TK

The post Total Waste Management for Food Processors appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

While an effective pest control plan is crucial in all industries, it is especially important for companies that handle food. For food and beverage processors, ensuring that pest control methods are as up to date and comprehensive as possible is paramount for the safety of staff and customers.

Several new and evolving pest control technologies can help improve the effectiveness of existing pest control plans and strategies by providing real-time data on hot spots and trends, reducing invasive treatments, and improving targeted pest management for treatment and removal. These technologies can help support an existing integrated pest management (IPM) plan to support your facility.

New and Evolving Pest Control Technologies

Part of forming a comprehensive pest control strategy is to regularly implement new and evolving technologies at your facility that continuously improve your existing pest control plan. In recent years, several technologies have emerged that can help improve the effectiveness of pest control, as well as the safety of food processing facilities and the goods they produce.

• Remote rodent monitoring: This involves the use of wireless sensor networks to collect data on pest activity. These sensors can be strategically placed in key areas to monitor temperature, humidity and other environmental factors that influence pest behavior. By collecting this data, pest control providers can focus on prevention by better predicting and analyzing pest behavior to find the root cause of the pest issue.
• LED insect light traps (ILTs): These traps are designed to emit light in specific spectra that are attractive to target pests while minimizing attraction to non-target species. This makes them more efficient and environmentally responsible compared with traditional insect light traps. LED ILTs consume less energy than conventional fluorescent lamps, reducing operational costs. They also have a longer lifespan, reducing the frequency of bulb replacements.
• Advanced application equipment: Improvements in the equipment used to apply chemical treatments include changing power sources from gasoline engines and direct electric power to battery-driven devices. This reduces environmental impact and allows for better control over the output of products, making a more effective application service.
• Insect monitoring and counting technologies: Many manufacturers are in the development stages of producing ILT devices that can count the number of insects captured and use artificial intelligence (AI) to identify types of insects captured. This technology will provide more accurate analysis of pest activity trending around your facility.
• Redesigning rodent management: Legislative changes in some parts of the United States are driving a change to managing rodent populations. Moving away from dependence on traditional rodenticides and using carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide instead to help reduce populations in burrow systems is becoming more common.

These new pest control technologies can help protect your food processing facility by maximizing preventive tactics to help minimize pest issues.

Integrated Pest Management

Now that you understand some of the newest technological advancements in pest control, it’s important to establish how these can fit into the overall pest control strategy. Integrated pest management (IPM) programs employ a comprehensive and sustainable approach that combines proactive pest prevention, regular monitoring, and targeted interventions to minimize the use of chemical treatments and help effectively manage pest populations in your facility. In an all-inclusive, ongoing, proactive cycle focused on prevention for your facility, providers will implement the most effective customized pest control measures to benefit the needs of the facility. Providers then continue to monitor the program’s effectiveness and perform check-ins as needed to ensure the facility is cared for.

With a focus on innovation and prevention, IPM is one of the most promising ways to bring in new technologies regularly and intentionally. A successful IPM program:

• Is environmentally responsible and intentional in its measures;
• Involves the entire staff in the operation through group training and instruction;
• Keeps detailed records of all pest activity and pest control operations;
• Educates and partners with facility managers to understand the business operations comprehensively;
• Addresses pest hot spots inside and outside the facility; and
• Inspects the property and focuses on exclusion techniques that help keep pests out of the building.

For optimal partnership with your pest control provider, always provide documentation of pest sightings and spotting trends in your facility. Implementing a process for staff to report any signs of pest activity can help keep employees aware. Always maintain open lines of communication with your pest control provider and communicate the importance of preventive measures internally.

Navigating pest control in your food processing facility requires looking toward the future and investing in new and innovative pest control technology to help develop the best possible protection and treatment plan for your facility. By fostering an environment of collaboration and forward thinking, you can help safeguard your facility, which in turn protects your customers and employees, preserves your business’s reputation, and helps you deliver the best possible product.

Meek is a technical services manager for Rollins, a pest-control company. He is a board-certified entomologist and a 35-year industry veteran in the field of pest management. Reach him at FMeek@rollins.com.

The post 5 New Pest Control Technologies for Food Facilities appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

In an era defined by the growing urgency of environmental concerns, one resource stands as a profound global challenge: water. As one of the planet’s most precious and scarce natural resources, water ranks as a top environmental, social, and governance (ESG) concern. While various industries worldwide grapple with the challenges of resource scarcity and environmental degradation, the food and beverage processing sectors require substantial water consumption for their everyday operations.

The Hidden Costs of Water Consumption

Whether used as an ingredient, an essential component of food preparation and production, or a tool for upholding workplace hygiene, the quantum of water consumed by a processor’s operations can quickly add up. According to Food Northwest, poultry processing can utilize anywhere from 3.5 to 7.0 gallons of water for each four-pound bird. For tasks like carcass washing and cleanup, beef processing can require a range of 350 to 550 gallons per animal. Meanwhile, contingent on their respective efficiencies, breweries can use between seven and 10 gallons of water to craft a single gallon of beer, and cold soft drink plants generally require between 1.3 and three gallons of water per gallon of packed soft drink.

The intricacies of the water–energy nexus further compound the cost of water. When water needs to be heated—for activities such as cooking, pasteurization, or cleaning—energy is expended to raise its temperature. This correlation holds true for various processes in the food and beverage industry, such as heating, cooling, pumping, mixing, and more. In essence, the greater the volume of water involved, the higher the concurrent energy consumption will be.

Amidst these complex dynamics, the consequences of substantial water consumption extend not only to food and beverage processors, but also to the environment. As ESG concerns rise to the forefront of many corporate agendas, food and beverage processors find themselves under growing pressures to align their operations with sustainable practices to manage water responsibly.

Safeguarding Operational Efficiency, Food Safety, and Hygiene

As the industry looks for ways to reduce water consumption, the quality of water used in food and beverage processing also has a significant impact on a facility’s long-term success. From the perspective of operational efficiency, pristine water quality ensures that equipment remains free of excessive scaling and fouling, which not only helps to extend the lifespan of machinery, but also reduces the need for frequent maintenance. In turn, this can lead to improved process efficiency and minimized downtime.

