any substance the intended
he U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) use of which results, or may reasonably
announced in January 2018 that it was exercis- be expected to result…in its becoming
ing enforcement discretion with respect to a component or otherwise affecting the
the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) characteristics of any food,” unless the
Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) substance is generally recognized as safe
requirements for importers of food contact substances or the subject of an exemption. This
(FCSs). The news was met with a sigh of relief by the can include substances that are added
industry. The reasons for FDA’s decision centered on directly to food and that may become a
the vastly different hazard profiles and risks presented component of food indirectly, such as
between FCSs and traditional food. through packaging materials.
In meetings and through written correspondence, Prior to 2000, the only means to ob-
food packaging industry representatives had pointed tain FDA clearance for FCSs that were
out to FDA that requiring importers of FCSs to comply food additives was through the submis-
with the FSVP regulation would impose a burden that sion of a food additive petition. Once
is not commensurate with the risk presented. Many submitted, it would then take an average
importers of FCSs source materials from hundreds of of 2 to 4 years for FDA to promulgate
suppliers through a complex supply chain; yet, packag- and publish a formal regulation.
ing materials do not have a history of being a source of During a congressional hearing
foodborne illnesses. held in 1958 on the FD&C Act, it was
FDA cited its premarket review and oversight of pointed out that with respect to pack-
FCSs, and the regulatory framework for these substances aging materials, FDA was being called
as reasons for exercising enforcement discretion with upon to spend an inordinate amount
regards to FCSs and the FSVP regulation. of resources on a potential hazard that
There are some overriding requirements that apply time had shown was virtually no hazard
to both conventional food and food packaging. Chief at all.1 Industry kept pressing the point
among these is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic with the U.S. Congress and FDA, which
Act of 1938 (FD&C Act) prohibition on the adultera- finally paid off with the enactment of
Automatic walk
through sole washer
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 25
W
sion’s Joint Research Centre revealed
that 14 percent of honey samples were
ith the boom of the natural foods adulterated; the simplest method in-
industry, businesses must be attuned volves the addition of sugar syrup.5 A
to the specific food safety challenges similar case of bulking using a cheaper
that natural ingredients bring to the ingredient was seen for oregano, where
table. One is cost—problems of fluctu- products had been adulterated with ol-
ating supply and sometimes arduous processing mean ive and sumac leaves.6
that natural ingredients can have a significant price tag. The popular flavor vanilla is a clear
Another is food fraud—intentional adulteration. With example of a case where the synthetic
the value of the natural foods market estimated at $97.5 version is the more financially attrac-
billion in 2017 and consumer interest in the “natural” tive option. The key flavor component
label on the rise, having the analytical tools available to of natural vanilla extract is vanillin,
detect common adulterants is crucial for the industry.1,2 and this can also be produced through
This article focuses on the adulteration of natural various synthetic means. It is estimated
foods, what implications this holds for supply chain that synthetic vanillin makes up over 95
integrity and food safety, and how methods such as percent of vanilla flavoring used today.7
carbon-14 testing can be used to detect mislabeling or The natural vanilla flavoring from the
adulteration with petrochemical-derived synthetics. vanilla orchid is in short supply and
production is labor intensive, result-
Adulteration of Natural Food Products ing in the majority of vanilla flavoring
Adulteration of any kind throws the integrity of the coming from synthetic sources. These
supply chain into question, which in turn is cause for synthetic routes can use a host of source
concern over food safety. If an undeclared substance is materials, including lignin, a byproduct
introduced into a product or ingredient, then there may from the paper industry, or the petro-
be a risk that it causes physical harm. leum-derived guaiacol.
The challenge in identifying fraudulent ingredients A similar situation is seen for cur-
is that the methods of adulteration vary widely. The cumin.8 As demands increase, the as-
addition of peanut protein to cumin powder or the dilu- sociated difficulties of variable crop
tion of natural curcumin with synthetic curcuminoids output and limited supplying regions
are just two examples of a wide variety of adulteration make the cheaper petroleum-sourced
methods recently observed in the industry.3,4 synthetic route attractive to some.
The economically motivated adulteration of natural
MORE
MORETECHNOLOGY
TECHNOLOGY
The bottom line is that if there is an
unknown adulterant being introduced
somewhere along the supply chain,
even if unlikely to cause a public health
risk, the final quality of the product is
already compromised.
Repercussions of Mislabeling
Adulteration, even with a chemically
identical synthetic substitute, can have
serious consequences when making
“all natural” claims. The ambiguity is
complicated by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration not having set out clear
guidelines on what the “natural” label
means.10
With many consumers deliberately
seeking out natural foods, companies
seen as misusing the “all natural” label Captisol
Captisol is a
is a
proprietary
proprietarytechnology
technology that
thatis is
are not viewed kindly. This is highlight-
ed by the growing number of lawsuits rationally
rationally engineered
engineered totoimprove
improve solubility,
solubility,
against companies using “natural” or
“all natural” labels.10
stability,
stability,
bioavailability,
bioavailability,taste
taste
masking
masking and
and
In this context, what can the qual- formulation
formulation ofof
water-insoluble
water-insoluble ingredients.
ingredients.
ity assurance manager do to ensure the
integrity of his supply chain and screen
the products procured? A good relation- TryTry
your
your
FREE
FREE
starter
starter
kitkit
today
today
at at
CAPTISOL.COM!
CAPTISOL.COM!
ship with suppliers is important, but
it is often not enough. A number of
analytical methods are available to iden-
tify adulterants—techniques like nuclear
magnetic resonance and gas chroma-
tography-mass spectrometry are able to
show differences in chemical composi-
tion when compared with a reference
standard for the material being tested.11 CAPTISOL.com
CAPTISOL.com
One method of particular interest for
products labeled as natural is carbon-14
testing, which is able to differentiate be-
tween natural (bio-based) material and
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 27
A
s the population of the U.S. becomes ethnically value of imports from the top 10 importing
more diverse and their appetite for a variety of countries and the value of food product
foods becomes insatiable, there is a growing categories coming through U.S. ports, re-
need to import a greater variety of food prod- spectively.
ucts. The U.S. imports food products from more than 90 High-profile food safety incidents from
countries. More than 20 percent of the total food supply 2000 to 2010 prompted Congress to imple-
in the U.S. is imported (70% of seafood and 35% of fresh ment a series of regulations in 2011—the
produce available in the U.S. are from other countries). Of Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)—to
these importers, 70 percent are small business entities. protect the food supply chain in the coun-
The data in Tables 1 and 2 provide information about the
1
try. Details of the seven rules of FSMA
were published widely. According to U.S. What Are the Key Requirements of the FSVP?
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention The details of the FSVP have been widely published in
statistics, foodborne illness strikes 48 mil- the print media. However, in the opinion of the author, there
lion Americans each year, requiring hospi- is a big gap in understanding, particularly in the food im-
talization for more than 120,000 people and porter community. Therefore, a review of the requirements
resulting in approximately 3,000 fatalities, will be appropriate here. According to the rule, importers
particularly for vulnerable groups. The in- are responsible for ensuring the safety of food products
tent of the seven rules of FSMA is to com- they bring into the U.S. for distribution and sale for con-
prehensively and proactively prevent food sumption by the public. The FSVP rule requires importers to
safety incidents in the U.S. supply chain. perform risk-based activities to verify that food imported
J2u9 n
e n J u ly 2 018 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n2 9
e
into the United States is not adulterated [Section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, or the foreign supplier’s performance.
and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) of 1938] or misbranded with respect to allergen If the importer receives adequate as-
labeling (Section 403 of the FD&C Act) and has been produced in a manner that surances that a subsequent entity in
meets applicable U.S. product safety standards. The rule is flexible in the sense that the distribution chain, such as the
importers have the flexibility to determine the appropriate verification measures for importer’s customer, is processing the
the foods they import based on food and supplier risks. food for food safety in accordance with
The FSVP applies only to importers of food products in the U.S. By defini- applicable FSMA rule requirements,
tion, an importer is the U.S. owner or consignee of a food offered for import into then reevaluation of product risks and
the United States. If there is no U.S. owner or consignee, the importer is the U.S. supplier performance is not required.
agency or representative of the foreign owner or consignee at the time of entry, as To proactively mitigate or eliminate
confirmed in a signed statement of consent. the hazards in imported foods, an im-
The specific responsibilities of importers with respect to food safety include: porter is required to identify and evalu-
• Determining known or reasonably foreseeable hazards with each food ate the known or reasonably foreseeable
• Evaluating the risk posed by a food, based on the Hazard Analysis, and the for- hazards for each type of food to de-
eign supplier’s performance termine whether there are any hazards
• Approving suppliers and determining ap- requiring control and document them.
propriate supplier verification activities The importer is also required to assess
based on the risks posed by an imported the vulnerability of materials/products
food and the supplier’s performance to food fraud. Importers will have to
• Conducting supplier verification activities
“High-profile food produce such documentation when re-
and taking corrective actions for deviations safety incidents quired during an inspection by the U.S.
and discrepancies Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
It is a requirement that importers import from 2000 to 2010 Another important requirement of
foods only from approved foreign suppli- the FSVP rule is that importers must
ers based on an evaluation of the risk posed
prompted Congress evaluate the performance of their for-
by the imported food and the supplier’s to implement a eign suppliers periodically. It should
performance. However, it does not mean include foreign manufacturers’ Hazard
that importers cannot import food products series of regulations Analyses, entities responsible for con-
from unapproved suppliers on a temporary trolling hazards (foreign manufacturer
basis, as long as these products are subjected
in 2011…to or their suppliers), their food safety
to adequate verification activities before protect the food procedures, processes, and practices,
importation. Per the FSVP, importers are their compliance with the applicable
required to develop, maintain, and follow an supply chain in the regulations, and food safety history. It is
FSVP for each food brought into the U.S. also possible for the importer to rely on
from each foreign supplier of that food. This
country.” another entity (other than the foreign
implies that if an importer imports a certain supplier) to perform an evaluation of
food from a few different suppliers, a separate risk, so long as the importer reviews and
FSVP would be required for each supplier. assesses the relevant documentation.
