At the beginning of 2020, how many operations in the food and beverage supply chain included employee health measures as part of their business continuity planning? Based on the number of employees who fell ill due to the pandemic and the ripple effect this had across the industry’s workforce, not enough. This has forced the entire supply chain to take a focused, proactive look at how to effectively protect the workforce against contracting and spreading the disease. Implementing protective measures to maintain a healthy workforce is a key component of any business continuity plan, especially during a pandemic.

Where should development of a plan that prioritizes employee health begin? First, gather the facts about how the virus spreads from person to person. Second, choose and develop health mitigation measures required for workforce protection. And third, manage these strategies so that they will remain effective.

Understand How COVID-19 Spreads

The scientific community, as reported through WHO, CDC, and other agencies, has identified numerous facts about SARS-CoV-2. This information includes how the virus is transmitted, how long its incubation period is, what symptoms it causes, and when an infected person is contagious.

The primary mode of transmission is through close contact, which is defined as being within six feet of an infectious individual for 15 consecutive or cumulative minutes. Respiratory droplets and smaller particles that contain the virus are expelled from an infected person through breathing, talking, sneezing, or coughing into the air around the infected person. Any uninfected person in close contact may then inhale enough of the virus to also become infected.

The secondary mode of transmission is through contact transfer, such as shaking the hand of an infected person. Contact transfer can also include touching a surface where the virus is viable, as the coronavirus can remain viable on various types of surfaces for between 24 and 72 hours. An infected person can expel the virus onto these surfaces through respiratory actions or transfer it from a hand used to cover a cough or sneeze. An uninfected person who touches a surface with the virus on it and then touches their mouth, nose, or eyes could potentially inhale enough of the virus to become infected.

Also critical in understanding how to prevent transmission of the virus is its incubation period of five days, with a range of two to 14 days prior to the onset of symptoms. The virus is believed to be most infectious in the 24 to 48 hours before an individual experiences symptoms, and this may last for up to 10 days after symptoms subside. Some individuals remain asymptomatic for the entire time they are infected with the virus, which means they can infect others without ever showing any symptoms of the illness themselves.

Knowing the facts makes it easier to tailor plans and mitigate the transmission risks among workers in facility operations.

Develop Health Mitigation Measures to Protect the Workforce

The first opportunity to control risk is at the entrance to the facility. Screening employees, visitors, and contractors prior to site entry for evidence of fever and illness symptoms will stop symptomatic sick and infectious people from entering the site. Another beneficial tool is a health questionnaire that asks about symptoms and exposure to people who have tested positive.

The pre-entry screening process will eliminate site access to those individuals who represent a clear risk for disease transmission. However, these steps do not eliminate those who are carrying the virus but are not yet showing symptoms or those who will remain asymptomatic. This scenario requires additional measures to protect the workforce against contracting the disease while at work.

Because the virus is expelled into the air, it is logical to implement measures to contain respiratory droplets. This is best done by requiring all employees and others who are onsite to wear face masks. Unless they are medical grade, face masks do not contain all respiratory droplets, nor are they meant to protect the wearer. Wearing a mask will help protect others from someone who is shedding the virus. Some individuals may be unable to wear face masks due to health conditions; consider having them use full face shields instead to help contain their respiratory droplets.

Not all respiratory droplets will be contained by a mask or face shield, so the implementation of six feet or two meters of distance between employees is another mitigation measure. The crisis management team should carefully evaluate the site to determine where people work in close contact with one another and how distancing can be managed. In manufacturing, slowing line speed may allow for fewer employees on lines to maintain distancing. When this is not possible, construction of food-safe, cleanable barriers between employees might be the answer. Marking traffic patterns in the site to promote social distancing is another strategy. Employing the use of technology for clocking in and out can eliminate congregation and unnecessary contact with the time clock. Managing employee density in break rooms, restrooms, laboratories, and elsewhere is another mitigation measure to be employed. Using staggered shift times and break times will also help prevent employees from being in close contact with one another.

The combination of wearing masks and social distancing helps mitigate the risk of airborne transfer between members of the workforce. The choices the crisis management team makes will need to be tailored to each specific operation.

Next, consider the contact transfer risk. Human hands have long been known as a vector for the introduction of pathogens to food and food contact surfaces. Therefore, an emphasis on effective handwashing should already be in place to maintain food safety, preventing the transfer of pathogens from hands into food. Though coronavirus has not been identified as transmissible through food, our hands can transfer the virus to ourselves through contact with our face, mouth, nose, or eyes. A thorough, 20-second wash with soap and water will not only help ensure food safety, but will also help decrease the transfer of coronavirus.

Operations can further mitigate the risk of contact transfer by identifying and implementing a plan to frequently disinfect all touchpoints in the worksite. The chemical used for disinfection should be labeled as effective to destroy the coronavirus, which can be verified by checking the label or the EPA List N.