Courtesy of Diversey.

Additionally, water used for processes such as heating and cooling is more effective when it’s free from impurities or those impurities are managed properly. Clean water heats and cools more quickly and requires less energy to reach the desired temperature, leading to energy savings and more streamlined processing. According to the Bureau of Standards, steam boiler systems with only 1/16” scale formation can result in 11% efficiency losses, while cooling systems with biological film as thick as a piece of scotch tape are four times more insulative than mineral scaling and can reduce heat transfer efficiency by 7% to 10%.

Even more critical than operational efficiency is the importance of water quality in upholding the strict standards of food safety. Because water serves as an essential component for cleaning and sanitizing, it’s critical to keep this water free from harmful microorganisms. Contaminated water can introduce pathogens into the processing environment, leading to compromised products and the potential for an outbreak of foodborne illnesses—a grave scenario that no processor can afford to overlook. Furthermore, a clean processing environment, supported by high-quality water, contributes to a safer workplace for employees.

Enhancing and Understanding Your Current System

Despite the inevitable need for many water-intensive processes in the food and beverage sector, various methods exist to help processors optimize their water use and, ultimately, consume less over time.

One approach lies in elevating the efficiency of wastewater treatment processes. Since wastewater treatment is already necessary, simply enhancing your current process for reuse in non-potable processes can be a huge advantage. Effectively treating wastewater laden with organic matter often involves methods of filtration, sedimentation, coagulation, and chemical treatment to disinfect and purify the water. Utilizing reclaimed water provides an alternative water supply, enhances operational efficiency, helps cut costs, and strengthens profitability.

The growth of data tracking and analysis presents another method by which food processors can aim to optimize their water use and progressively reduce consumption over time. By leveraging data tracking, food processors can gain a comprehensive understanding of their current water consumption patterns and identify areas of improvement. Monitoring these insights in real time not only helps processors identify deviations from expected consumption levels but also provides an opportunity to predict and anticipate future trends. By embracing data-driven decision making, processors can track their progress over time, examine real-time cost of water and energy consumption, and develop customized water management strategies to fit their specific needs.

A Path to a More Sustainable Future

As the processing industry looks toward a greener future, the management of water use and water quality is a strategic method for a more sustainable transformation. Much like any systemic shift, the journey toward optimized water use must begin with a deeper understanding of the current processes in place. Providing a tangible “value advantage” as a supplier is a critical component needed for both customer and supplier to be successful. By integrating advanced water treatment technologies and continually measuring growth and development when it comes to water use, processors can minimize waste, harness their water’s potential for multiple cycles of use, and optimize processes to save time and energy, all while quantifying the value of these improvements.

Ultimately, water use for the food and beverage processing industry extends beyond mere consumption; it also comes down to responsible stewardship and maximizing the value of every drop.

Sperling is a project manager at Diversey, Food and Beverage and has 25 years of experience with food and beverage applications. Reach him at barry.sperling@diversey.com. Burke is an application project manager at Solenis and has 31 years of experience in water treatment. Reach him at mburke@solenis.com.

The post The Importance of Water Quality in Food Facilities appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

One of the most overlooked assets for many food processors is their workforce. There is a great deal of focus on food safety and quality, food safety culture, and prerequisite programs, but when it gets down to brass tacks, the line workers and their performance are what ensures that the plant operates as it should.

The role of production, sanitation, quality, and warehousing supervisors is to manage the operation and ensure that the company’s quality, safety, and sanitation programs are developed, documented, implemented, and—most importantly—properly maintained. It’s up to individual workers to conduct their jobs properly to ensure that programs are maintained. The key to maintaining the food quality and safety system is, as mentioned, developing and documenting programs, and then making sure that workers are properly educated so that they understand not only what is expected of them, but the rationale behind these expectations.

The Preventive Controls for Human Food rule found in title 21 of FDA’s CFR parts 117.10 and 117.37 emphasizes the need for programs such as disease control, handwashing, proper garments, and basic cleanliness, and is focused on people and equipment. CFR 117.37 addresses sanitary facilities and controls. How and why these are essential should be addressed as part of employee education. The goal is to minimize the potential for cross-contamination and cross-contact on the processing floor, in the warehouse, and on receiving docks to ensure that the foods produced are safe and wholesome.

The word “education” is used in this instance because it implies that a company’s programs focus not only on how to complete something and what is expected, but also why the programs are in place.

Education or training should occur within three levels:

• Orientation for new employees (this two-part program encompasses employee guidelines and job training);
• Refresher sessions for all employees (this should occur annually); and
• Emergency sessions in response to problems.

These programs must be developed, documented, and implemented by qualified individuals, preferably a Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI), in facilities regulated by FDA. Training may, however, be conducted by people under the supervision of a PCQI.

Orientation

All new employees must not only learn how to perform the job for which they were hired, but must also be educated on what is expected from a food hygiene, safety, and sanitation perspective. There are four areas that an orientation should address above and beyond learning how to conduct the task for which employees were hired. These are:

1. Issues related to prevention of contamination or adulteration.
2. Rules pertaining to clothing and garments;
3. Employee hygiene and disease control; and
4. Eating, drinking, and smoking.

How the orientation is conducted varies among companies. Some operations may present the information in a Powerpoint presentation led by a staff member, others may show a video, and some may simply give the new employee a document to review. An interactive program with visuals is the best option. When employees see, hear, and do, there is a greater chance that the message will register with the audience. It’s a good idea to provide each new employee with a document, such as an employee handbook that describes all expectations. They should sign the document acknowledging that they have both received and understood the company’s rules. Some operations even include language in their documents such as, “I understand the rules for employees of this plant and promise to abide by them as long as I am employed by the company. I also understand that failure to follow these rules may be grounds for dismissal.”