Similarly, if an importer imports many different foods from a single supplier, a sepa- It is again the responsibility of the
rate FSVP would be required for each food. importer to verify their foreign sup-
It is also likely that certain importers are also manufacturers/processors. The plier on a regular basis. You may want
question is: What is the applicability of the FSVP in such cases? These entities will to know what type of verification ac-
be in compliance if: tivities would comply with the FSVP
• the importer/manufacturer complies with the supply chain program require- requirements. The FSVP rule provides
ments of the preventive controls rules; or adequate flexibility for importers to
• the importer/manufacturer implements preventive controls for the hazards in the meet the requirements that are unique
food as per the requirements of preventive controls rules; or to the products and supplier character-
• the importer/manufacturer is not required to implement preventive controls istics. Some of the accepted verification
under specified circumstances, such as when the type of food could not be con- activities are annual on-site audits of the
sumed without application of a preventive control or when the customer of the supplier’s facility, sampling and testing,
importer-manufacturer will minimize or prevent the identified hazards. review of the supplier’s relevant food
Importers must evaluate the risk posed by the imported food and the supplier’s safety records, etc. Annual on-site audits
performance every 3 years and keep records of reviews. Evaluation of the identi- of the supplier’s facility are required
fied risks is also mandated when new information emerges about a potential hazard when there is a reasonable probability
Raw
Ingredient
Testing
With you at
every step.
Food
Transportation
Plant
C Sanitation • ATP sanitation monitoring
M
Y
• Surface residue testing
• Allergen prevention
CM
MY
CY
• Indicator organism testing
CMY
Finished
Product Testing
DNA
Fingerprinting
that exposure to a hazard controlled by the foreign supplier will result in serious ad- would be required to comply with the
verse health consequences or death to humans or animals (a SAHCODHA hazard). standard FSVP requirements (except the
However, the importer can also choose other means of verification, provided the Hazard Analysis requirement).
alternate choice will ensure that the foreign supplier is producing the food in accor- Very small importers and importers of
dance with applicable U.S. safety standards. An importer can also rely on another food from certain small suppliers: The defi-
entity to determine and perform appropriate supplier verification activities, so long nition of “very small importer” is an-
as the importer reviews and assesses the relevant documentation. nual sales of $1 million for human food
Taking appropriate corrective action by importers is the last piece of the puzzle and $2.5 million for animal food (aver-
in meeting the FSVP requirements. At times, an importer’s verification activities aged over a 3-year period) combined
may provide evidence that a foreign supplier has not provided the same level of with the U.S. market value of food that
public health protection as required under the Produce Safety and Preventive Con- is imported, manufactured, processed,
trols rules. This should promptly trigger corrective actions at the importer’s end. packed, or held without sale (e.g., im-
The appropriate corrective measure will de- ported for a fee). In this case, importers
pend on the circumstances and may include would not have to conduct Hazard
discontinuing the use of the foreign supplier. Analyses and would be able to verify
The FSVP rule requires importers to pro- their foreign suppliers by obtaining writ-
vide the name, email address, and unique
“It is also likely ten assurances from their suppliers.
facility identifier (UFI) for each line entry of that certain Importers of certain small foreign sup-
food product offered for importation into the pliers are subject to modified FSVP require-
United States. FDA has recognized the data importers are also ments: Those small suppliers are:
universal numbering system (DUNS) number • Facilities subject to modified require-
as an acceptable UFI for the FSVP. If the
manufacturers/ ments under the Preventive Controls
importer is temporarily unable to obtain the processors.” rules because they are qualified facili-
DUNS number, FDA intends to temporarily ties
allow filers to transmit the value “UNK” (“un- • Farms that are not covered farms
known”) in the UFI field. This option began under the Produce Safety rule be-
May 30, 2017, so that food offered for import cause they average $25,000 or less in
could be processed through the Customs and Border Patrol automated commercial annual produce sales or because they
environment system, even if the importer has not yet provided a DUNS number. meet requirements for a qualified
exemption
Are There Exemptions from FSVP Rules? • Shell egg producers with fewer than
Importers of the following categories of food products do not have to comply 3,000 laying hens
with the FSVP rule: • Products from countries whose food
• Juice, fish, and fishery products subject to and in compliance with FDA’s Hazard safety system has been recognized as
Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) regulations for those products, comparable or determined to be the
and certain ingredients for use in juice and fish and fishery products subject to equivalent of the U.S. system (e.g.,
the HACCP regulations Canada, New Zealand, Australia)
• Food for research or evaluation Please verify the applicability of the
• Food for personal consumption FSVP rule to you using the flowchart in
• Alcoholic beverages and certain ingredients for use in alcoholic beverages Figure 1.
• Food that is imported for processing and future export
• Low-acid canned foods (LACF), such as canned vegetables, but only with re- How to Develop and
spect to microbiological hazards covered by other regulations, as well as certain Implement a Robust FSVP?
ingredients for use in LACF products (but only with respect to microbiological Although FDA had been working on
hazards) the FSVP rule for quite some time, the
• Certain meat, poultry, and egg products regulated by the U.S. Department of requirements caught many an importer
Agriculture (USDA) at the time of importation off guard, specifically, those pertaining
to developing food safety plans to con-
Who Is Eligible for Modified FSVP Requirements? trol the safety of products they import.
In certain cases, importers need not comply with all the FSVP requirements. The Many importers simply do not have the
criteria for modified FSVP requirements are listed below. technical expertise or resources.
Dietary supplement importers: Importers complying with the requirements of 21 Traditional FDA inspections are pro-
C.F.R. Part 111 (Current Good Manufacturing Practices) regulation will be required duction-centric. FSVP inspections, on
to comply with the modified requirements. Importers of other dietary supplements the other hand, will be based on review
of records, according to Sharon Mayl, ucts manufactured in the U.S. and will not pose any public health issues in the U.S.
senior adviser for policy in the Office Your foreign suppliers may not be knowledgeable about the applicable Preventive
of Foods and Veterinary Medicine at Controls rules (human food or animal food), Produce Safety rule, or other relevant
FDA. Further, while most of the FSVP product-specific regulations. It is your responsibility to provide the relevant infor-
inspections will be at the importer’s mation to them.
place of business, FDA may also request You may request the foreign supplier or foreign manufacturer to assist you in
importers to provide FSVP records preparing your FSVP by providing relevant information regarding the potential haz-
electronically, or by other means, to ards and the control or mitigation strategies related to their products.
get them promptly. During the initial It is certainly a difficult task, at least for small importers, to meet such techni-
stages of FSVP implementation, FDA
inspectors may review records and pro-
vide importers opportunities to correct
them to support compliance. However,
this approach will not be applicable to
problems that pose a danger to health
or reflect intentional disregard for legal
responsibilities, according to Mayl.
A six-step approach to implementing
an effective FSVP is shown below.
Step 1: Determine type of food/food catego-
ries to be included in the FSVP
The first step is to determine what
food or food categories are to be includ-
ed in the FSVP. FSVP requirements are
risk based and depend on the type of
food, type of hazard, and performance
of suppliers. Per the FSVP rule, an im-
porter is required to prepare an FSVP
for each imported food or food category
from each facility and each country.
This is because the potential hazards
requiring preventive controls may be
specific to the type of food or food cat-
egory from each facility and from each
country. It may be possible to combine
products and include them all under
one FSVP, provided the hazards are the
same or similar. However, you are still
expected to prepare different FSVPs for
the various facilities and various coun-
tries from which you import these prod-
ucts. If this is not clearly understood,
you may get into issues with FDA.
Step 2: Assign responsibilities
As an importer, you must clearly
understand the roles and responsibili-
ties of the various entities, such as the
importer, foreign supplier, and qualified
individual (QI). Assigning responsibil-
ity does not absolve you from ensuring
that the food you import is equivalent
with respect to the safety of the prod-
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 33
cal requirements of the FSVP rule resource to help you with the responsibilities. It is a requirement of the FSVP rule
without the help of a QI. If you can that certain activities must be carried out only by a QI.
afford it, you may hire a full-time QI.
Alternatively, you may seek an external Step 3: Implement QI responsibilities
Are you the U.S. owner or consignee of an article of food that is being offered for import into
the United States? Or, if there is no U.S. owner or consignee of an article of food at the time of NO The FSVP does not apply to you.
U.S. entry, are you the U.S. agent or representative of the foreign owner or consignee at the
time of entry?
YES
Do you only import these foods? Includes fish and fishery products (in compliance with Part
123) or certain ingredients for use in fish and fishery products in compliance with Part 123,
juice (in compliance with Part 120) or certain ingredients for use in juice products in compli-
ance with Part 123, food for research or evaluation, certain alcoholic beverages or certain YES The FSVP does NOT apply to these foods.
ingredients for use in alcoholic beverages, certain meat, poultry, and egg products regulated
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, food imported for personal consumption, food that is
transshipped, food that is imported for processing and export, and U.S. food that is exported
and returned without further manufacturing/processing in a foreign country.
NO
You do not need an FSVP with respect to
microbiological hazards for that food. Instead,
Do you import LACF in compliance with 21 C.F.R. Part 113? you must verify and document that the food
YES was produced in accordance with 21 C.F.R. Part
113. With respect to all matters that are not
controlled by Part 113, you must have an FSVP.
NO
Are you a receiving facility in compliance with requirements in the Preventive Controls rules You are deemed in compliance with most
related to implementation of preventive controls for the hazards in the food or supply chain YES aspects of the FSVP, except the requirement
programs, or are you not required to implement a preventive control under those rules in for importer identification at entry.
certain specified circumstances?
NO
You are subject to modified FSVP require-
Do you import dietary supplements subject to certain dietary supplement Current Good Manu- ments for those dietary supplements subject to
facturing Practices requirements in 21 C.F.R. Part 111? YES separate, preexisting Current Good Manu-
facturing Practices requirements for dietary
supplements.
NO
You are subject to modified FSVP require-
ments. An example of modified requirements
Are you a very small importer? (See definition in 21 C.F.R. 1.500 and 1.512.) YES for certain importers is that they would not
have to conduct Hazard Analyses and would
be able to verify their foreign suppliers by
obtaining written assurances of compliance.
NO
Do you import food from certain small suppliers (i.e., qualified facilities under the Preventive You are subject to modified FSVP requirements
Controls rules, certain farms that are not covered farms under the Produce Safety rule, and YES for food from those suppliers.
certain small egg producers)?
NO
You are subject to modified FSVP require-
Do you import certain food from a country with an officially recognized or equivalent food ments for food from those suppliers. (Includes
safety system? YES determining that the supplier is in compliance
with U.S. safety regulations or relevant laws in
country deemed equivalent.)
NO
You are subject to the FSVP.
Figure 1. Am I Subject to the FSVP?