Other strategies for managing contact transfer include the assignment of pens, forklifts, and other tools to individuals for the duration of the workday, followed by disinfection at the end of the day. Kick plates can be installed on doors to eliminate the use of doorknobs. Some internal doors can be left open, if practical. The crisis management team can identify other opportunities to manage the touchpoints in the facility.

Manage Effective Mitigation Strategies

Once strategies have been selected, they must be properly managed to be effective. The order of donning PPE like face masks, face shields, gloves, and any other gear the team has chosen to accompany hairnets, aprons, and outer garments already in place is important. Check CDC guidelines for donning and doffing instructions.

Control of face masks and any reusable gear provided to employees is crucial. Any worn gear must be considered contaminated, as you don’t know who may be asymptomatic. Disposable masks must be discarded at the site in clearly labeled and lined containers, designated for this purpose only. Personnel who remove this trash need to be protected and instructed on how to handle this debris. Reusable face masks must be held captive at the plant to undergo defined washing and disinfection processes prior to reuse. Allowing employees to provide and manage their own reusable face masks means that the site has lost control of this protective measure.

When an employee reports that he or she is sick and/or has tested positive for the virus, steps are needed to protect the remaining workforce. This includes contact tracing for those who were in proximity with the infected individual, quarantining and disinfecting the worksite, and setting up symptom-based, time-based, or test-based strategies for the affected individual to return to work. These strategies have been defined by the CDC.

Once health mitigation measures are established, training everyone on what to do and showing them why it is important to maintain their health will ensure understanding and buy-in. All employees must be fully committed to the program for their own health and for the health of those with whom they work.

The effectiveness of any health mitigation measures implemented in an operation relies on management’s ability to monitor and enforce the measures for everyone’s protection. Maintaining frequent and transparent communication will keep everyone in the facility informed of the steps taken to keep them healthy and the business operational.

There has never been a better time than during the pandemic to develop, implement, and manage such employee health measures. For additional guidance and a standard that can be audited against, AIB International’s Pandemic Prepared Certification further defines these and other measures that will help keep your workforce safe and business operational.

Ray is manager of technical services at AIB International. Reach her at ppc@aibinternational.com.

The post COVID-19: How to Develop and Manage Employee Health Measures appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

While clean in place (CIP) has been the dominant cleaning method for food industries since the second half of 20th century, it’s now facing several challenges. Food processors are questioning how to make it more efficient and less expensive.

The four main parameters in cleaning (knows as TACT) include:
T: Time (total and of each cleaning phase)
A: Action (mechanical effect)
C: Concentration (of cleaning chemicals)
T: Temperature (of water/cleaning chemicals)

There are two main challenges when starting an optimization process. One includes how modifying one of these four parameters will affect hygiene or quality performance. Raising the temperature, for example, will have a bactericidal effect but can increase mineral scaling when cleaning chemicals have a high pH and are loaded with product remains, as the same cleaning chemicals are being recirculated in the CIP process. This situation is very common in dairies where the main cleaning agent is caustic: The cleaning chemical contaminates itself with calcium-rich product residues during washes, which in turn reduces its effectiveness over time.

Another challenge is how to measure performance. Typical CIP sensors will be flowmeters (action), conductivity meters (concentration), and thermometers (temperature). The sensors will just report the current or planned situation (for example, run caustic at 1.2% and 30 m3/h for 20 minutes at 75 C [132 GPM and 167 F]). None of these sensors will report whether this time is ridiculously long or just barely sufficient. Let’s be clear—sensors are very important during production, but the installation of novel devices that use methods like spectrophotometry to accurately measure each step’s time of efficiency remain relatively infrequent. For this reason, any change done without introducing new technology will be very inefficient as it will require extensive visual checks, bacteriological tests, and a lengthy validation process.

As the benefit-risk ratio of implementing new technologies for CIP optimization is often perceived unfavorably, when it comes to solving hygiene or quality issues most companies will try in the beginning to extend washing time or raise chemical concentrations. However, most of the time these changes won’t solve the problem.

At the end, all this then translates to massive resources wasted globally every day, with a huge environmental and economic impact, without ensuring a better-quality performance. Hence, the best ways to achieve both quality improvement and savings is to increase the information available by adding specialized sensors, investing in data analysis, and adding novel technologies.

Technology-Supported Clean in Place Optimization

A relatively novel technology that can support a CIP optimization through several angles is software-guided power ultrasound. This technology involves plate waves, sound-guided in metal plates, or pipes (also called Lamb waves). Akin to a low-power micro-vibration, the ultrasonic waves act on the fact that the first connection between fouling and metal pipe is weak Van der Waals forces, and disrupt this first interaction, preventing fouling from sticking harder. If action is taken already at that point and nucleation points are prevented from forming, then metal surfaces can be kept clean for a very long time.