Employee Guidelines

Let’s look at what might be included in a food processor’s employee guidelines. Here are some points that a processor might establish to minimize the potential for product contamination or adulteration:

1. Process area doors are to be kept closed at all times during production. Do not use anything to prop open the doors.
2. All ingredients are to be stored in closed containers at all times to prevent contamination. After opening a container, reseal the bag or transfer the remaining product to a clean, resealable container and label it with the date that it was opened using indelible marker or a permanent tag. These materials shall be stored on pallets or shelves. No materials shall be stored on the floor at any time.
3. Allergens and sensitizing ingredients must be stored in designated areas only and kept away from non-allergens. Designated utensils must be used when using these materials.
4. All ingredient containers must be clearly marked as to their identity to prevent misuse. If a container is not labeled, set it aside and contact management.
5. All equipment lubricants, cleaning chemicals, sanitizers, and similar items must be stored away from ingredients and packaging materials in designated storage areas to prevent possible cross contamination.
6. Do not place any objects, such as pencils, pens, or cigarettes, behind your ear at any time.
7. Any product or packaging materials that fall onto the floor must be discarded.
8. Keep waste bins covered at all times.
9. Do not place food or drinks on packaging materials, ingredients, or finished goods. Food is allowed in designated areas only.
10. Personal stereos are not allowed in the production area because they cannot be sanitized after being handled.
11. All utensils, such as knives, spoons, and scoops, must be cleaned and sanitized and stored in designated areas when not in use.
12. Production floor staff must clean, sanitize, and store all processing equipment and utensils at the end of the work day according to documented procedures.
13. Cell phones are not allowed on the production floor or the warehouse and must remain in the employee’s vehicle or locker.
14. Situations that may create food safety or quality concerns must be reported to a supervisor immediately.

When conducting the orientation, the company should not only explain how to adhere to these protocols but also why they have been established and the ramifications of failing to properly follow them.

Attire

A second area that must be addressed in the orientation is clothing and garments. Most food processors provide their line workers with clothing and safety shoes. The clothing should be comfortable (breathable fabrics) and must not pose a risk for product contamination. Guidelines for proper attire include:

1. No jewelry, including rings, brooches, watches, pins, earrings, necklaces, or visible piercings, shall be worn in the production area. The only exceptions are a plain gold wedding band, which must be covered with a glove, and medical alert bracelets. The bracelet should be covered by a long-sleeve garment with elastic wrist bands.
2. All employees and visitors must wear hair nets when working in or entering the production or warehouse areas. Hairnets must cover hair and ears.
3. All bearded employees and guests must wear snoods when working in or entering the production area. Mustaches must be fully covered.
4. No articles whatsoever, such as pens, pencils, or thermometers, may be held in uniform pockets.
5. No hairpins, combs, or barrettes may be worn by employees working in the production area.
6. Employees working in the production area may not wear false eyelashes, false fingernails, or fingernail polish.
7. All employees must wear the disposable gloves that are provided when handling product or ingredients directly. Gloves must be discarded at the end of a shift or if they become soiled or damaged.
8. Production floor employees must put on a clean uniform each day. At the end of the day, the dirty uniform must be placed in the laundry hamper.
9. Employees must wear hearing protection in designated areas (e.g., processing and boiler rooms). Proper hearing protection is defined as earmuff-type hearing protectors or metal-detectable ear plugs.

Hygiene

Then there is employee hygiene and disease control. During the COVID-19 pandemic, food plant workers had to be masked. This is no longer required, but the pandemic showed that masks can be successfully used in food processing facilities. Additionally:

1. All employees are required to thoroughly wash their hands before starting work, after using the restroom, after touching any potentially insanitary equipment or utensils, and after any break. Following washing, employees must use hand sanitizer.
2. Any employee with any signs of illness (sneezing, coughing, runny nose, or fever) shall not be allowed to work in the production area. Contact your supervisor and report your condition prior to reporting to work.
3. Any employee with open and/or infected wounds or cuts on their hands or face shall not work in the production area. Wounds on hands must be fully covered with a glove if the employee is to work in the production area.

Employee health issues are more stringent in other parts of the world. There are countries that mandate a wide range of testing for any person wishing to work in a food plant. Tests may include but need not be limited to blood tests, tuberculosis tests, stool samples, and chest X-rays. This degree of testing is not allowed in the United States.

All these issues should be addressed at length during the orientation for the new employee. Yearly refresher sessions should address those issues that management deems to be higher risk, such as handwashing, and/or those that have observed to be deficient in some way. The deficiencies might have been picked up during internal audits or through third-party audits.

Further, it’s ultimately the responsibility of management to ensure that employees are not only properly educated but also properly motivated to do what is needed to protect public health and the company’s good name.

Editor’s note: Be sure to check the most up-to-date regulations for all requirements.

The post Tips for Establishing Employee Guidelines for Food Processors appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

In her eye-opening documentary “Poisoned,” filmmaker Stephanie Soechtig shines a light on the extent of contamination in the American food industry. Everyday grocery items from lettuce to chicken breasts, and even cookie dough, are sometimes tainted by dangerous levels of bacteria.

This isn’t surprising, necessarily. Romaine lettuce is frequently contaminated by E. coli O157 carried in irrigation water. Salmonella and Campylobacter, which often contaminate chicken, are prevalent in the fecal matter on chicken farms. And the cookie dough? Raw flour can carry harmful bacteria such as E. coli, which remain alive even after low-temperature baking. Raw or undercooked eggs can also introduce Salmonella into the dough, posing a risk to people who like a bite of raw dough while baking or who don’t bake their cookies long enough.

These contamination paths are built into the food production process and are hard to eliminate. That’s why, in the U.S. alone, a staggering 48 million people a year fall victim to foodborne illnesses. It’s also why we need innovative solutions to address pathogenic contamination. One such solution is ultraviolet (UV) technology. By harnessing the power of UV light, which is capable of killing harmful bacteria and pathogens in food items of all types, the food industry can reduce the prevalence and severity of food-related illnesses.

A Safe and Versatile Solution

UV technology offers a promising and pragmatic solution because it can significantly enhance food safety with minimal adverse effects on the environment or on the quality of foods.

One vital step toward improving food safety is treating irrigation water, a common source of contamination on farms. Among the disinfection methods available, UV technology is an ideal choice. Unlike chlorine, which can negatively impact plant health and the environment, UV technology provides a powerful yet safe means of eliminating pathogens from the water. By effectively neutralizing harmful microorganisms, UV treatment can ensure that irrigation water is made clean for agricultural use.