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 35
on-site auditing, sampling and testing, review of supplier records, and other ap- maries every year, providing informa-
propriate measures. Annual on-site audits of the supplier’s facility are required only tion about the number of Form 483s
when there is a reasonable probability that exposure to a food hazard controlled by issued to companies producing drugs,
the foreign supplier will result in a SAHCODHA hazard. However, the importer foods, veterinary medicines, biologics,
may choose other means of comparable verification to confirm the foreign supplier medical devices, etc. A total of 5,045
is producing the food in accordance with applicable U.S. safety standards. Form 483s were issued from October
As a result of the verification activities conducted by your QI, you may discover 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017, out of
that your foreign supplier is not properly which 2,662 were issued to food com-
controlling the identified hazards. Should panies. One hundred eight Form 483s
this happen, you are required to take action were issued against 21 C.F.R. 1.502(a) to
to correct the deficiency. The QI may be re- importers for not developing an FSVP
quired to reevaluate the FSVP for the specific
“To proactively plan. It is already one of the top 20 vio-
food and foreign supplier, depending on the mitigate or eliminate lations in the food sector. Although the
deviations, and document them. first compliance date for implementing
Reevaluation of your FSVP by your QI is the hazards in the FSVP was May 30, 2017, it is inter-
required every 3 years or anytime you become esting to note that FDA inspectors have
aware of new information that may affect
imported foods, an already issued 108 Form 483s to import-
your prior evaluations. importer is required ers out of a total of some 300 importers
FDA is going to rely heavily on records inspected in 6 months. It is quite likely
during inspections to determine your compli- to identify and that FDA in 2018 will ramp up the
ance with FSVP requirements. Therefore, en- inspections of importers three to four
sure that your record maintenance procedures
evaluate the known times that of last year.
are robust. Failure to keep adequate records is or reasonably The second compliance date was
a violation of the FSVP rule and the FD&C March 19, 2018, for “small businesses”
Act. FDA can take enforcement action in such foreseeable hazards (foreign suppliers with < 500 full-time
cases. The list of records to be maintained employees) and March 18, 2019, for
includes the Hazard Analysis, the foreign sup-
for each type of “qualified facilities” and “very small
plier performance evaluation, procedures for food…” businesses” (foreign suppliers with <
approving foreign suppliers, foreign supplier $1 million in average annual sales). The
approvals, procedures to ensure use of only compliance dates for importers whose
approved foreign suppliers, determination foreign suppliers are subject only to the
and frequency of verification activities, perfor- Produce Safety rule are July 29, 2019,
mance of verification activities, corrective actions, and reevaluations of your FSVP. for small business and July 27, 2020, for
Records can be kept as original records, true copies, or electronic records. very small businesses. All other busi-
nesses must comply starting July 26,
Step 4: Determine applicability of other food safety requirements 2018. FSVP compliance dates are based
Your foreign supplier may not be aware of the applicable U.S. food safety regula- on the size of the foreign supplier and
tions. Your QI should determine whether other U.S. regulations apply to products not on the size of the U.S. importer.
that are imported. You should communicate such requirements to your foreign sup-
plier so that the foreign supplier is in a position to comply with these requirements Recent FDA FSVP Guidance
before the product reaches the U.S. port. Documents
Recently, FDA has released the fol-
Step 5: Communicate effectively lowing FSVP draft guidance documents:
The importance of communicating with your stakeholders cannot be overlooked.
You must ensure effective communication at all levels in the supply chain, including Application of the FSVP Regulation to the
your foreign suppliers, your clients/customers, and regulatory bodies. A good com- Importation of Live Animals: Guidance for
munication plan is all that is needed for effective communication. Industry, March 2018
This guidance document provides
Step 6: Be “FDA inspection ready” clarification regarding the applicability
This is the last step of the six-step approach to implementing a robust FSVP. It of the FSVP rule for the importation of
will automatically fall into place once you have taken care of the five previous steps. live animals. The food resulting from
the slaughter and processing of certain
Implementation of FSVP Rules and FDA Inspections live animals cannot be consumed with-
The Office of Regulatory Affairs of FDA releases inspectional observational sum- out slaughter and processing at estab-
lishments subject to USDA-administered HACCP requirements (or equivalent state tain regulatory requirements as they
programs). FDA has clarified that FSVP importers of live animals that are slaugh- currently apply to certain entities and/
tered and processed at USDA-inspected establishments subject to USDA-adminis- or activities. This includes enforcement
tered HACCP requirements (or state-inspected establishments subject to equivalent policy for importation of food contact
requirements) do not have to meet any of the FSVP requirements. substances under the FSVP regulation,
enforcement policy for certain human
Application of the FSVP Regulation to Importers of Grain Raw Agricultural Commodities: food by-products for use as animal food
Guidance for Industry, January 2018 that is further manufactured/processed,
Many raw agricultural commodities (RACs) that are not fruits or vegetables, in- etc.
cluding grains, are imported into the United States. The importation of grain RACs Further, FDA recently posted a docu-
into the United States is subject to certain supplier verification requirements estab- ment on its website that lists all import-
lished in FSMA. FSMA amended the FD&C Act to add, among other food safety ers that have been identified at entry
requirements, provisions requiring the verification of the safety of food imported in connection with the FSVP regula-
from foreign suppliers of that food. tion. This posting is a statutory require-
To better align the FSVP regulation with the exemption from preventive controls ment under FSMA. The list provides all
requirements for facilities solely engaged in the storage of nonproduce RACs, and of the FSVP importer names that have
because of the nature of the hazards associated with grain RACs and how they are been declared at entry.
generally addressed in the distribution chain, FDA intends to exercise enforcement
discretion for importers of grain RACs that are solely engaged in the storage of Blockchain Technology and
grain intended for further distribution or processing [in accordance with 21 C.F.R. FSVP
117.5(j) or 507.5(g)] with respect to the FSVP regulation. This means that FDA will Blockchain is a new technology tool
not expect the FSVP importers of grain RACs (i.e., grain elevators and other facili- for storing and sharing of information
ties solely engaged in the storage of grain RACs intended for further distribution or in open virtual network space. It has
processing) to meet any of the FSVP requirements. However, these grain RAC im- wide-ranging applications from finance
porters remain subject to the statutory prohibition against the introduction or deliv- to the food industry. It is certain that
ery for introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated food {Section 301(a) of the technology will make the food
the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. 331(a)]}. supply chain more transparent than
ever before by allowing users to look
FSVPs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals: Guidance for Industry, January at the information associated with
2018 that food simultaneously. Further, it
FDA issued the final FSVP regulation for importers of food for humans and can greatly improve product traceabil-
animals on November 27, 2015 (80 C.F.R. 74225). The FSVP regulation, codified in ity in the supply chain. Realizing the
21 C.F.R. 1.500 through 1.514, specifies the foods and importers to which the FSVP huge potential of this technology, big
regulation applies and establishes requirements relating to: food corporations and retailers such as
• Use of qualified individuals to conduct FSVP activities Nestlé, Unilever, and Walmart, and IT
• Hazard Analysis corporations such as IBM have invested
• Food and supplier evaluation huge resources to tap the full potential
• Foreign supplier verification in the field of food safety. In addition
• Corrective actions to enhancing food product/ingredient
• Record keeping traceability, it can reduce food waste
This guidance provides questions and answers to facilitate importers’ understand- by helping organizations target and
ing of the FSVP requirements. withdraw only the specific batches of
affected products during recalls.
Considerations for Determining Whether a Measure Provides the Same Level of Public Health Another potential application of
Protection as the Corresponding Requirement in 21 CFR part 112 or the Preventive Controls blockchain technology is its use in food
Requirements in part 117 or 507: Guidance for Industry, January 2018 fraud. Food fraud is quite prevalent in
This guidance describes FDA’s current thinking on considerations for determin- many countries with the sole objective
ing whether a measure or procedure used in lieu of an FDA requirement in 21 of economic gain. Unlike the com-
C.F.R. Part 112, 117, or 507 provides the same level of public health protection as mon contaminants in ingredients, raw
the corresponding FDA requirement. materials, and other food products that
are known to occur, food fraud is dif-
Policy Regarding Certain Entities Subject to the Current Good Manufacturing Practice and ficult to detect. A well-known example
Preventive Controls, Produce Safety, and/or FSVPs: Guidance for Industry, January 2018 of food fraud is the melamine incident
The purpose of this document is to state the intent of FDA not to enforce cer- in milk powders and pet foods that
happened in 2008–2009. The need to the requirements of the rule; otherwise, there will be repeat failures on the part of
enhance traceability and transparency in importers. Kudos to FDA for making it clear that the initial phase of implementation
the food supply chain is overdue. of the rule is going to be an opportunity for importers to crawl before walking. n
The FSVP rule requires import-
ers to ensure their products are safe Dr. Ramakrishnan Nara is a technical adviser/consultant for the food, pharma, and dietary supplements indus-
and ensure the integrity of the supply tries. He can be contacted at nrkrish@rogers.com.
chain. The global food supply chain is
complex, loaded with several unknown Reference
factors that an importer in the U.S can- 1. www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/us-food-imports/us-food-imports.
not easily detect and control. While the
regulatory requirements to ensure the
integrity of the supply chain are clear,
importers do not have effective tools
to achieve these objectives. Blockchain
technology is the best solution for this.
Blockchain is nothing but a chain of
blocks (records) arranged in a chrono-
logical order. Therefore, the possibility
of altering records is greatly reduced.
Currently, the technology is in its
infancy particularly as it applies to food
safety. Nevertheless, it offers enormous
potential for improved product trace-
ability in the supply chain. Importers
will be able to trace the full history of
the products they are importing. It will
be much easier to protect the integrity
of the food supply chain and conse-
quently prevent major foodborne illness
as this new technology matures.
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 39
D
Due to today’s hectic lifestyles, bakeries are
taking the place of preparing homemade
baked goods for everyday meals, school func-
tions, and special occasions. Baked goods may
range from those prepared in manufacturing
facilities and sold at retail stores to specialty
Tips to reduce risk
of contamination in
baked goods
baked items prepared and sold in the stores themselves. Both
manufacturing facilities and bakery stores share common food
temperatures. Some items, like custard/cream-
filled pies/pastries, cheesecakes, and focaccia
breads topped with cheese and fresh veg-
etables, need further evaluation to understand
the food safety storage conditions, shelf life,
and general food safety risks. For example,
products with pH and aw above 4.6 and 0.85, respectively,
may be considered time-temperature control for safety (TCS)
safety challenges and require the proper design of food safety products and will require shelf-stability validation through a
programs to minimize the risks inherent in bakery products microbial challenge study if ambient storage is desired.
and their production environment. Several bakery products have been implicated in foodborne
illnesses involving Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes,
Food Safety Challenges of Baked Goods Staphylococcus aureus, and Bacillus cereus, so it is necessary to de-
There are several factors to consider when evaluating food sign food safety controls into products to prevent subsequent
safety risks in retail bakery products. First, product assortment pathogen growth and toxin formation. Applying Hazard Anal-
and storage conditions must be understood. Generally, most ysis principles will help you understand the potential biologi-
bakery items have low water activity (aw), pH, and a validated cal, chemical, and physical hazards in the product and in all
kill step within the baking process, which will prevent the steps of the production process, from raw material purchasing,
growth of microorganisms and enable safe storage at ambient production, distribution, and sale. Once the hazards are deter-
SalmoFresh™ is an FDA and USDA-approved GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) product that
can be directly applied to poultry, fish and shellfish, and fresh and processed fruits and
vegetables to help reduce the risk of Salmonella contamination of the foods. SalmoFresh™
can simply be sprayed onto foods – easy implementation, with no need for expensive
specialized equipment. It has no impact on taste, smell,
or appearance of foods, and is considered a processing
aid - no labeling required.
intralytix.com
mined and risk level assessed, Critical Control Points and/or preventive controls can allergen information. When foods are
be developed, including the product formulation, processing, and storage/handling labeled incorrectly, or an allergen warn-
controls, to mitigate those risks; for example, preservatives/pH/aw in formulation, ing is not properly declared, this can
time/temperature of baking, and storage temperature/shelf life. make a food product dangerous to sell
to certain sensitive individuals. Improp-
Safety Begins with Suppliers erly labeled food can cause someone to
Secondly, it is important to know your suppliers and to evaluate their food safety become ill and/or trigger a costly recall
and quality programs. What are the hazards to be controlled in the raw materials of your bakery products.
they supply, the critical limits, and actions to be taken if a deviation occurs? Hazard While you might not always be able
Analysis and Critical Control Points and the Food Safety Modernization Act are to provide nutritional information on
examples of such preventive controls. Some other parameters to consider in evaluat- a label of your bakery product due to
ing the risk posed by your suppliers include: the size of the label or variations in a
“There are several factors to consider when evaluating food safety risks in
retail bakery products.”