This power ultrasound technology is efficient on various types of fouling and its benefits are especially seen where CIP chemicals aren’t performing as expected or chemical use isn’t an option. Uses include:

• Burnt Foodstuff: Caramelized sugars or Maillard reaction residues are difficult for chemicals to remove. They need surfactant additives, and even with them, washing performance is often poor if the layer is thick. Ultrasound is able to crack this layer and help cleaning chemicals to act deeper and remove burnt residues.
• Thick Fat: Caustics are efficient on fat provided the layer remains relatively thin. In very fatty processes (like butter or meat processing), fat clogging of pipes is common. Ultrasound has a very strong emulsifying effect that removes fat blockages in a matter of minutes, or can even prevent fat from depositing.
• Thick Scale: Though minerals are often handled by complexing additives or by acid, some processes aren’t able to use them or require lengthy and costly rinses. Ultrasound cracks through loosely assembled crystals within seconds.

Software-guided power ultrasound will increase mechanical effect (the “A” of TACT), which in CIP is often the most critical performance parameter. This is done mostly thanks to cavitation.

Besides its use during CIP, software-guided power ultrasound can be used during most production runs to prevent fouling from forming in the most difficult places. It can also be used for sterilization steps. This technology allows for longer production runs and increases production capacity and savings as CIP is needed less often.

Chappuis is an account executive at Altum Technologies. Reach him at clement.chappuis@altumtechnologies.com.

The post Optimize Clean in Place with Software-Guided Power Ultrasound appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Cleaning in manufacturing facilities is essential to preventing microbiological buildup on processing equipment and producing a safe product for consumers. While most industry professionals are familiar with clean in place (CIP), a good cleaning program also involves clean out of place (COP) as part of the process.

CIP is a term most industry professionals are familiar with, as it’s used in food manufacturing facilities as an efficient and effective process to clean manufacturing equipment and help ensure food safety and quality. You can think of CIP like a washing machine connected to your food processing equipment, dedicated to rinsing, washing, and sanitizing the internal components of that equipment.

The COP process can be used for equipment and components that require at least some disassembly to be cleaned. COP is generally beneficial for cleaning individual parts like hoses, fittings, nozzles, trays, knives, clamps, and even conveyor belts that are taken off the machinery to be cleaned, removing them from the CIP cleaning cycle.

Automated and Manual Processes

While essentially any cleaning completed “out of place” is considered COP, there are both automated and manual processes. Manual involves cleaning by sanitation personnel, often with buckets of water, brushes, chemical solution, and elbow grease.

Rather than manually cleaning individual out-of-place items, many facilities elect to use an automated COP system. This ensures a detailed clean and saves the operation the labor and stress of manual cleaning. You might think of automated COP like you would the use of a dishwasher cleaning your dinner dishes. Larger pieces of removed machinery are placed inside a COP tank to be cleaned. For smaller items, such as gaskets, a COP basket can be used to ensure those items aren’t lost during the COP cleaning cycle.

Once parts have been disassembled and placed in the tank, a cycle similar to CIP is run. The parts in the tank are rinsed, cleaned, and sanitized through an automated COP cycle. There are six common steps in a COP cleaning process:

1. Dry cleaning. This step removes product residue or other debris from the equipment.
2. Rinse the parts in the COP tank. This will also remove any additional residue or debris the dry cleaning did not remove.
3. Cleaning the equipment with a soap or chemical. When done in the COP tank, the parts are run through a cycle that circulates the water and chemical solution with the appropriate action to effectively clean the equipment.
4. Rinse the parts in the COP tank. This will remove any residual chemical.
5. Complete a visual inspection or swabbing to ensure parts were adequately cleaned. If the parts do not pass, a reclean is needed before moving on to the next step.
6. Sanitize the parts in the tank. This generally involves leaving them to soak in a sanitizer solution until the equipment is ready to reassemble.

The Four Pillars of Good Cleaning

It’s also important to note that all good cleaning activities, whether CIP or COP, involve the main steps of TACT: Time, Action, Concentration, and Temperature.

• Time is defined as how long the cycle runs and can vary depending on the parts being cleaned, as well as the COP equipment and chemical used.
• Action is the turbulence of the COP tank. Depending on the parts being cleaned, some systems have a predetermined setting.
• Concentration is the amount of chemical used in the COP. This is defined on the chemical label. A high concentration may require an additional rinse to ensure all the chemical was removed. A low concentration may require a reclean due to inadequate cleaning.
• Temperature of the water is based on what you’re trying to accomplish. Hot water is usually used for a caustic clean, while room temperature water is used for a sanitizer soak.

An automated system controls each of these steps to help reduce personnel labor and ensure consistency in the process. Equipment today is also designed to be more sanitary than in the past, which aids in the cleaning process of the equipment.

Utilizing CIP and COP as complementary cleaning methods allows sanitation personnel to better clean and sanitize foodservice production equipment, whether it’s assembled or disassembled. Their implementation can help ensure food safety and quality all the way down the line.

Moran is quality assurance regional manager at AIB International. Contact her at mmoran@aibinternational.com.