UV technology can also be used to curb the spread of pathogens in food processing plants, where it can be used as a surface disinfectant for conveyor belts. This is where a lot of cross-contamination happens and it only takes one tainted batch to spoil the rest due to the surface-to-surface transfer of pathogens.

Let’s consider a scenario in which a worker cuts up a chicken tainted with Salmonella; a single contaminated bird can contaminate an entire production line. Implementing UV surface disinfection measures would act as a robust barrier against that contamination.

The same disinfection measures could apply in fruit and vegetable processing. For instance, the outer surface of a cantaloupe is porous with a webbed texture that provides numerous crevices where bacteria can hide and thrive. Addressing this contamination is a challenge because these fruits might be irrigated with tainted water. In this case, incorporating an additional disinfection step that includes UV light makes good sense.

UV technology can even be used to disinfect food packaging. By ensuring that packaging material is free from harmful microorganisms, UV disinfection offers another layer of protection that enhances the safety and quality of the food product throughout its journey—from the point of production to the consumer’s doorstep.

Address Contamination at Its Source

Effective management of harmful pathogens requires a dual approach centered around disinfection and source-level regulations. The ultimate goal is to prevent pathogens from coming into contact with food products at the outset; however, the current regulatory framework is somewhat limited. In the farm environment, for example, regulations primarily rely on periodic testing by growers to identify the presence of pathogens such as E. coli in their water supply. These tests are conducted on an infrequent basis, often monthly or quarterly. For instance, Food Safety Modernization Act regulations in the U.S. rely on periodic, infrequent micro tests of the source water.

To enhance the safety of food products, a shift toward more proactive and real-time monitoring mechanisms is needed, as opposed to the conventional practice of collecting grab samples intermittently. UV treatment is a promising solution, offering valuable insight into water-quality variations. Through internet-connected sensors, UV technology can monitor and treat the water, actively identifying fluctuations in water quality and ensuring a swift response to any potential contaminants.

Indeed, by installing UV, growers can ensure greater regulatory compliance and higher quality food. It wouldn’t be a surprise to see large food producers offer a premium to growers who take these actions, just as dairy producers often pay a premium to farmers who consistently deliver milk with a lower microbial count.

UV technology addresses contamination concerns at the source, namely at farms and production facilities, and offers a powerful tool to intercept pathogens before they have a chance to spread through the supply chain. This approach significantly reduces the likelihood of cross-contamination and subsequent foodborne outbreaks.

One key advantage of UV technology is its potential to limit reliance on reactive measures downstream, such as product recalls and treatment of foodborne illnesses. Instead of dealing with the consequences of contamination after the fact, the integration of UV technology focuses on preventing the issue at its source. This protects public health and bolsters consumer confidence in the food they purchase, leading to stronger brand loyalty and a more resilient food industry.

Kershner is global commercial director at Nuvonic.

The post How UV Light Can Improve Food Safety appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

The lesser-known redlegged ham beetle, also known as the copra beetle or ham beetle, can cause big issues in the pet food industry. These pests prefer to dwell in meat products with a high grease or fat content, making pet food highly favorable to the beetles.

The beetles are known to feed on—you guessed it—ham, but also other potential pet food ingredients such as dried bone meal, dried egg, and cured and dried meats. In the right conditions, females can lay up to 3,000 eggs, depositing them within the cracks and crevices of food items and surrounding areas. Food manufacturers are facing a growing problem as the prevalence of these metallic blue-green pests continues to increase. Without sufficient pest management strategies, a puppy’s dinner may double as a beetle’s habitat.

Not originally native to the United States, the redlegged ham beetle has recently been identified as a serious concern to food manufacturers. As the presence of this beetle is likely to continue to increase in the coming years, pest control providers are at the forefront in identifying, managing, and partnering with manufacturers to stay ahead of the curve.

Help Protect Your Facility

This pest can have serious financial implications in food warehouses and stores if infested items are transported from manufacturing plants. If you notice the following signs around your facility, you may be facing a redlegged ham beetle issue:

• Damage to food items and packaging;
• Live larva and adults; or
• White silken cocoons on infested food items.

So, how does a food manufacturing and handling facility help protect itself against these beetles? By implementing an integrated pest management (IPM) program.

Most food-handling businesses likely have heard of IPM programs, especially if they are regularly audited by food quality and safety inspectors. These programs are implemented by qualified pest control technicians in collaboration with a business’s food safety and quality assurance team to help deter pest activity and prevent infestations. IPM programs focus on preventive techniques such as exclusion, sanitation, and maintenance to keep pests where they belong—outside of your business. When it comes to the increasing threat of the redlegged ham beetle, there are a variety of techniques that can help keep these pests at bay:

• Proper inspection of products is necessary to check for introductions, infestations, and potential harborage areas or areas that require cleaning;
• Sanitation is the most effective way a manufacturer can keep their products safe and untouched, so having a routine cleaning schedule of any cracks and crevices that may contain grease that draws beetles will help prevent introduced beetles from settling in;
• Proper storage of products including protective packaging and product rotation will help to preserve the integrity of the product;
• Exclusion measures such as installing screens on windows and ensuring doors shut properly and are equipped with door sweeps help keep products from being exposed to beetles; and
• Insect pheromone monitoring devices, which are also available to help with early detection and management of pests like redlegged ham beetles.

Infestation Prevention

In case of an infestation, it is important to quickly remove any infested items and ensure un-infested items are stored properly in protective packaging. Treating cracks and crevices near food resources with cleaning agents, probiotic treatments, and/or other special treatments are all ways to immediately reduce populations and help ensure they don’t have easy places to return to. In cases of extreme infestation, more aggressive pest treatments such as fumigation may be necessary.