• Is the supplier certified against one of the audit schemes recognized by the Glob- specially created product, providing an
al Food Safety Initiative? accurate list of all ingredients is vital.
• How does the supplier control foreign material in their manufacturing facility? To provide a list of ingredients to the
• How are allergens controlled in their facility? For example, do they store allergens consumer, it is important to know the
separately from other ingredients? Is there an allergen matrix/production se- makeup of the components going into
quencing schedule to prevent cross-contact of allergens during production? How your product. In retail bakeries, provid-
are they ensuring adequate cleaning between allergen/allergen-free production ing standard recipes or product builds is
runs? key. This not only drives some consis-
• Does the supplier have a system to ensure correct labels are in use at each prod- tency when making the product, but it
uct/label changeover? also ensures the proper ingredients are
Suppliers also need to evaluate the effectiveness of their cleaning and sanitation used. Once all the ingredients that make
programs, be able to assess the overall microbial cleanliness of the manufacturing up a product are identified, it is easy to
environment, and to monitor the production environment for pathogenic bacteria. combine them and list them on a food
Monitoring effectiveness of sanitation processes and procedures is essential to mini- label.
mize the risk of product contamination by pathogens and/or spoilage microorgan- Beyond the basic labeling require-
isms, especially in the postbaking environment. ments of ingredients, nutritional, and
Traceability of ingredients and finished product is critical within the supply allergen information, manufacturers
chain. Batch sheets should record all lot codes of ingredients being used during the may choose to make claims highlight-
manufacturing process. This information should be stored in such a way that dur- ing product attributes. There are many
ing a recall event, all impacted product containing the impacted ingredient/lot code examples of claims in the marketplace
can be identified accurately and in a timely manner. The most common reason for today. Examples include, but are not
recalls in the bakery is undeclared allergens. Having a reliable allergen control pro- limited to, nutrient content and ingre-
gram within the manufacturing plant, as well as ensuring that your suppliers have an dient attribute claims. Some common
adequate allergen control program, can help prevent recalls. claims found on bakery products are
Knowing your supply chain is important. Procedures need to be in place to guar- “low fat,” “0 grams of trans fat,” “organ-
antee that product safety is maintained during storage and transportation. Some ic,” and “no genetically modified or-
questions to ask are: Is the product temperature being maintained? Is the product ganisms.” If a manufacturer chooses to
being transported in a clean vehicle? Are there any signs of dirt, pests, damage, or make a product claim, documentation
moisture? Has the load been properly secured to avoid tampering? is needed for substantiation. In addition
Knowing the specific food safety needs of each product and ensuring each step is to documentation, manufacturers need
traceable—from ingredient selection and production through the supply chain to the to ensure the claim is truthful and not
retail bakery and consumer—are key to an effective retail bakery food safety program. misleading. State and federal regulatory
agencies scrutinize product labels and
Proper Labeling for Consumer Safety may collect samples to monitor accu-
Once production of the items is complete, it’s time to package them for sale. racy. Enforcement action can be taken
Manufactured items need to have accurate label information. The primary purpose against the manufacturer if product
of food labels is to inform the consumer regarding nutrition, ingredients, claims, or claims or other label information is not
accurate or within specified tolerances. ents, in type size that is no smaller than the type size used for the list of ingredients.
Some of the risks of noncompliance are For instance, Ingredients: Enriched flour (wheat flour, malted barley, niacin, reduced iron,
consumer illness, product recalls, lost thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), sugar, hydrogenated soybean oil, and/or cot-
consumer faith, agency warning letters, tonseed oil, whey, eggs, vanilla, natural and artificial flavorings, salt, leavening (sodium acid
increased regulatory surveillance, and pyrophosphate, monocalcium phosphate). Contains Wheat, Egg, and Milk.
consumer litigation. The FDA food allergen labeling policy does not require that labels have a supple-
When it comes to claims, growing in mental allergen statement, such as a “may contain” statement, although they are
demand on baked goods are “allergen- common within the bakery industry due to the nature of the bakery environment in
free” claims or “gluten-free” claims. which common manufacturing lines are used throughout the production day. While
More frequently, schools are requesting
that students bring treats that are “pea-
nut free” or “nut free.” Substantiating
these claims comes at a high risk. While
gluten is not one of the eight major al-
Scientific
lergens, “gluten free” is one of the only
“free from” claims that has been defined Expertise in
Food Safety
by the U.S. Food and Drug Adminis-
tration (FDA) with established testing
thresholds. In general, allergen-free
and
claims are unregulated, and there is no
standard across the industry.
Once all the ingredients in the
Quality Testing
product have been identified, you can
determine what allergens need to be
declared on the label. The Food Aller-
gen Labeling and Consumer Protection
Act of 2004 requires food manufacturers
to label food products that contain an
We are recognized for our unsurpassed
ingredient that is, or contains, protein dedication to customer service.
from a major food allergen in one of
two ways:
• Microbiology
The first option for food manufactur- • Food Chemistry
ers is to include the name of the food • Nutritional Labeling
source in parentheses following the
common or usual name of the major
• Milling & Baking Expertise
food allergen in the list of ingredients. • COA Verification
This can be done in instances when the • Analytical Support for HACCP, FSMA, GFSI &
name of the food source of the major
allergen does not appear elsewhere in Regulatory Programs
the ingredient statement. For instance,
Ingredients: Enriched flour (wheat flour, Your single source for advanced analytical
malted barley, niacin, reduced iron, thiamine services. Contact Great Plains Today!
mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), sugar,
hydrogenated soybean oil, and/or cottonseed
oil, whey (milk), eggs, vanilla, natural and
artificial flavoring, salt, leavening (sodium
acid pyrophosphate, monocalcium phos-
phate), lecithin (soy), mono- and diglycerides
(emulsifier).
The second option is to place the
word “Contains,” followed by the name 9503 N. Congress Avenue • Kansas City, MO 64153
of the food source from which the ma-
jor food allergen is derived, immediately
816.891.7337 • fax: 816.891.7450
after or adjacent to the list of ingredi- www.gpalab.com
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 43
supplemental allergen statements can be helpful for the consumer, this type of label- While bakery products are typically
ing should not substitute for Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs). They should viewed as low risk in terms of patho-
be considered only if the presence of a major food allergen is unavoidable even gens, recent contamination events have
when current GMPs are followed. illustrated the importance of conducting
Nutritional information, ingredient lists, claims, or allergen information may be a thorough risk assessment of all bakery
provided to the consumer in other formats that supplement regulatory labeling re- products where the potential for a TCS
quirements, for instance, supplemental in-store information provided at the point of hazardous food could occur.
sale or access to this information on websites. Food product information provided
on your company website is viewed as an extension of the label and falls under the Sanitation Basics
same jurisdiction as the physical labels themselves. Consequently, it is important to Sanitation in bakery settings can be
provide accurate information especially around ingredients, nutritional, and allergen quite challenging. Since the environ-
information. ment in bakeries faces constant dust
“Knowing the specific food safety needs of each product and ensuring each
step is traceable…are key to an effective retail bakery food safety program.”
buildup of flour and other dry ingre-
Shelf-Life Testing/Challenge Studies for Safety and Quality dients, adding liquid cleaners to this
Most finished products in a bakery setting are able to be stored and sold under environment can be precarious. Further-
ambient conditions. While many bakery assortments do not require refrigeration, more, adding water to the environment
consideration should be taken when temperature-sensitive ingredients are used in can cause harborage sites for formation
the production of an item. You should think about the number of refrigeration units of pathogens, such as Salmonella, which
that will be needed for storage and display of goods, as well as temperature regula- is inherent in raw flour. The recent
tion devices for the equipment. Escherichia coli O121 and O26 recalls on
Whether it is a TCS ingredient or finished product, both the temperature and flour have added further concerns to the
shelf life need to be controlled for safety from pathogens. This includes having the possible pathogens that are present in a
proper study design to evaluate risk, temperature control monitoring devices, and bakery environment.
appropriate protocols and procedures for production, transport, storage, and display. Many bakeries have historically
Conducting shelf-life studies of all items being produced in the bakery is integral, relied on dusting, scraping, and spot
not only from a safety perspective for nonambient items but also from a quality cleaning to clean equipment. However,
perspective. Due to the low aw of many bakery items, the most common indicator all equipment in the bakery needs to
of shelf life is mold growth. By conducting shelf-life studies on your products, you have a thorough inspection and risk
can determine how long after production the items can be stored before they exhibit assessment performed to understand
mold growth. Based on the amount of time you want the consumer to store the if the equipment poses a risk to the
item before this happens, these studies will determine the “best by” date(s) for the overall function of the facility. If the
item. food contact areas of the equipment
For items that have a complex interface, challenge studies should always be can’t be disassembled and cleaned,
considered, especially if these items will be marketed at ambient temperatures. Addi- replacement of antiquated equipment
tions of toppings and particulate ingredients to bakery items change the aw, and this should be considered. Newer bakery
new, finished product state needs to be considered. Fruit and vegetable toppings, equipment should be designed accord-
cheese, chocolate, and meats all change the water activity level of a finished bakery ing to sanitary design specifications to
product. allow belts, formers, slicers, and scoring
Conducting a challenge study with an accredited laboratory is essential to ensure equipment to be properly disassembled
that products are not potentially hazardous. Challenge studies are conducted by and cleaned.
inoculating a finished food item with any potential pathogens that could grow at the Wet washrooms where bowls, bins,
product’s pH and aw. Once the choice is made for the organisms that will be tested, containers, and pans are cleaned can
the item is inoculated and the bacteria are given the opportunity to grow. also pose a hazard to the bakery en-
Comparing results with an uninoculated sample, the outcomes of growth levels vironment. These areas need to be
and where a spike or unsafe level occurs become the pass/fail of the challenge study enclosed with adequate ventilation to
results. It is not enough to simply test the item at one interface. It is critical when prevent the aerosolization of mist/spray
testing to ensure all interfaces of the product are challenged. An example of item into or onto the production line. These
interfaces that would need inoculation for a lemon meringue pie would be the crust, areas also need extra monitoring and
where the crust meets the lemon filling, and where the filling meets the meringue diligence to ensure harborage sites and
pie topping. pathogens are not present.