The post Clean Out of Place to Complement Your Clean In Place appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

In 2011, the increased public awareness of food pathogens contributed in large measure to the passage of the Food Safety & Modernization Act (FSMA), which put into place a far more rigorous set of regulations surrounding food safety than had ever existed. In recent years, equipment cleaning processes employed by the food and beverage industry have come under even more increased scrutiny. This is the result of the widespread publicity around pathogen outbreaks in commercially processed food, including E. coli found in Californian romaine lettuce in 2018, and the presence of Listeria in Blue Bell ice cream in 2015. A drive toward more efficient food production coupled with the increased awareness of food pathogens has led the food processing industry to shift its focus to the equipment cleaning processes—specifically cleaning equipment surfaces that come into direct contact with food.

Designing a Clean-in-Place System

Figure 1. Electric fluid heater.

Image Credit: M.G. Newell

There are two basic approaches used in cleaning food processing equipment. The first, clean-out-of-place (COP), is used for cleaning pieces of equipment and utensils that can be easily removed from the production line and disassembled for cleaning (e.g., beaters used in mixers). The second approach, called clean-in-place (CIP), is employed in aseptic and other processing operations where the interior surfaces of the food processing line, such as tanks and piping, cannot be easily reached and disassembled for cleaning. CIP cleaning is the more difficult of the two cleaning processes, and typically involves specialized CIP systems, employing fluid pumps and heaters.

In a CIP system, cleaning fluids are typically heated to increase their cleaning efficiency. Depending on the application, a few different cleaning agents may be used, including hypochlorites, peracetic acid, ozone-enriched water, and acid anionic. The cleaning fluid is circulated through the CIP system in a prescribed manner to regulate the flow, mixing, temperature, time, and mechanical force used with the cleaning agent to achieve maximum results.

Historically, steam-based heat exchangers were used to heat cleaning fluids used in CIP applications in the food and beverage industry. In recent years, the trend has been to use electric fluid heaters (often in-line types) that may be easily incorporated into CIP skids (see Figure 1). These electric fluid heaters provide the flexibility needed for designing into different types of CIP systems, and are ideally suited for lower process flows.

In selecting a fluid heater for CIP applications, there are several critical factors to consider, including:

• Sanitary Design
  • Components such as the heating element, valves and gaskets, used in the construction of the heater eliminate possible locations for contaminants to thrive in the heater.
  • Wetted surfaces in the heater should be constructed of 316L electropolished stainless steel, as it presents an extremely smooth surface to the cleaning fluid.
• Dead Leg Eliminating
  • Eliminate any areas outside of the regular fluid flow path that could harbor pathogens.
  • Non-threaded design fittings provide a smoother surface with few nooks and crannies.
• Fluid Drainability
  • Cleaning fluids should be completely drained from the system after use.
  • An input on the bottom of the heater should allow for complete gravity draining of the heater.
• Temperature Control
  • Maintaining an accurate fluid temperature is essential for the efficiency of the cleaning process.
  • Temperatures may fluctuate more readily in steam-powered heat exchangers than electrically powered fluid heaters, leading to inconsistent cleaning results.

While fluid heaters are at the heart of the clean-in-place process, there are other considerations to be taken into account when designing an ideal CIP system. First, engineer your system for efficient operations. Easy access to the cleaning equipment is also important, especially during FDA inspections.

Most important, though, is a CIP line that’s designed for maximum cleaning against microbial agents. With this in mind, use the proper tanks for the cleaning agents. Fluid tanks should have smooth and continuous welds, be self-draining, and their interior surfaces should be round or tubular, not flat, with no ledges or recesses that could harbor contaminants.

Then, identify and use the proper cleaning agents for your particular application. Hypochlorites are ideal for cleaning stainless steel surfaces that come into direct contact with food. Peracetic acid can be used against all microorganisms and may be applied with either cool or warm water. Acid (anionic) is an effective cleaning agent for removing hard water films or milk stone (found in dairy operations). Finally, ozone-enriched water kills microbes as effectively as chlorine without the hazardous side effects that come with chlorine’s use, and has been approved by the FDA for use on food contact surfaces.

Your CIP system must also be designed for the correct fluid flow rate to ensure cleaning “turbulence” and thorough cleaning results. The fluid flow rate through the CIP system’s process piping should be greater than or equal to 5 feet per second. The flow rate is a function of the pump size—ideally, it should be able to produce a flow rate that’s at least four times greater than that required during cleaning operations, so selecting the proper fluid pump for your CIP system is critical.

Finally, your CIP system needs to be engineered with the proper connections between the component pieces. Avoid creating lively dead areas that are outside of the cleaning agent process flow. These too are ideal locations for pathogen growth.

Even the most carefully designed CIP system will need to be monitored on an ongoing basis once it’s in use to ensure that it’s working as intended. “Automation” does not equal “automated process control.” Several items in the CIP system need to be checked on a regular basis, including cleaning chemical concentrations, pH levels, and pump/metering device performance. Also, check the water chemistry on a periodic basis. Hard water can precipitate on surfaces and clog holes, compromising fluid flow and coverage. A well-designed and well-maintained CIP system will ensure that your food-processing line is operating at maximum efficiency, and delivering results that will minimize the likelihood of food pathogen problems.