Investing in a staff training plan to teach your employees how to spot signs of pests is also an effective way to prevent infestation on the front end. Your employees—mainly those on the production floor of your facility—see and hear more than you might know, which makes them invaluable in helping to identify pest issues. Trained staff, paired with an effective monitoring program, helps ensure that beetles are found quickly. Most pest control providers offer complimentary staff training, making this tactic cost-effective for your operations. Once your staff know the types of pests that frequent your facility, persistent hot spots, and the process for reporting activity, they’ll be able to help you address pest issues quickly and effectively.

Make a Plan

Now that you understand the threat of this beetle and ways to help prevent and control an infestation, don’t forget to review your unique IPM plan with your pest control provider. As the prevalence of this pest continues to grow, your pest control provider should stay informed, monitoring your facility year-round to ensure quality and cleanliness. If you don’t have a reliable pest control provider or an IPM program in place, now’s the time to implement a plan before this pest becomes a costly issue. Redlegged ham beetles pose a growing threat to pet food manufacturers around the world, and staying on top of the issue will help keep your products and facilities pest free.

Williams is a technical services manager for Rollins and a board-certified entomologist.

The post The Redlegged Ham Beetle Emerges as a Threat to the Pet Food Industry appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Manufacturing is being squeezed by labor and skills shortages. The numbers of people older than 55 in the technical workforce in the U.S. are increasing, signifying that not enough young employees are not replacing older ones. Meanwhile, technical demands for manufacturing have grown, making it difficult to hire the right workers. These companies need workers with the same skills as the workers who are currently retiring. For the most part, these are highly skilled people who have gained their expertise over 25 to 30 years.

The latest report released by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute predicts that as many as 2.1 million manufacturing jobs could be unfilled through 2030. The report warns that the worker shortage will hurt revenue and production and could ultimately cost the U.S. economy up to $1 trillion by 2030.

With these looming statistics, manufacturers face enormous pressures to stay competitive. But it’s not all doom and gloom: To combat these labor challenges, manufacturers are increasingly looking to technology and connectivity to expand productivity, decrease labor costs, increase uptime, and slash error rates.

Increased Plant Automation

Automation helps manufacturers reduce errors and costs while increasing productivity, quality, and safety standards. With the increased data coming from the production line, it’s now much easier to determine ways to improve efficiency and productivity and reduce error rates. Through an increased use of sensors and the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), machines can talk to each other and seamlessly react to any problems that arise. If a machine spots an issue, it can quickly alert other machines and employees, allowing the issue to be addressed in real time.

Using smart machines that can communicate with each other means that full traceability and transparency are possible across the entire food manufacturing value chain. That capability, in turn, reinforces food safety and helps a business meet regulatory needs in the most efficient manner.

Sensors and SCADA

Adding technology such as sensors that monitor whether a machine is working properly instead of having someone check out a problem is an ideal solution for areas with worker shortages.

Sensors pick up on performance aberrations that simply can’t be detected through manual spot checks and personnel monitoring. By detecting the underpinnings of potential issues in real time, sensors can alert maintenance teams of the need to investigate and prevent a machine failure before it happens.

Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) is a system of hardware and software elements used to control processes both locally and remotely. Such systems are crucial for organizations as they help maintain efficiency, process data for more well-informed decisions and communicate system issues to help mitigate loss and downtime. SCADA systems perform data acquisition and communication, information and data presentation, and monitoring and control.

These functions are performed by sensors, controllers, and a communication network. The sensors collect and send the information to the controller, which displays the status of the system. The operator can then give commands to the components of the system, depending on the status. SCADA systems allow communication between the operator and the connected devices. Real-time systems have thousands of components and sensors; each gathers data and helps ensure that every part of a facility is running effectively. The real-time applications can also be controlled remotely. Access to real-time information allows entities to make data-driven decisions about how to improve processes. Without SCADA, it would be difficult to gather sufficient data for consistently well-informed decisions.

Remote Monitoring

Another way to reduce unplanned downtime is with remote alarm notification software, which allows fewer employees to monitor many more assets using devices that people already have, such as smartphones and tablets. Uninterrupted remote availability is essential to ensuring systems can be continuously monitored, even without staff onsite or with fewer people working at the facility.

Remote monitoring of critical plant systems has been extended beyond email, texts, and phone calls to include apps that feature time-saving tools like real-time alarm acknowledgements, team chats to troubleshoot and resolve plant problems, and detailed reporting for preventing future incidents. Not only does this mean fewer emergency shutdowns, but it also means fewer resources are spent on overtime and maintenance.

A mobile alarm notification app is software that seamlessly integrates with the SCADA or HMI software of an industrial operation, allowing an employee to monitor, receive and acknowledge plant and machine alarms on their smartphone or tablet, freeing them up to work from home or any other remote location. Hardware and software are available that can constantly monitor equipment and, by applying machine learning to historical data, warn when a breakdown or other problem is imminent. Bolstered by wireless technology and IIoT, these customizable systems have the potential to bring predictive maintenance to a new level.

The benefits of using a remote monitoring and notification software system via a mobile app include:

• Streamlining decision making. Push notifications let users quickly see what is wrong, send an acknowledgment, and monitor alarm condition changes in real-time, right from smartphones.
• Promoting team problem solving. Chat helps the entire team converse, brainstorm, and share solutions on the fly, from anywhere—whether in the plant, at home, or on the road.
• Working more efficiently. Team visibility shows who has seen an alarm as well as who has acknowledged it, reducing guesswork and redundant responses.
• Providing multiple communication channel support. Ensures resiliency through voice notification and SMS messaging in the event of internet connectivity issues.

Remaining Competitive

Rapid globalization, technological advancements, changing consumer preferences, and evolving government policies are reshaping the manufacturing industry. Trying to meet these challenges with manually intensive processes and outdated technology is difficult; however, by seamlessly integrating advanced technology such as remote alarm notification software, manufacturers can increase productivity and efficiency, and reduce maintenance costs.

Bann is director of engineering at Austin, Texas-based WIN-911. Reach him at cody.bann@win911.com.

The post New Technology and Connectivity Software Can Aid Food Manufacturing Challenges appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

According to data from the Food and Agriculture Information Sharing and Analysis Center on the 200 to 300 ransomware attacks tracked each month in the U.S., approximately 10 to 20 are directed at agrifood businesses. The most famous case in recent years was the attack on JBS in May 2021, which resulted in an $11 million ransom payment after the meat giant had to close all of its beef plants across the country.