It is important to partner with a including eggs, milk, peanuts, tree nuts, and wheat (five of the major eight allergens),
chemical supplier that can help develop allergen management is key. While labeling and signage, mentioned above, are nec-
an adequate chemical sanitation pro- essary elements of an allergen food safety program, bakeries might also:
gram for the facility. These partners are • Segregate ingredients by storing allergens below and separate from other
instrumental in recommendations for ingredients
cleaning and sanitation chemicals that • Produce products working from those containing the least amount of allergens to
are effective in the bakery setting. Fur- the most allergens, with thorough cleaning and sanitization steps in between
thermore, their expertise can be utilized • Use separate equipment such as pans, knives, and cutting boards that are color
to train staff on monitoring the limits coded to indicate which allergen they are to be used with
of these chemicals and the steps to take • Ensure that employees know how to effectively use, clean, and store equipment
“All bakery employees should be taught the basics of food safety and their
role in producing safe food. Especially, they should be taught why their
behaviors are needed to keep food safe...”
when these chemicals fall outside the es- In any event, it is important to train employees to know the eight major allergens,
tablished limits. Based on the chemicals symptoms of an allergic reaction, and what to do in response to a customer having
identified for use in your facility, your an allergic reaction. It is important that employees understand that there is always a
chemical vendor can help you establish risk of cross-contact within a bakery setting and that they need to remain vigilant to
what the optimal water temperature minimize these risks.
is to ensure efficacy of detergents and Whether it is proper equipment use, health and hygiene practices, allergen con-
sanitizers. trol, proper cleaning, reduction of cross-contamination, proper labeling, or any other
food safety basic, it is essential that employees understand and follow good food
Food Safety Basics for safety practices at all times.
Employees
All bakery employees should be Conclusions
taught the basics of food safety and Bakery food safety programs minimize the risk of bacterial, physical, and chemi-
their role in producing safe food. Espe- cal contaminants in the final bakery products. Working with suppliers that have good
cially, they should be taught why their food safety programs and perform risk assessments on the products being sold is a
behaviors are needed to keep food safe, foundational element of any bakery food safety program. Designing and conducting
in addition to being taught how and shelf-life and challenge studies with a reputable laboratory determine appropriate
when to perform their required tasks. shelf-life, storage, and production practices for TCS products. Proper labeling and
Teaching employees why a behavior is signage of ingredients, nutritional, and allergen information help guide customers in
important ensures that they continue to choosing the best products for their health and well-being. Employees that under-
make good food safety decisions when stand the basics of food safety principles, and practice them in their daily behaviors,
unsupervised. Supervisors should be help ensure the safety of the baked goods produced. When combined, these program
diligent in rewarding employees prac- elements will provide safe, high-quality products for your bakery customers. n
ticing good food safety behaviors and
coaching employees whose behaviors Patricia Marden, B.Sc., is a food safety scientist at Target, specializing in vendor management.
do not meet expectations. Jennifer Forester, B.Sc., M.Ed., is a nutrition, labeling, and regulatory compliance scientist at Target.
Practicing proper employee health Becky Swayne, B.Sc., is a recall program lead at Target.
and hygiene requirements is key to Sadie Pulk, M.A., M.B.A., REHS, is a senior business partner in the food safety division of Target.
food safety success. Employees cannot Ann Marie McNamara, Ph.D., is the vice president of Target’s foods and essentials safety and quality assur-
work while ill and need to regularly ance division.
wash their hands thoroughly. Wearing All authors of this article are members of Target’s foods and essentials safety and quality
hair restraints and not wearing jewelry assurance division. This division is responsible for the food safety and regulatory compliance
help keep physical contaminants out programs of over 1,800 stores, distribution centers, vendors, labeling, data management, and
of products. Wearing gloves to prevent regulatory compliance activities.
bare-hand contact and wearing clean
uniforms help prevent cross-contamina-
tion of bacteria or allergens.
With common bakery ingredients
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 45
T
The World Health Organization has estimated
that almost 1 in 10 people is sickened by eat-
ing food processed or prepared by others;1 it
is estimated that approximately 50 percent of
cases of foodborne illness are due to failures
in the culture of the organizations responsible
for the safety of products.2 In other words,
much improvement is still required in under-
Practices for
moving beyond
compliance to
commitment
late and maintain a positive culture including
food safety”?
As visionaries looking ahead 10 years, we
see a landscape that goes beyond seeking com-
pliance to where food safety lives in all levels
of a food company—from the boardroom
to creating new food products to processing
lines and food counters: a landscape where
standing how culture can be improved to enhance food safety employees earn autonomy to meet and continuously improve
performance. food safety systems and where the company’s people system
Good news: A global study in 2015 showed that senior flexes with the increasing complexity of the workforce. A
leaders (e.g., C-suite, executive vice presidents) rank culture landscape where principles of social science blend seamlessly
as the number one concern in their organizations for its abil- with food science, and success is measured through behavioral
ity to meet the challenges of the future and for the business consistency and team dynamics.
to be sustainable and develop further.3 They no longer use The path to this vision lies squarely in the culture of your
statements such as “What if culture impacts business perfor- company. Not in better pathogen detection technologies, cer-
mance”? Instead, they ask, “How and what can I do to assimi- tification standards, or blockchain-like solutions, but in opti-
LEADERS IN FOOD
ALLERGEN ANALYSIS
mizing the culture of your company to improve measurable culture. This special article series in Food Safety Magazine helps
food safety performance. Three cases from the food industry your company navigate this landscape of food safety; it was
show the very specific impact of focusing on maturing culture. designed and written to continue the “by leaders, for leaders”
In a midsize Australian produce company, the culture focus theme of GFSI and complement its position with practical
resulted in a 70 percent reduction in customer complaints and advice and learnings. As such, 19 leaders agreed to co-author
a 45 percent reduction in lost-time injuries. Similarly, a large five articles, each complementing a dimension of the GFSI
U.S. manufacturing company showed a 35 percent reduction framework (Figure 1).
in customer complaints, a reduction in employee turnover The GFSI framework4 consists of five dimensions based
from 23 percent to 12 percent, a 32 percent improvement in on a review of seven existing culture evaluation tools.5 If you
efficiency, and a 50 percent reduction in recordable injuries. are looking to better understand your current culture and
A large U.S. food distribution company surveyed its employ- improve it, you should look at all five dimensions. No one
ees after a focus on culture, and across 17,000 employees, 91 dimension alone can strengthen your current culture. As you
percent felt connected to the company’s values, 91 percent can see, each dimension consists of subdimensions, each
understood how they contributed to the success of the orga- identified by the GFSI group as important; for each dimen-
sion, you will find in this article series practical tactics and
Food S
a
stories to help you continue your journey. As such, to describe
fety the bus fety is
d sa
Foo iss sys
m
tem in In
alloca ess str tegra
tion ate t
the vision and mission of the GFSI position, the authors of
a r- and gy ( ed i
ne pri res nto
nd E
ducat
ion Busin
ess
Str
ori ou
tie rc
this first article recommend seven winning practices to set a
na Settin uct s) e
tio ur
a n
rm eme reness
t gD
Lead irecti
e,
Va positive tone from the top down, such as be consistent and
s k
fo g
cie is
In nga a ers on lu
Aw
en r
E Risk hip a es
et ific
d
an nd E transparent in your messages, don’t underestimate the signals
Or truc cta
ar ee
s
ga tur tion
mp ec
d d
, a cta g
oy an M x
Em az
ex
co e-sp
niz e a s
nd
H
rd e
p
pe agin
yH p
ati nd
on
e
Pu ns
l
ss
Ro
HAZARDS
ati
on
rp
tio
nd
os
al
AND RISK VISION AND appreciate employees’ effort and engagement in food safety.
e
rif
Fou
Ve
AWARENESS MISSION The authors describe some great practical ideas for showing
Docu eg) for every proce s
ss
mented consequence
behavior change
ABC model for
Incentives, Reward
Learning
CONSISTENCY PEOPLE So Must Your Food Safety Expectations,” which identifies the
anc ntation
easure
y
tab i
Org
eM
for cume
(pos
s,
a
a
nce
n
n
dR
iza
Do
Acc
m
| Co
tio
ec
ADAPTABILITY
og
Cro
n
m
r
ety nc
hm resu
Pe
ni
mu
r
ti
on
every day. The theme of engagement is at the heart of the
G
ni
rh n
M ion
ca
d tio
A
ti
Fo
t
on
e
y
ar ica
BA l fo
t
o tat
dS
tS third article, “The “A” in Culture: A Toolbox to Drive Positive
nd un
afe
w
rr e n
a
ty Ex
a
pe cta tio n s a n d Cu
m
lk
od s
Ch ng
Food Safety Behaviors,” where experts discuss several tools to
m
an l vi
co Sta
g e, A g i li t y So
C ris em
Ch is M a P ro bl s
(e. a
g., nge m
Kü
n a g e m ent , a n d
diff
ere
nce ensure that everyone learns what competencies are important
ble odel ltural iness)
r-Ro
ss) Understa n d
(e.g., nation
cu
al bu
s
to their job and what is expected, in more than the traditional
components of training. Such clarity of expectations and con-
Figure 1. Culture Dimensions and Tools sistency can be measured: The authors of the article “Measure
What You Treasure” discuss how this can be done by inte-
nization, and 82 percent felt management cared about their grating food safety into measures from behaviors as leading
well-being. These are just a few examples from the food indus- indicators and risk assessments. Risk assessments as we know
try that show the concrete values and the tangible connection them from food science and the proven principles of Hazard
between maturing culture and a company’s financial perfor- Analysis and Critical Control Points are topics of the fifth ar-
mance. ticle, “Food Safety = Culture Science + Social Science + Food
How do you deliver on this vision to show similar im- Science.” The authors suggest that these principles are just one
provements in your company? part of that equation and provide specific and practical com-
munication and engagement tools for balancing the equation
Find Your Path and delivering the results that we are all after: safe food, every
To break down the daunting task of finding the best path day, everywhere.