Cartee is director of marketing and business development at M.G. Newell. Reach her at mimi.cartee@mgnewell.com. Nhan is marketing coordinator at Heateflex. Reach her at pnhan@heateflex.com.

The post Best Practices for Clean in Place appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down with Cliff Coles, president for over 20 years of Clifford M. Coles Food Safety Consulting, Inc., to discuss the topic of what makes an effective environmental program. Here’s how the conversation went:

Richard Stier: Should every company put together a hygiene monitoring program? Why or why not?

Cliff Coles: A hygiene monitoring program should reflect the risk assessment on the product being made. Certainly, a ready-to-eat product such as a salad or a cold-cut sandwich should and would have a more in-depth significance, whereas a beverage facility producing shelf-stable juices would be concerned with economic spoilage organisms, such as yeast, molds, and perhaps Lactobacillus or Alicyclobacillus. Whatever the case, it becomes the report card that justifies the efforts and dollars being spent by a company to remain in the marketplace. With respect to food safety, keep in mind that regulatory officials do not need to prove that a product is contaminated. They simply need to show that the product is being manufactured in an environment whereby it may become contaminated. This is a big difference, and if a company fails to monitor and control the environment, it could fail the test.

RS: Do you have a preference for the type of tests used?

CC: A company needs to decide how it will set up an environmental swab program. Will the program include Zone 1 swabs (direct food contact surfaces) or Zone 2, Zone 3, and Zone 4 only? Those who choose to include Zone 1 areas may opt for testing for “indicator” organisms, such as coliforms, as their choice over the other options. Several companies have chosen non-specific genetic testing (performance testing) to gauge the effectiveness of the sanitation on Zone 1 and Zone 2 environmental areas.

The options for monitoring an environment are plentiful, each has its own pros and cons, and each can be used to support the other. While plate counts and other counting methods require incubation time and can be cumbersome, counts can be used to determine levels of a specific organism and identify indicator organisms. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is a longstanding technique that is sometimes misunderstood. ATP results do not equate to the microbial load on a surface being sampled but do reflect the presence of organic material that can be the source of bacterial contamination, or at least be a food source for bacteria. A word of caution however: If the sanitation chemicals contain phosphates (the “p” being “phosphate” in ATP) and the chemicals are not sufficiently rinsed off of equipment surfaces, then the ATP swab results will naturally be consistently over the action limits that a company has deemed as acceptable.

Allergen swabbing is not a measure of microbial sanitation, but again, if the cleaning for microbial contamination is insufficient it’s pretty much a guarantee that the allergen proteins, if present, will remain. Environmental monitoring has to include the presence of allergens within the facility if allergenic ingredients are used. If gluten is the allergen of concern for example, the monitoring program needs to include ancillary areas of the production zones like walls, overhead structures, air ducts and air filters, and other product contact surfaces on adjacent equipment and in Zones 1 and Zone 2.

RS: If a company gets positives in its hygiene monitoring, what do you suggest as a corrective action?

CC: How a company reacts to a positive should be dictated by where the positive is found. Unless the company is doing ATP swabs, non-specific genetic performance testing, indicator organism swabs, or protein swabs on Zone 1 sites, finding a positive swab implicates finished products, while a Zone 2 or Zone 3 positive may not have a direct impact on the finished product. A Zone 1 positive for a pathogen should at a minimum indicate that the finished products manufactured since the last break-and-clean should be placed on hold.

This also assumes that the company has a hold-and-release program in place. The dilemma some industries face (produce for example), is the shelf life of the product dictates that almost immediately after packaging the product is into distribution—often before results are available. The response to that situation is the company should have a well-founded, extensive sanitation program, environmental monitoring program (EMP), and one heck of a Work in Process testing program with rapid methods that are: 1) reliable, 2) recognized reliable and applicable to your matrix, and 3) being used effectively to provide the warnings before the product gets out of the control of the company.

FDA has always taken the following approach: You cannot test enough samples to prove the product is not contaminated or test your way out of a problem. This is basically why most companies do not test for the pathogen but rather test for an indicator that does not incriminate the product. Keep in mind that by not testing Zone 1 sites, it doesn’t mean the product does not represent a potential health hazard in the marketplace. Should that product be associated with an illness outbreak, there are severe consequences to:

• Failing to keep the product safe;
• Having a paper trail that indicates you knew, or should have known, there were potential issues associated with the finished product based on the Zone 1 swab result, or lack thereof; and
• Testing the product, finding nothing in the few samples you tested, and assuming that the rest of the “untested” production was acceptable.