Even when no ransom is paid, the consequences of a cyberattack include high direct costs, disruptions up and down the supply chain, and damaged brand reputation, with the possible addition of theft of trade secrets and legal consequences. In April 2023, a network breach forced cold storage and logistics company Americold to take compromised servers offline, blocking all inbound and outbound deliveries. “With an attack like the one that hit Americold, you’ll have damages on both sides of the equation,” says Michael Delaney, corporate attorney at legal firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, based in St. Louis. “The manufacturer will have to either stop production because they don’t have enough storage space at the plant, or find an alternative distributor. On the other side, the distributor cannot get the product out to the retailer. The manufacturer may sue the distributor, while the retailer may sue both, if they breached the contract.”

Although most cases of cyberattacks that we read about on the news affect large public companies, smaller businesses are not exempt from risk. In an FBI notification issued in September 2021, the agency warned that larger agrifood businesses “are targeted based on their perceived ability to pay higher ransom demands, while smaller entities may be seen as soft targets.”

Food Safety Risks

Ransomware attacks tend to hit IT environments, which focus on data storage and communication. For food manufacturers, however, the risk extends to the operational technology side of the business that controls production. In a hypothetical attack, cybercriminals could exploit the vulnerability of industrial control systems (ICS)—the hardware and software that control equipment and processes—finding their way to the production floor and putting the quality and safety of food products at risk. “ICS systems control all sorts of devices, such as temperature sensors, gate valves, or automatic sampling systems,” says Col. John Hoffman, senior research fellow with the Food Protection and Defense Institute at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul. “By taking control of them, one could increase the temperature of an oven, shut down a refrigerator, or change parameters of a recipe, possibly adding an unwanted allergen.”

Most ICS systems used in the food industry are built on legacy technology that wasn’t designed to be connected to the internet. Now that they are plugged in for data collection and remote monitoring and servicing, their lack of protection is putting production plants at risk. Their gradual replacement with modern IoT devices might actually create new vulnerabilities, rather than reduce them. “Smart devices that send and receive data over the internet tend to bypass a lot of the security measures—such as firewalls—that protect both modern and legacy systems, exposing them to attacks,” says Rich Witucki, principal industrial consultant at industrial cybersecurity company Dragos.

As Eran Fine, CEO and co-founder of NanoLock, an Israel-based developer of cybersecurity solutions for industrial systems, says, connectivity itself is a variable that increases risk: “Hybrid systems are not necessarily more secure, but create different problems. While legacy technology is extremely vulnerable, it’s also less connected. IoT devices bring about more connectivity. They may be harder to breach, but once that happens, intruders may jump from the legacy into the new and vice versa.”

Even a single act of sabotage could have disastrous consequences. In 2015, 300,000 chickens in South Carolina were killed after someone tampered with the barn’s climate controls. In 2018, 1,200 pigs died of suffocation in an automated barn in the Netherlands, due to a malfunction of the remotely-controlled ventilation system. Although neither case was a cyber­attack, as the industry is relying more on remotely controlled equipment, autonomous tractors, and smart sensors, the risk of something similar being done by cybercriminals is real.

Cyberattacks may start long before they are discovered: “Cybercriminals usually do some kind of recon first, looking for vulnerable targets,” says Witucki. “Once they’re in, they try to elevate their user privileges so they can exploit other pieces of software. For example, they might move from the enterprise resource planning (ERP) to the manufacturing execution system (MES), to the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, which monitors and controls all phases of food preparation, such as recipes, time, and temperature.”

In most cases, what allows the intrusion is human error: “Employees are the biggest vulnerability,” says Hoffman. “They may compromise their home computer and then use it to log into the company’s system to clock in work hours or check their email on their work computer and click on something they shouldn’t  click on. Insufficient cyber hygiene is a big issue.”

National Security

Ransomware cases are increasing across all industries, as they are a quick and effective way to make money. But a criminal’s motive can be more than purely financial: “Companies sometimes are targeted by competitive moves,” says Hoffman. “Imagine a supplier that won a bid for a large contract, and a competitor breaks into its ICS to compromise the quality and safety of products. The company wouldn’t be able to comply with its obligations, eventually losing the contract. These attacks occur especially in China and Asian markets, but we’re beginning to see them in the U.S. and Europe, too.”

The breach can also be caused by insiders: “A criminal might pay a disgruntled employee one year’s worth of salary just to plug a USB stick into the system during a night shift, to change the ingredients’ dosage and cause severe quality issues,” says Fine.

But motives could be even more worrying. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) identified food and agriculture as one of the 16 sectors that are critical to the country’s security, health, and safety. Such strategic importance makes the industry an appealing target of state-sponsored cyberattacks: “If you wanted to take out a country, the first thing you would do is contaminate their food and water,” says Kristin Demoranville, CEO and founder of AnzenSage, a cybersecurity advisory consultancy for the food sector. “Thankfully, right now, cybercriminals are financially motivated, so they’re not going to kill anybody, at least not intentionally. But if they decide to flip the switch, the food supply chain is still so legacy driven that it could have horrible consequences.”

Recent attacks on producers of staple foods offer a glimpse of what could happen on a larger scale. In 2021, an Iowa farming co-op had to go completely offline and use manual processes after being hit by a ransomware; in 2022, a similar attack forced H.P. Hood Dairy to close its 13 plants; in 2023, a cyberattack shut down 10 water controllers in agricultural areas in Israel, temporarily halting the irrigation systems. “A synchronized cyberattack that completely disrupts the supply of water, bread, or milk could bring a country to its knees,” says Fine. “Besides, food is necessary not only for consumers, but also to armies. And when you starve an army, you’re in a better position to win.”

Risk Aversion in the Food Industry

The increasing attacks on agrifood businesses are a signal that the response to these threats is still insufficient: “In the food industry, cybersecurity is usually considered of secondary importance compared to production uptime and safety,” says Demoranville. “With food contaminations, the reaction is instant and visceral, because it’s clear to everyone that people might die. The same goes for cyberattacks, but people don’t understand it yet.”