for your company, the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) For each “petal” (Figure 1), you will find a summary of
has published its position, developed “by leaders, for lead- practical ideas for you to consider in your journey. Select the
ers,” in which 35 leaders from global companies joined the one that can be integrated into your culture and your system,
GFSI technical working group on culture in December 2015 and create a path that is unique and impactful for improving
and outlined what a culture of food safety is and how this and sustaining your company’s food safety performance!
sometimes-confusing topic can be segmented into five distinct It is no longer a matter of “whether culture impacts food
but integrated dimensions that are relevant for any company’s safety”; it is a matter of how and of finding and committing
to the best path for your company to improve. Take these the organization. This consistency will support the enhance-
learnings and apply them within your company. Accept these ment of the organization’s food safety culture. Conversely,
as valid principles; build upon them instead of obsessing with inconsistent behavior can lead to chaos with deviations from
how to develop unique, bottom-up solutions. As consumers, food safety expectations and standards. This results in a less
we all deserve to be confident that we as food professionals coherent culture and will be easily recognized by customers
put our effort where it can have the biggest impact: on the and business partners to the detriment of the organization.
safety of our food. Executive reinforcement of the foundational need for be-
ing the best you can be in food safety has made an impact
Setting the Tone at Land O’Lakes. An opportunity was identified several years
Members of any organization look to their leaders for ago, when the company’s senior food safety leaders recog-
direction about organizational culture. A leader who sets a nized that training and education had largely focused on the
positive tone through word and deed and by consistently plants, which at the time was the same in many food com-
modeling and exercising good leadership principles will bring panies. Land O’Lakes determined that the leadership teams
alignment and enhance the effectiveness of the organization’s and cross-functional corporate personnel would benefit by
culture.
Executive leaders in food companies have an opportunity
to establish a dialogue within the organization to describe a
desired cultural framework for food safety excellence.
This article focuses on how senior leaders, namely CEOs,
the executive team, functional leaders, plant managers, and
their staff, can take steps to strike the right tone to achieve
their organizational culture objectives.
While we focus on the tone set internally in this article, the
tone set externally is also of great importance. External stake-
holders are interested in not only what product a firm makes
but also how it makes it. How the firm safely produces food
is increasingly of great import to consumers. Many organiza-
tions have adopted a corporate responsibility (CR) model.
Consumers, investors, and employees rightfully demand trans-
parency, trust, and credibility in how organizations fulfill their
role as responsible corporate citizens. This ensures sound and
ethical stewardship of the environment, sustainability, and
worker health and safety. Food safety fits into this same bas-
ket, and the CR model provides a way to create an executive
forum for routine review of performance in these key topics. Figure 2. Winning Practices to Set a Positive Tone
In this article, we share our observations of how leaders
successfully set a positive tone through their actions and com- having a greater understanding of what it meant to work in a
munications. You will learn how leaders can positively impact food company with the added responsibility for making and
food safety culture based on real-world examples. distributing food that is safe, for both people and animals.
Based on our collective experience, we have identified Commitment was given for a full-day food safety workshop;
“Seven Winning Practices” that we would expect to see from initially, all senior executives attended, including the CEO,
any senior leader in a food company (Figure 2). We also pro- who opened and closed the event. This was followed by open
vide you, a food safety leader, with some practical tips to help attendance for all corporate staff, 800 of whom have now been
your senior leaders set the right tone for food safety cultural through this experience. At the end of the session, each left
excellence. their own written commitment with food safety leadership.
This effort alone has driven food safety awareness to a whole
Practice 1: Ensuring Consistency new level across all corporate functions.
People in an organization pay attention to observed be- Practical suggestions for senior leaders to set the right tone
haviors, both good and bad. When the organization sees con- in maintaining consistency:
sistency from senior leaders, it reinforces its own behaviors. • Always ask food safety-related questions and provide direct,
Executive leaders will be noticed when attending team meet- immediate, and specific verbal feedback when on visits to
ings, visiting sites, engaging business partners, and in many manufacturing facilities. Use a visit as an opportunity to
other situations. Their consistent adherence to proper food reinforce how expected behaviors relate to the organiza-
safety behaviors will reinforce consistent standards throughout tion’s values and food safety system requirements.
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 49
• Reinforce support for actions that assist and further the hood of project approval. Behavioral economists have
mission of cultural excellence. shown that framing requests in a way consistent with the
• Share with teams, if appropriate, summaries of all signifi- approver’s style increases the chance of project approval.
cant meetings, executive reviews, and of any engagement Food safety leaders should understand the company’s re-
with business partners where food safety is on the agenda. quirements and frame requests appropriately.
Sharing your own food safety objectives and deliverables
with your team is an excellent way to model accountability Practice 3: Transparency
and transparency, and shows how individual objectives are An unhindered view of the current state—the strengths,
intertwined with furthering the organization’s culture. weaknesses, and vulnerabilities—is an important transforma-
tional step in any cultural journey. This clear view requires
Practice 2: Allocation of Resources to Food building and sustaining trust, and reinforcing a mindset that
Safety knowledge and information sharing are paramount to achiev-
Allocation of financial resources by executive leaders sends ing excellence. Performance shortfalls and challenges along the
a strong message to the organization that food safety is impor- journey are important data points to share and reflect upon
“Sharing your own food safety objectives and deliverables with your team is
an excellent way to model accountability and transparency...”
tant. These resources could be capital for plant improvements constructively. This reflection will help build organizational
or IT system investments, expenses for training and education, resilience and envision prevention processes from the ground
travel for supplier audits, participation in external meetings, or up. This also reduces the likelihood of the same problem be-
having a requested expansion of personnel to drive and sup- ing repeated across the organization by another site.
port the food safety agenda. The impact of these allocations Learning from mistakes, failures, or near misses is an
goes beyond the immediate project. This speaks loudly to invaluable experience to propel positive culture change. A
employees about the importance of food safety in the organi- culture of safety excellence is well documented in the air
zation, thereby boosting the effectiveness of the food safety transport industry and is driven by an uncompromising com-
culture. mitment not only to studying failure and near-miss events in
An example that we have seen involves a major frozen depth, but also in systematically sharing these across the entire
food firm that decided to ring-fence capital funds strictly for industry.6
food safety initiatives. Previous management, a private equity At Glanbia, the “GPS” program (Glanbia Performance
firm, had not allocated resources to food safety, and therefore System) recognizes the principle of “celebrating and identify-
the organization did not believe that the new management ing losses.” A leader must be willing to openly recognize and
team would invest in food safety. The ring fencing of funds provide an appreciation for the transparency of sharing of the
sent a strong message to the organization that food safety potential losses, incidents, and identified risks. This recogni-
would be an investment priority. tion demonstrates appreciation (not consequences) for the
Another example of food safety investment sending a mes- identification of near misses and high-risk conditions that are
sage is a midsize confectionary company. The sole plant of then systematically shared as part of learning and improve-
this firm needed a new roof to stop roof leaks. A project to fix ment. Glanbia has developed a global near miss database
the roof languished until the CEO realized that this wasn’t that aggregates both internally and externally occurring cases,
just a nuisance: The leak endangered consumers. The CEO which Glanbia uses as part of analysis, leadership team review,
quickly approved the project. This action helped set the tone and reflection. Leaders from the individual site reporting the
that food safety was an important investment. incident will develop the case study, root-cause analysis, and
Practical suggestions for food safety leaders to help senior key learnings, which are shared in the wider leadership forum.
leaders set the right tone in managing resources: All sites are requested to confirm their scope and potential
• Work with the leaders of other functions to forge and needed improvement actions from the case.
maintain continuous dialogue to gain influence and sup- A question asked at Glanbia is prompted by a concern for a
port. The value of food safety in terms of minimizing risk, dashboard that is all green—Have we set the bar high enough?
protecting consumers, and adding value to the bottom line Did we aggressively identify emerging risks? Sometimes forc-
should always be at the forefront of any discussion. Re- ing a bell curve in standard reporting [e.g., reports must have
quests for resources should always fit within the corporate a minimum of 10 percent of their key performance indicators
and food safety culture model and lead to positive future (KPIs) in red to highlight where work is needed] can create a
benefits. more open sense to reflect upon vulnerabilities.
• Proper framing of resource requests can enhance the likeli- Practical suggestions for senior leaders to set the right tone
Practice 4: Appreciation
Positive reinforcement and acknowledging the effort made,
even without the desired results, is a winning approach that
encourages constructive behaviors. To be effective, feedback
must be timely, regular, balanced, and consistent. While ap-
preciation cannot be dished out randomly, a senior leader
should not miss the opportunity to praise great results, signifi-
cant ongoing efforts, and landmark achievements consistent
with the corporate values and vision. The positive upward
cycle of senior leader support and praise cannot be underesti-
mated. At Glanbia, the values of winning together and show-
ing respect hardwire the principles of praise and appreciation,
where appropriate and at all levels.
It is widely known that employee engagement and motiva-
tion are amplified by believing their contributions make a dif-
ference and when they have a belief in the organization’s mis-
sion and vision. When setting a path to excellence, recogniz-
ing important contributions to further that mission is essential
and adds a motivational multiplier across the organization.
Land O’Lakes has had an all-encompassing quality recognition
program for a number of years and celebrates winning and
diverse contributions from across the entire enterprise. Ad-
ditionally, Glanbia has implemented value-based recognition
programs across the business that call out each of their core
values in all activities and functions.
It is important to reflect on both the small and large contri-
butions, and ensure that all functions feel able to participate.
The recognition forum can be used to reinforce the organi-
zational mantra of food safety cultural excellence. The indi-
vidual efforts are not random events but small steps along the
journey.