Finding a positive environmental swab result, regardless of the Zone, still requires the offending area be cleaned and that subsequent swabs are negative. I will also add that if the remedial actions and result aren’t documented, then you didn’t do them.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) has expanded the swab zone to be a 12-inch-by-12-inch area. The increase in size represents an increased potential of finding a positive, and that is exactly the point of any well-designed environmental program. John Butts, PhD, one of the foremost authorities on Listeria and environmental sampling, preaches the Seek and Destroy mission, which is the fundamental foundation of every environmental swab program. Seek out the niche places that harbor the offending microorganisms and adjust the sanitation programs and environmental surveillance to destroy that harborage. FDA expects:

• A positive environmental swab to be attacked and eliminated;
• Negative results for a minimum of three consecutive swabs be conducted on separate dates;
• That the once-positive site be monitored and continually swabbed for at least six months; and
• Documentation, documentation, documentation!

Positive environmental swab results are telling you something, and you need to listen. A positive result in a drain that is cross connected to other drains tells you all the drains are potentially positive, and cleaning that one single positive in no way ensures you’ve eliminated the source of the problem. Establish the fact that you have a drain cleaning program and use things like quaternary-containing socks or appropriate biocides throughout the production day to minimize the chances that aerosolization of the drain water is not allowing pathogens to become airborne. Having a intermittently positive drain may also indicate that your cast iron drain pipe is harboring a biofilm and continuing to put chlorine and other harsh chemicals down the drain in an attempt to eliminate the problem is actually making it worse.

The corrective action to consider is to isolate the entire drain area with floor-to-ceiling polyethylene and sandblast the corrosion off the inside of the drain. Once the drain is again smooth, a metal epoxy coat should be applied to the inside of the drain to prevent further rust development and/or pitting. Consider inserting a cleanable, stainless steel insert that extends significantly down into the drains.

Many companies will expand the swab site following a positive environmental sample. This vectoring-out concept will keep reaching further away from the initial positive until the positive detections are no longer found. In many cases, this can be several feet to several yards from that original finding, but this is the definition of Seek and Destroy.

One effective tool in eliminating pathogens is the use of silver ion-containing compounds. I find PURE Bioscience is helpful in eliminating Listeria and Salmonella from environmental niches.

RS: Should companies routinely do air testing of any sort? Do you have suggestions for the best means to do so?

CC: Air testing should be an integral part of an effective environmental program. All air sampling programs should include a sample of the environmental air outside the facility as a baseline. Granted, it will vary day to day and season to season, but when it is done in conjunction with the samples being taken in the production area, it will give a perspective as to how effective the air filtration system is.

Similar to the swab results, air sampling is telling you something. If you investigate, you might find the excessive counts in the facility in comparison to outside air indicate that the PM for changing filters is not occurring at the frequency the plan requires. Maybe there is a tear in the filters or there are no filters; I encountered both situations during plant visits to determine the high rate of mold contamination of finished products. The air sample program also indicated that access doors directly across from the filling lines were left open far too long or too often, and the dust and debris from a neighboring non-food manufacturer were infiltrating into the food plant’s production areas.

The very best method for air sampling is to purchase equipment that actually pulls definable volumes of air into the unit and impinges the targeted microorganisms onto differential growth media. The results can be expressed as count per “X” liters of air or converted to counts per cubic foot.

Many companies continue to rely on air exposure plates. While it can be a reasonable indicator of air quality, realize the downside to the method is that results are obtained only when a random spore or microbe happens to settle on the open plate of growth media. Not very scientific, but if the plates are exposed in areas of high pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or directly under an air exhaust vent, the data can still be valuable and indicative of a need to initiate corrective actions.

RS: What steps should companies take to develop an EMP? Should they do it in-house or go outside?

CC: The steps companies need to take before designing the EMP start with a comprehensive risk assessment of the process, the raw materials being used, the product being manufactured, and an assessment as to whether the “category” of the product has been recalled or implicated in a foodborne outbreak. The entire management team needs to be on board with the program, the implications, the responsibilities of each department, and the fact that FSMA requires the environment be monitored. This is not just another “Oh there goes QC again!” program. A proactive environmental program requires every level of management from the very top down to be engaged in the goals and execution of a sound EMP. It is also not a bad time to engage the corporate or outside legal counsel with the intent of the program and how Zone 1 swabs are handled or not conducted at all.

Does the process have a kill step? Should it and could it have a kill step? Does it have something that could be or should be a kill step? Blanching might be considered a reduction step or in some corners a kill step. If you are applying a heat step to the product and the product still contains pathogens, there’s a problem. You have re-contaminated the product through the environment, unclean equipment, handling practices, or whatever. If the product is manufactured under conditions whereby it may become contaminated, FDA and other regulatory agencies will hold you accountable.

Getting a qualified consultant in to provide onsite assistance in evaluating the program and suggesting improvements or even deletions to a program can be a valuable tool. It has always been my opinion that the program belongs to the company and the company must be responsible for executing the EMP. It is not something to pass off to a third party. It is imperative the company understands and completely owns the program.

Stier, industry editor for Food Quality & Safety, is a consulting food scientist with international experience in HACCP, plant sanitation, quality systems, process optimization, GMP compliance, and food microbiology. Reach him at rickstier4@aol.com.