“Many companies have an ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ mentality,” says Hoffman. “The legacy operating systems they’ve been using for years still work fine, and they like the convenience of connectivity, so they decide to keep them without segregating them into a separate network.”

One symptom of insufficient cybersecurity culture is lack of alignment within organizations: “Cybersecurity officers and production managers speak different languages,” says Fine. “While one will want to implement stronger passwords and multifactor authentication, the other needs to keep up with the production schedule and might see those measures as a waste of time.”

The risk of such a siloed mentality is to leave large portions of a company’s network unprotected: “Devices such as electronic door locks, security cameras, and door security systems aren’t part of a food production line, but are usually connected to the network,” says Hoffman. “A lot of companies don’t realize that those devices are exposed too: Bad guys could get into the camera’s firmware, and from there to more critical items.”

Fine believes the food sector needs a specific approach to cybersecurity: “Food manufacturing is not like a bank, which is very structured and allows you to control who gets in and who stays out. It’s a high-traffic and chaotic environment, where hundreds of people can influence production. Floor staff, but also visitors and vendors, may—knowingly or unknowingly—bring malware in when they connect to your equipment. Trying to outsmart the bad guys is futile: They have enough time, resources, and motivation to find the vulnerability. What we see companies do is try to detect attacks, while what they should really do is prevent and protect and realize that cyberattacks can come from any direction.”

If attacks can come from anywhere, the best defense, says Witucki, “is a layered structure, with firewalls in front of the legacy devices, network monitoring, and regular backups, so if somebody exploits a vulnerability to attack your system, you could get back up to speed relatively quickly. Also, you should have an incident response plan specific to ICS, so you would know what to during an emergency.”

When responding to an attack, it’s also important to address all possible legal implications: “You should immediately check the contracts and purchase orders with your customers to see if you are under obligation to report the incident to them and if you have any liability. The next step is to check if you have any insurance coverage,” says Delaney.

For Demoranville, the change to increased security must come from the top: “The executive level and the board need to agree that cybersecurity is a priority,” she says. “If that doesn’t happen, anything that gets done will be disbanded quickly. More companies should set up a strong change management board where representatives from all departments, including production and quality, meet once a week to discuss what’s happening in their environment. Ultimately, you can save lives and money if you do that properly.”

Tolu is a freelance writer based in Spain. Reach him at andrea@andreatolu.com.

The post Cybersecurity in the Food Industry appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Food processing facilities provide plenty of resources needed for survival—such as shelter, water, ideal temperatures, and food—so they will always be prone to pests. Because pest management accounts for a substantial portion of your facility’s total score for a food-safety audit, it’s important to be ready for anything your auditor will be looking for. Managing a food facility is already a demanding job, and you don’t want to fail an audit due to avoidable pest issues.

In this special collection, we bring together informative articles from Orkin and Food Quality & Safety that detail steps you’ll need to employ year-round to keep your products safe. You’ll learn how to monitor and track pests in your facility, how to be audit ready at any time, and how pests are seasonal and what to expect throughout the year.

This series of important articles will serve as a useful resource for your food facility when it comes to pest management and, ultimately, help you be proactive about pest control and uphold food safety regulations that will protect your business.

Download this resource today!

The post How to Help Control Pests in Your Food Facility appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Editor’s note: This is part two of a two-part series focused on dust hazard analysis. Part one, which appeared in the April/May issue, focused on the dust hazard analysis process. This article details how to put an analysis into practice at your food plant.

So, you’ve completed your dust hazard analysis (DHA). Now what? The DHA is just step one of your dust safety plan. Now it’s time to put the DHA recommendations into practice. That includes identifying and mitigating potential hazards and designing a dust collection system that complies with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines.

Elements of a Dust Safety Plan

Creating or updating your dust safety plan will typically start with the dust hazard analysis. A new DHA should be completed every five years or when new processes, system changes, materials, or environmental hazards are introduced. It will typically include:

• Material characterization results (from specific dust testing or, in some cases, based on industry-standard values for food dust explosibility);
• Process characterization;
• Identification of specific hazards;
• Evaluation of existing safeguards;
• Mitigation recommendations; and
• A process for documentation and verification of hazard reduction activities.

Hazard Identification and Prioritization

The dust safety plan begins with understanding the specific hazards presented by your dust, your processes, and your environment. The dust hazard analysis should identify areas where hazards exist that could lead to a dust cloud explosion, including nodes where both oxygen and dust are present, potential ignition sources, (including heat sources from processes as well as static build-up, friction, or sparks from mechanical systems), and areas where dust tends to form clouds (e.g., dump points, batch mixers) and where dust clouds are enclosed (e.g., bins, silos, ductwork).

Hazard prioritization goes a step further. In this process, hazards are quantified and ranked using two metrics:

1. The likelihood that a combustion event could occur, given both the inherent hazards and the efficacy of any existing mitigations already in place; and
2. The potential severity of an explosion should one occur, given the characteristics of the dust (e.g., explosion indices), dust volume, physical facility layout, and the presence of other hazards, such as dust accumulation, that could fuel a dangerous secondary explosion.

Figure 1. Example hazard ranking analysis. Courtesy of RoboVent.

One simple way to prioritize hazards is to rank each issue on a scale of one to four for both likelihood and severity. Multiplying likelihood by severity gives you a numeric value for each hazard, from 1 to 16, with 1 being the lowest risk and 16 being the highest (see figure 1).

Each hazard is then assigned an overall risk level, which can be used to prioritize risk mitigation activities (see figure 2). Hazards with the highest risk levels should be addressed first; however, keep in mind that any issue that puts the facility out of compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and NFPA guidelines must be addressed in a timely manner, even if the overall risk level is determined to be low or moderate.

Figure 2. Example risk level prioritization chart. Courtesy of RoboVent.