Practical ideas for senior leaders to set the tone for appre-
ciation:
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 51
• Establish an awards and recognition program specifically being drafted and through rollout to ensure true alignment.
for food safety and quality programs. This can be for indi- A well-represented review team can often flag significant
viduals, teams, or entire departments or locations. challenges and possible solutions at an early stage. A senior
• Provide special training, missions, or assignments for those leader can set the right tone by seeking to ensure visibility
who have the ambition to grow their careers and for pro- and buy-in at the earliest stage possible.
fessional development in food safety and quality manage- • A senior leader should advocate and support standardized
ment. risk assessment tools and models that drive local-level own-
• Award small, on-the-spot recognition at routine meetings ership in identifying risks and solutions to manage them.
and scheduled events that recognizes individual contribu- These will create a robust and factual discussion around
tions and behaviors. These can be small gift cards, memen- deviating conditions and how these are being managed.
tos, clothing with the company logo, or a personalized • Regular, focused, deep review of specific food safety pro-
certificate. grams, with the collective subject matter experts, will foster
Practice 7: Assessment
Regular review of food safety performance can ensure reas-
surance at the executive level that programs reflect corporate AutoXpressTM - AUTOMATION AND HIGH THROUGHPUT
values and demonstrate continuous improvement, as well as NOW PART OF OUR RAPID, ACCURATE AND LOW COST
provide governance for activities across the enterprise. The as- PATHOGEN DETECTION PLATFORM
sessment and reporting element is a senior food safety leader’s
opportunity to provide the dashboard, key measures, strategy, For additional info:
and direction to the decision makers and, conversely, provide
feedback and direction to the team. The critical importance of • Fully Automated
• Minimal Reagent Reloading
setting food safety goals and providing indicators of progress • High Throughput
(leading and lagging) has been called out by Yiannas.10 • Lowest Cost Per Test 510 Compton St., Suite 106
Broomfield, CO 80020
Progress, risks, or investment needs that don’t always make • Easy to Understand Results 330.474.0228
a byline in an executive boardroom will risk losing visibility • Food Target Upgradable www.CrystalDiagnostics.com
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 53
Pickering_Glyphosate_FoodSftyMag_3.375x4.875_112317.indd 1 11/23/17 12:22 PM
T
The last century has seen significant changes
in our food production and consumption.
The early 1900s were met with global challeng-
es in world wars, economic depression, and
food rationing. Rapid production and technol-
ogy growth in the second half of the twentieth
century introduced advanced capabilities in
Intentional
adulteration of food
can happen at any
time
ment at all levels of government presents new
challenges for maintaining and protecting
critical infrastructures, including food and
agriculture. In the food and agriculture sector,
a multitude of factors complicates the task
of protecting and maintaining critical infra-
structure. Food is produced, harvested, pro-
food production including advances in pres- cessed, formulated, packaged, and transported
ervation and packaging. These changes, along with advances through an interconnected network from farm to fork, with
in transportation, moved consumption patterns of food from challenges presented through global production, just-in-time
local to global sourcing. Today, our global food system is a delivery, and evolving consumer demands.
complex, integrated system of systems. While we will need to Whether at a restaurant or processing facility, intentional
produce a lot more food to feed an estimated 9 billion people adulteration perpetrated by disgruntled employees, terrorists,
by 2050, we can’t ignore the threats to our food supply from or those motivated by money can happen at any time. No
adulteration. doubt you’ve seen past headlines:
With the terror attacks of 9/11 seventeen years in our “Factory worker sentenced for lacing seafood with mala-
rearview mirror, response structures have evolved and fund- thion”1
ing scenarios have changed. The limited economic environ- “Woman draws jail sentence for contaminating chicken in
sHarpest
perspectives for focused science and technology
solutions in life science
The life science business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany operates as MilliporeSigma
in the U.S. and Canada.
MilliporeSigma, the vibrant M, Milli-Q, Millipore, SAFC, BioReliance, Supelco and Sigma-Aldrich are trademarks of
Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany or its affiliates. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Detailed information on trademarks is available via publicly accessible resources.
© 2018 Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.
it impact protecting our food from in- of adulterated food. This critical work of “sense making,” or putting disparate infor-
tentional adulteration? mation pieces together to share a complete picture of potential or actual disruption,
Another recent example illustrates is the focus of projects like the Food Protection and Defense Institute (FPDI) Fo-
how easily intentional adulteration, cused Integration of Early Signals.11
economically motivated adulteration
in this case, may occur with supply Current State of Food Defense
chain disruption. A major fast-food “Food defense” is the sum of actions and activities related to prevention, protec-
chain experienced catastrophic failure in tion, mitigation, response, and recovery of the food system from intentional acts of
their supply chain as they transitioned adulteration. We have seen global expansion of food defense activities to counter all
to a new transportation company. The motivations of intentional adulteration (terrorism, sabotage, and EMA). Typically,
“…we can all work together to decrease the vulnerabilities and risks of
intentional adulteration…”
fast-food chain has been forced to tem- there has been some intentional adulteration threat or event that has led countries
porarily close more than 80 percent of around the world to change their food defense posture. In the UK, the 2013 horse
their stores in one of their significant meat scandal created reform to address this issue, which led to EU funding for food
markets.8 This in itself is significant, but integrity.12 New Zealand initiated its reform in 2015 after a blackmail case where the
when paired with headlines like “Work- perpetrator threatened to lace infant formula with a pesticide. Some countries have
ers filmed smuggling chicken through added policies under their food safety laws and others have labeled this work as food
the backdoor,” damage to the brand protection.
grows even more due to the mistrust In the U.S., the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) initiated the largest food
sown in the consumer mindset about policy reform in decades. Two of the published U.S. Food and Drug Administra-
the quality of product in the restau- tion (FDA) rules relate to food defense activities. EMA must be addressed under the
rants.9 Current Good Manufacturing Practices, Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive
Intelligent adversaries constantly Controls for Human Food rule. EMA is considered a hazard that is reasonably fore-
look for new vulnerabilities to exploit in seeable, and companies must develop preventive controls to address the risk. The
the food system, whether to make mon- second rule related to intentional adulteration is the Mitigation Strategies to Protect
ey (economically motivated adultera- Food Against Intentional Adulteration rule, which requires, for the first time in the
tion, EMA) or cause harm to humans, United States, that food companies develop a plan to defend and protect the food
animals, or brands. A significant shift in system from terrorism and acts by insiders with legitimate access that may cause
supply and demand offers an opportu- wide-scale public health harm.
nity for adulteration when there is less The Final Rule for Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional
product available in the marketplace. Adulteration, also known as the Intentional Adulteration or “IA” rule, requires FDA-
It is imperative that we start integrating registered food facilities to identify specific vulnerabilities in their facilities that
our information and make sense of what could allow someone with bad intentions to deliberately introduce an adulterant.
it is telling us to make evidence-based This vulnerability is named an actionable process step by the IA rule. Food compa-
decisions. While the banana shortage nies must also create a food defense plan to prevent or mitigate those vulnerabilities
case is one example among many (e.g., at the actionable process steps. The IA rule also requires that employees who work at
transshipment of product, species sub- actionable process steps in food facilities must have:
stitution of meat and fish), it is a great • Education, training, and necessary experience to perform their responsibilities
example of predictable surprise. The • Knowledge of the mitigation strategies at the actionable process step
concept articulated by Bazerman and • Training in food defense awareness
Watkins10 defines these circumstances as Any employee who is responsible for an identified actionable process step in a
“an event or set of events that take an food facility—and the supervisors of those employees—must complete food defense
individual or group by surprise, despite awareness training. Furthermore, any employees responsible for writing the parts of a
prior awareness of all of the informa- food defense plan (e.g., vulnerability assessment, assignment of mitigation strategies,
tion necessary to anticipate the events plan reanalysis) will also have to complete appropriate topical training to perform
and their consequences.” With data and the task according to regulation and guidance.
computing power available, we can, and
need to, identify these cascading infra- What Can Food Companies Do Now?
structure failures sooner. We can prevent Compliance with the IA rule for many food companies will be required in July
and mitigate catastrophic consequences 2019. To prepare, companies should take time in the next 12 months to strategize
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 57
and initiate activities that will be required for compliance. One approach is to start FPDI’s research and education pro-
small by taking a single food product and considering the following: grams aim to reduce the potential for
Assess: How much information is already available through past food safety and contamination at any point along the
food defense planning? Identify and document where action may be needed. food supply chain as well as the mitiga-
Understand Hazards: Select a food product and document the hazards that may tion of potentially catastrophic public
affect this product. Think outside the typical safety hazards. What could cause harm health and economic effects of such
beyond the normal concerns you have? Consult incident reports, published litera- attacks. FPDI’s programs incorporate
ture, and known cases. Have you considered introduction of pesticides, undeclared cutting-edge research across a wide range
allergens, or cleaning and sanitizing agents? of disciplines, including supply chain
Assess the Supply Chain: Map the supply chain of the food product including the management, logistics, epidemiology,
supply chain of ingredients. Where is the product coming from? Indicate how it risk assessment, economics, molecular
travels and where there are inspection points. Can you document all the way back to biology, food microbiology, biomedical
“farm”? engineering, toxicology, information
“Today, the food system from farm to fork is a global, highly integrated, and
complex system of systems.”
Plan: Do you have a food defense plan? If yes, evaluate to see that it meets the sharing, supply chain security, cyber
requirements of the IA rule. Does it consider all hazards identified above the trans- security, and risk analysis.
portation network? Determine the last time the plan was challenged or exercised; FPDI education professionals and
was it more than a year ago? If no, find a resource to aid your planning (e.g., FDA subject matter experts have extensive
Food Defense Plan Builder, U.S. Department of Agriculture, FPDI). Determine who experience in designing, developing, and
within the food company can initiate a food defense plan and start identifying and delivering a continuum of food defense
prioritizing where vulnerabilities need to be mitigated first. Create a timeline for training. FPDI also offers in-person
development and review. programs developed to address food
Conduct Vulnerability Assessments: Evaluate the production of the food product to defense needs at all levels within an
determine where it may be susceptible to intentional adulteration. organization—entry level to C-suite—and
Determine Actionable Process Steps: From the vulnerability assessment, identify the across a variety of disciplines: national
processes during food production where mitigation strategies can be applied and are to local government, law enforcement,
essential to substantially minimize or prevent the significant vulnerability. food manufacturing and retail, supply
Mitigate: Identify mitigation strategies for each actionable process step based on chain and logistics, and foodservice,
your assessment. FDA has a database of mitigation strategies13 that may be helpful. catering, and restaurants.
Next, determine the cost of those strategies and prioritize what strategies should be In addition, a variety of training
implemented first. Finally, initiate a plan to implement selected strategies. opportunities and course offerings are
Educate and Train: Different team members need various levels of training or available that address FSMA IA train-
awareness. Identify who will have a role in food defense and align the appropriate ing requirements, FSMA Preventive
training. There are many training opportunities already available at the FDA Food Controls requirements regarding EMA,
Defense website. In addition, FPDI offers a variety of in-person food defense train- increasing awareness of food defense on
ings14 as well as a food defense awareness online training15 for those looking to be a global scale, understanding and apply-
trained from the comfort of their home. ing food defense principles, identifying
food defense vulnerabilities, creating tai-
The Food Protection and Defense Institute lored food defense plans, and challeng-
In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created the FPDI. The in- ing preparedness and response planning.
stitute was formerly known as the National Center for Food Protection and Defense. FPDI’s programming supports industry,
It was one DHS Center of Excellence established to evaluate and research the terror- government agencies (law enforcement,
ist threat to the homeland. Over the past decade, the work at FPDI has evolved to emergency responders), nongovernmen-
consider food system disruption regardless of motivation. Today, FPDI operates with tal organizations, international partners,
a mission of “Providing the highest impact innovation, education, and outreach to undergraduate and graduate students,
defend the global food supply.” By taking a comprehensive farm-to-table view of the and educators. FPDI strives to provide
food system, encompassing all aspects from primary production through transporta- strategies for prevention, mitigation,
tion and food processing to retail and foodservice, FPDI’s work addresses both the response, and recovery from potentially
vulnerabilities requiring assessment by the IA rule and vulnerabilities throughout the catastrophic public health and econom-
food system. ic effects of attacks on our food supply.