The post Getting Candid about Environmental Monitoring Programs appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

According to the World Health Organization, 1 in 10 people in the world (about 600 million) falls victim to illness from contaminated food each year. Of that, about 420,000 die. Unsafe food not only causes disease—it also strains healthcare facilities and can hurt economics, trade, and tourism.

It’s estimated that food contamination costs the industry about $55 billion a year in the U.S. alone. For individual businesses, it can range from a few thousand to millions of dollars. Those numbers do not necessarily reflect other costs, including reputation to a facility and industry, and the ability to regain trust from suppliers and consumers.

Complicated international food supply chains help distribute more food around the globe, but also call for more vigilant food safety precautions at every step of the supply chain. The outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in several states from romaine lettuce is an example of how the complexity of the produce supply can create significant challenges to maintaining food safety.

Quickly identifying potential contamination sources is a key part of protecting the food supply chain. Since its introduction, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence-based monitoring of surfaces and even some products has been invaluable to identifying possible sources of contamination. Within seconds, food processor professionals can now monitor safety levels, identify contaminant areas, and more effectively set up and fine-tune Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCPs).

While ATP monitoring is considered easy to use and interpret, there are a number of cautions of how the instruments and monitoring systems should not be used. The following are five warnings about how not to work with ATP monitoring.

Don’t Confuse ATP with Direct Bacteria or Viral Detection

ATP is the energy-containing molecule that is found in every living cell. Therefore, it is a useful indicator that contamination may exist on a surface or other part of the food supply chain, from irrigation water to farm to processor, transporter, handler, or retail market. But since all cells contain ATP, a positive reading in relative light units (RLU) will indicate any cell, and not just bacterial cells. Furthermore, not all bacterial cells cause disease. And viruses, which are not technically living cells, usually do not contain any ATP at all.

Nevertheless, ATP monitoring is valuable because it points to areas where bacteria (and, to a more limited degree, viruses) may lurk. After all, bacteria are cells, and areas that record very low RLUs have fewer cells and are far less likely to harbor pathogenic microorganisms. Other tests, such as enzyme-based or bioluminogenic devices based on specialized substrates, can determine the presence of specific bacteria, including E. coli, Enterobacter, Coliform, or total bacteria counts, within hours. Still more sophisticated tests, like those using the polymerase chain reaction, can identify specific bacteria or viruses, sometimes within a day. Traditional methods like cell culture may take days to generate results, but commonly can verify species of bacteria.

Don’t Use on Soiled or Pre-Cleaned Surfaces

Many users of ATP monitoring can fall into the trap of measuring environmental surfaces before cleaning, hoping that those readings can be compared to readings taken after cleaning and/or sanitization steps. While those readings should be significantly different (hopefully!), ATP luminometers and mostly importantly the testing devices were never meant to be used on uncleaned surfaces. This is because it is easy to overload the swab part of the testing device with microorganisms, which can significantly impact results.

As the universal energy molecule, ATP is found in all animal, plant, bacterial, yeast, and mold cells. Product residues, particularly food residues, contain large amounts of ATP. Microbial contamination contains ATP, but in smaller amounts. After cleaning, all sources of ATP should be significantly reduced.

The test is designed to detect invisible or trace amounts of product residue. When performing sample collections, it is important to make sure not to overload the swab bud with too much sample. Some products in very high concentration can inhibit the bioluminescence reaction.
This also means that when collecting a sample, you should make sure to use aseptic techniques. Do not touch the swab or the inside of the sampling device with your fingers.

Don’t Assume a High Reading Indicates Supply Chain Failure

ATP monitoring is a valuable tool for determining the potential for contamination and can help improve processes at every step in the food supply chain. Too often, a reading with high RLUs, indicating potential contaminants and possibly even pathogens, is interpreted as a failure of personnel to keep things clean. To counteract this misperception, ATP monitoring can be used as a staff or contractor training tool.

Any successful cleaning efforts require a plan, including setting up an HACCP process. ATP can provide nearly instantaneous data to find possible gaps in your processes that can be quickly and efficiently closed by changing cleaning methods, protocols, or locations. Far better to identify potential issues at an early stage than later when pathogens can cause costly shutdowns. Furthermore, a high RLU indicates that intervention and cleaning steps need to be taken, and re-testing the same area can determine the effective of those efforts.

Training should include the use of ATP monitoring and the efficient use of data storage and tracking, which relies on software packages (such as Hygiena’s SureTrend cloud-based software) that can record trends in your facility and point out areas that need improvement. This is also helpful when supply sources, technology, and equipment are changed, which will alter how you monitor and clean your facility. Training efforts and a quest for continuous improvement should be an integral part of your facility’s culture, and the data that comes from ATP monitoring can form a solid foundation for creating that culture.