Make Risk Mitigation Decisions

Once you have risks prioritized, you need to start making mitigation decisions. There is no single solution when it comes to combustible dust hazard mitigation. The tools and strategies used will depend on many factors and may include:

• Material substitution (though this is not always an option when dealing with food ingredients;
• Changes to processes (e.g., removing or shielding an ignition source, changing the design of conveyance systems or dump points to reduce cloud formation, etc.);
• Administrative standards and changes to worker behavior (e.g., using an NFPA-compliant vacuum system instead of brooms for housekeeping, limiting the number of people who have access to high-hazard areas, and providing worker training and education); and
• Engineering controls, including dust collection.

The explosion pentagon is a good place to start when evaluating potential risks and making mitigation decisions (see figure 3). All five elements of the pentagon must be present for an explosion to occur: a combustible dust, dispersion in a cloud, enclosure of the cloud, oxygen, and a source of ignition. Eliminating one or more of these elements will prevent an explosion from taking place.

Figure 3. The explosion pentagon. Courtesy of RoboVent.

When making risk mitigation decisions, it is important to remember the hierarchy of controls, a framework used to prioritize safety measures in the workplace (see figure 4). According to the hierarchy, companies must first attempt to find solutions higher on the hierarchy, such as elimination of hazards, before resorting to solutions lower on the hierarchy, such as offering personal protection equipment (PPE). For example, eliminating an ignition source must be considered, where possible, instead of simply telling people to avoid a hazardous area. By the same token, engineering controls—that is, engineering systems or physical changes to the work environments that minimize the risk of an explosion occurring or reduce the potential for damage should one occur—must be put into place wherever possible instead of asking people to change their behavior or wear PPE.

Engineering controls for combustible food dust can take many forms. For example, ventilation and/or dust collection systems, which prevent dust from accumulating in the ambient facility air and reduce dust build-up on surfaces and enclosures can be used to contain dust and prevent it from propagating through the facility. Enclosures must be paired with an effective dust collection system to prevent dust clouds from forming inside the enclosure and amplifying the risk of an explosion.

Figure 4. The hierarchy of controls. Courtesy of RoboVent.

Dust Collection System Design for Combustible Food Dust

A dust collection system is almost always part of a mitigation strategy for combustible food dust. Here are some general considerations in the design of a dust collection system for combustible food dust.

Hood or enclosure design. Dust collection for combustible food dust is usually source capture—that is, the system is designed to collect dust close to the source where it is generated. A source capture system prevents dust from escaping to other places in the facility and building up on surfaces. It also will keep food dust out of the breathing zone, which reduces health and safety concerns for workers. Some processes are fully enclosed, such as an enclosed conveyance system. Others may use overhead hoods or fume arms to capture dust as it is created. Hood design will have a significant impact on the overall efficiency of the system. Some considerations in hood design for combustible food dust:

• The enclosure should have tight seals and joints to prevent dust from leaking out;
• The hood or enclosure must be constructed using appropriate materials, such as heavy-duty steel, to withstand an explosion; and
• Fully contained enclosures and ductwork should be equipped with explosion venting to safely release the pressure of a combustion event.

Capture efficiency. The dust collection system must be able to prevent dust from accumulating inside the enclosure and ductwork in concentrations that will allow an explosion to occur (minimum explosive concentration [MEC]). Dust collectors are rated by cubic feet per minute (CFM), or the volume of air they are able to move each minute. The dust collector must be sized appropriately for the volume of air it must move and the velocities that must be maintained for efficient capture of the dust. Reducing the volume of air that must be moved (for example, by using a smaller enclosure or minimizing the length of ductwork) will improve the efficiency of the system.

Dust collector type and filter selection. There are many different types of dust collectors to choose from. In the food industry, baghouse collectors and cartridge collectors are the most used. A cartridge dust collector is a good choice for most food processing applications. Cartridge collectors come in a wide range of sizes for applications ranging from single processes to entire facilities with multiple dust collection points. They also have higher efficiency and a smaller physical footprint per CFM than baghouse collectors. Finally, they offer many options in filter media selection, including filters for coarse/abrasive dust, ultrafine dust and powders, and sticky or hygroscopic dust. For combustible food dust, a static-free filter media may be advised to reduce the risk of static sparks generating an explosion inside the collector.

Dust collector placement. Placement of the dust collector is another important consideration when collecting combustible food dust. It is often advisable to place the dust collector outside or in a separate, explosion-proof area away from workers and equipment. Clear safety zones must be established around the collector. If the dust collector is placed inside, it must meet strict NFPA guidelines for explosion venting, isolation, and suppression (see below).

Fire and explosion safety. The dust collector and ductwork present one of the largest areas of risk for a food dust explosion. The dust collection system must be designed in accordance with NFPA guidelines to mitigate fire and explosion risks inside the system. Elements may include:

• A deflagration system (including explosion vents and isolation valves) to mitigate the damage of an explosion inside the collector;
• A fire suppression or extinguishing system;
• A damper system to cut off airflow if a fire is detected; and
• Control of potential ignition sources near the dust collector or ductwork intake.

Operation and maintenance. Dust collector operation and maintenance are also critical for dust collector safety. Necessary maintenance includes changing filters as they become loaded, emptying collection bins when they are full, cleaning the dust collector chamber and ductwork (if improper duct velocities) to prevent accumulation of dust and deposits inside the system, and inspecting and maintaining all electrical and mechanical components, including the motor and blower, to minimize the risk of friction or sparks inside the collector becoming an ignition risk.

Verification, documentation, and monitoring. All decisions for dust collection system design and other dust safety mitigations must be carefully documented. Documentation is used to confirm compliance with regulatory requirements, provide a road map for personnel who may not have been part of initial design decisions, and make it easier for engineers to adjust later. Verification and ongoing monitoring are also essential to ensure that mitigations, including dust collection, are having the intended impact.

A combustible dust plan for food processing facilities must continually evolve as processes, ingredients, equipment, and regulations change. A third-party engineering firm can interpret the results of the dust hazard analysis, evaluate your current mitigation strategies, and help you design a dust control system that meets your needs and is fully compliant with OSHA regulations and NFPA guidelines.

Yinger is director of engineering at RoboVent. Reach her at info@robovent.com. For more information about the DHA process, view Robovent’s Visual Guide to Combustible Dust.

The post How to Implement a Dust Hazard Analysis in Your Food Plant appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.