Conclusion 2. www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/12/
Food defense is a critical aspect of woman-draws-jail-sentence-for-contaminating-chicken-in-2016/#.Wjp5-FQ-fVp.
ensuring the availability of safe, nutri- 3. www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/michigan-man-charged-with-sprinkling-poison-on-food-at-
tious food on a global scale. Our food stores.html.
systems are a global, complex, intercon- 4. www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-extortion-poison/extortionist-seeking-millions-by-poisoning-
nected system of systems. Defending supermarket-food-german-police-idUSKCN1C3232.
this system, the integrity of the food 5. lovin.ie/news/this-popular-food-seasoning-has-been-recalled-due-to-undeclared-ingredients.
produced by it, and the health of the 6. foodprotection.umn.edu/fair.
public it feeds, from malevolent ac- 7. www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/derby-man-accused-planning-uk-753090.
tors—both terrorist and criminal—re- 8. www.businessinsider.com/kfc-shuts-750-uk-stores-in-chicken-logistics-crisis-2018-2.
quires engaged collaboration from all 9. metro.co.uk/2018/02/20/kfc-workers-filmed-smuggling-chicken-backdoor-7326886/.
stakeholders, including domestic and 10. hbr.org/2003/04/predictable-surprises-the-disasters-you-should-have-seen-coming.
References
1. www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/08/08/
national/crime-legal/factory-worker-sentenced-
for-lacing-seafood-with-malathion/#.WjKjN1Q-fVo.
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 59
ATP • Conductivity
Sanitizer Concentration
The life science business
of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt,
Germany operates as
MilliporeSigma in the
U.S. and Canada.
pH • Temperature
in living or recently living plants and based carbon content compared with its The Road Ahead for Natural
animals. Once no longer alive, the plant petrochemical-derived carbon content. Product Adulteration
or animal will cease exchanging carbon As discussed, the complex nature of The necessity of strict quality as-
and the carbon-14 level will decrease at adulteration in the food industry means surance and testing has become abun-
a known rate. Petroleum and its deriva- that there is no single analytical technique dantly clear as the natural product mar-
tives are old enough that no carbon-14 guaranteed to detect adulteration. For ket has grown and various food safety
remains in them. By measuring the car- natural ingredients, carbon-14 testing is a scandals and legal cases have hit the
bon-14 content of a material, it is there- reliable way to specifically check for the headlines. As with many foods, the op-
fore possible to give its percentage of bio- presence of petroleum-derived chemicals. portunity and means of adulteration are
plenty. Although the regulatory defini-
tion of the “natural” label is not always
clear, an important preliminary step for
Helping Senior Leaders Set o Provide candid and regular reviews, education, and measurements:
the Tone for Food Safety • Be completely honest in the assessment and communication of the food safety
Excellence: Conclusions and maturity of the organization. Educate such that the information being shared
Final Thoughts makes sense and be pragmatic regarding issues and solutions.
Consumer goods and other business- • Set up frequent food safety status reviews with senior leaders, either in a group
es are increasingly measured by their setting or in a one-on-one meeting—both can be very effective. For a group meet-
commitment to corporate responsibility ing, you’ll need to ensure active participation and discussion. In a one-on-one
and accordingly will be held to ever- meeting, you’ll have the undivided attention of the leader.
increasing standards of transparency, • Provide updates on what is happening external to the organization—examples of
ethical behavior, and trustworthiness. new technologies and food safety management approaches, as well as examples of
Financial results alone—even in the ab- other company failures and key learnings, which can be very helpful in keeping
sence of “issues”—are not enough. That interest alive.
organizations are fostering a proactive
and comprehensive view with culture o Identify and drive your specific must-win food safety priorities:
driving prevention and resilience will be • Communicate and agree on well-aligned priorities for strengthening the food
increasingly open to scrutiny by external safety program. The kind of areas that could be in scope for prioritization could
stakeholders. This very public lens will include: hygienic upgrade of buildings and equipment, technology/systems in-
significantly influence the reputation vestments, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points program deep dives and
and trust of food and ingredient produc- revisions, sanitation validation excellence, high-risk raw materials supplier quali-
ers, and calls for evidence and measures fications, environmental risk assessments, or formulation risk review processes.
of their commitment, in this case, to A key is that these are rarely new areas but areas already known and identified as
food safety excellence, are increasingly priorities that could be elevated in importance for a 6- to 36-month focused effort
being heard. to reach a milestone.
In this frame, food safety is not a • Senior leaders must also align on appropriate KPIs and provide, with one voice, a
result of materials, people, and processes candid view on progress and challenges against the agreed priorities, supported by
alone, but must be in the organizational
DNA and psyche, and safeguarded by
embedded cultural “guard rails.” Well- Qlaboratories.com
founded and communicated corporate
values are the first, basic building blocks
from which food safety culture (and all
corporate responsibility themes) can be
meaningfully derived. These values must
be manifest in the organization and pro-
vide a true compass on the direction and
decisions that occur every day across the
enterprise. How to define, measure, and
report this culture of excellence remains
a subject of vigorous discussion among
the leaders in this field, with several it-
erations and models available.
A great way of thinking about the
food safety culture journey is to relate it
to the 20-mile march described by Jim
Collins in his book Great by Choice:11
“Whatever comes at us, we keep moving ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, MICROBIOLOGY
forward, a bit at a time, every day, fully sup- AND RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
ported by the organization and from the top.” LABORATORY SERVICES
As a leader in food safety, how do
you support and encourage your or- World-Class Science With A Consultative Approach
ganization’s senior leaders in setting a Scientifically Accurate Results Your Business Can Absolutely Trust
positive tone for food safety in today’s Service Beyond Expectations
environment? Let’s review the three
takeaways:
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 65
75
References
1. www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/foodborne-diseases/ferg/en/.
2. Personal communication.
3. dsqapj1lakrkc.cloudfront.net/media/sidebar_downloads/Korn-Ferry-
6/1/17 12:09 PM
Institute_RealWorldLeadership_Report-3.pdf.
4. GFSI position paper, under review.
5. Jespersen, L, et al. 2016. “Measurement of Food Safety Culture Using
Survey and Maturity Profiling Tools.” Food Cont 66:174–182.
6. Syed, M. Black Box Thinking (UK: J. Murray Press, 2015). Re
7. Barlow, J and C Moller. A Complaint Is a Gift (Berrett-Koehler Press, Trap
2008). Mar
8. Dekker, S. Just Culture: Balancing Safety and Accountability (Ash- Wils
gate Publishing, Ltd., 2012) borh
9. Jesperesen, L, et al. 2017. “Comparative Analysis of Existing Food Hola
Safety Cultural Evaluation Systems.” Food Control 79:371–379. Con
10. Yiannis, F. Food Safety Culture, Creating a Behaviour Based Food
Safety System (Springer, 2009).
11. Collins, J and MT Hansen. Great by Choice (New York: Harper Col-
lins, 2011).
Advanced Instruments...............................................................................67
800.225.4034 • www.aicompanies.com/anoxomat
Less time.
Art’s Way Scientific, Inc............................................................................15
866.808.5609 • www.buildingsforscience.com Less money.
More growth.
Bia Diagnostics, LLC...................................................................................47
802.540.0148 • www.biadiagnostics.com
BioControl Systems, Inc. • www.biocontrolsys.com.............................63
Captisol • www.captisol.com......................................................................27
Controlant • 354.517.0630 • www.controlant.com..................................37
Crystal Diagnostics.....................................................................................53 Advanced™ Anoxomat® III
330.474.0228 • www.CrystalDiagnostics.com • Produce anaerobic
Dex-O-Tex • www.dex-o-tex.com..............................................................61 and microaerophilic
Diamond V • www.diamondv.com/foodsafety..........................................5 environments
Emport LLC • 866.509.4482 • emportllc.com..........................................51 within 5 minutes
Food Safety Magazine Culture Book.......................................................9 • Exact and repeatable
go.foodsafetymagazine.com/culture performance
Food Safety Matters Podcast.....................................................................2
www.foodsafetymagazine.com/podcast
Frontmatec Group • www.itecamerica.com............................................23
Great Plains Analytical Laboratory........................................................43
816.891.7337 • www.gpalab.com For more information | 1-800-225-4034
Hygiena, LLC • www.hygiena.com............................................................31 aicompanies.com/anoxomat
MP00033 Rev0 PCN00360
Intralytix, Inc. • 877.489.7424 • www.intralytix.com..............................41
Kikkoman • KikkomanA3.com.....................................................................7
Kreyenborg Plant Technology GmbH & Co..........................................67
www.kreyenborg.com
Mettler-Toledo • www.mt.com/pi.............................................................19
Michelson Laboratories, Inc.....................................................................66
888.941.5050 x123 • www.michelsonlab.com
Micro Essential Laboratory Inc. • www.MicroEssentialLab.com........33
Microbiology International......................................................................39
800.EZ.MICRO • www.800EZMICRO.com
Millipore Sigma...................................................................................... 3, 55
www.SigmaAldrich.com/advancinglifescience
National Training Co, Inc..........................................................................66
949.477.3200 • www.NTCFOODSAFETY.com
Neogen Corp................................................................................................ 17
800.234.5333 • foodsafety.neogen.com/en/listeria-right-now
NexCor Technologies, Inc. • 770.831.9191 • KLEANZ.com....................68
Pickering Laboratories, Inc. • www.pickeringlabs.com........................53
Q Laboratories, Inc. • 513.471.1300 • www.qlaboratories.com.............65
Refrigerated Foods Association..............................................................64
678.426.8175 • www.refrigeratedfoods.org
Solus Scientific Solutions, Ltd..................................................................35
+44 (0)1623.429701 • www.solusscientific.com/solus-one
Spartan Chemical Company, Inc.............................................................59
800.537.8990 x211 • www.spartanchemical.com
Thermo Scientific • www.thermofisher.com/SentinelFSM....................18
Weber Scientific • 800.328.8378 • www.weberscientific.com..............11
J u n e n J u ly 2 018 67
RISK MITIGATION.
Audit Ready
CONTINUOUS Every Day!
IMPROVEMENT.
TRANSPARENCY.