Don’t Under Sample

A cleanliness monitoring system should be thorough enough to sample every potential area where contamination could possibly occur. Food contact areas (direct and indirect) and hard-to-clean areas should be the main focus of your swabbing program. Direct contact areas are surfaces where the presence of any contaminant will taint the final product. Indirect contact areas are those where splashed product, dust, or liquid has the potential to be dropped, drained, or transferred onto the product. Hard-to-clean areas may include filler heads, O-rings, nozzles, and areas with irregularly-shaped surfaces, corners, grooves, and cracks.

A recent study showed that some amount of over-sampling (overlapping some areas at times) can be an effective way to get robust ATP results and prevent possible contamination. While Hygiena advises structured, repeated cleaning schedules on key environmental surfaces and a sampling area of 4 x 4 inches, certain intricate surfaces in food contact areas may benefit from using smaller sampling areas, such as 2 x 2 inches. Re-testing is still a vital part of maintaining facility cleanliness, too.

Don’t Test Inconsistently

Hygiena advocates for the development of a comprehensive cleaning schedule and map of environmental surfaces, including the sampling of “high touch” areas in facilities. The schedule should include multiple sampling sites on a surface and reliable recordkeeping on online reporting tools to track cleanliness and re-testing of areas, especially those areas that result in higher RLUs. A number of researchers claim that ATP measurements suffer from too much variability in results partly because of inadequate cleaning and monitoring strategies.

Consistent testing starts with a solid plan and means to evaluate it:

• Set up all the locations, users, and test plans before testing so that running reports is easy and accurate;
• There’s no need to create reports from scratch—preprogrammed reports can be modified and saved;
• Graphs can be quickly converted to line, bar, or pie charts depending on preference;
• Sharing reports with team members in regular meetings initiates a conversation on improvement opportunities and positively reinforces successes;
• Share these reports with executives and quality committee members to demonstrate how ATP cleaning verification helped improve cleanliness; and
• Compare these reports to any existing contamination/bacterial infection data to correlate cleaning improvements with infection rate reductions.

Consistency isn’t just about sampling locations, however. For consistent readings, surfaces should be swabbed in the same conditions (always wet or always dry). This will make it easier to compare data and look for trends that might need attention.

A successful contamination prevention effort will involve some amount of planning, training, and evaluation for effectiveness. As the world’s food supply chain gets more complex and global in scope, an adaptable yet robust monitoring plan will be essential to maintaining a safe food supply. Reducing foodborne illness by just 1 percent would keep approximately 500,000 people from getting sick each year in the U.S. Reducing foodborne illness by 10 percent would prevent 5 million people from getting sick annually.

ATP-based testing is now a worldwide standard method as a first step toward rapidly identifying potential reservoirs of pathogens, so problems can be corrected—and prevented—before they become serious, or even deadly.

Porterfield is a marketing communications specialist at Hygiena. Reach him at aporterfield@hygiena.com.

The post 5 Things <i>Not</i> to Do With ATP Monitoring appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

You created the perfect color-coding plan for your facility. Your new hygienic, color-coded tools came in the mail and have been hung on corresponding color-coded shadow boards or wall racks. Everything looks ready to go—but your job here isn’t done and the tools shouldn’t be touched until you do one very important thing: hold a company-wide training on the new color-coding plan.

The post 8 Tips for Conducting Employee Training on a Color-Coding Plan appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

People use their cellphones everywhere—including bringing them into bathrooms—and one study revealed a cellphone carries 10 times more bacteria than a toilet seat. Considering people are constantly touching their phones and checking on average 80 times a day, that makes for lots of germs being passed around.

With more and more people bringing their personal devices to work with them, it creates a greater risk for unwanted and harmful bacteria getting in places that they shouldn’t be. This is particularly worrisome for those in the food industry and healthcare fields.

CleanSlate UV, a Buffalo, N.Y.-based infection control company, offers an EPA-approved UV light sanitizer that the company says can kill 99.99 percent of harmful bacteria on mobile devices and tablets in under 30 seconds.

The company recently filed an FTC complaint against Utah-based PhoneSoap LLC, which claims its PhoneSoap Med+ Ultraviolet disinfection solution is ideal for hospital systems and other industries worried about the rising problem.

Taylor Mann, the CEO of CleanSlate UV, alleges PhoneSoap’s marketing assertions are unsubstantiated and that the positive performance of the Med+ Ultraviolet has been overstated.

“The reason for the complaint is that this is a quickly growing industry and a significant problem being faced by a lot of facilities, and they need answers and demand solutions that offer really good science that they’re going to be consistently effective,” he says. “Consider food processors. They need to rely on these claims from manufacturers that these phone and tablets and other portable devices being brought into the production facilities are properly sanitized so their products are not at risk.”

Based on what PhoneSoap was saying—and promising— CleanSlate UV felt the need to alert the FTC because its claims, they believe based on the data they saw, would put people at risk of having devices that were not properly sanitized inside these facilities, and had no other recourse.

The Root of The Claim

Last September, CleanSlate UV became privy to documentation that PhoneSoap was showing potential customers in the healthcare industry data that seemed questionable. Mann says the company immediately questioned PhoneSoap’s efficacy claims, testing methods, and its product’s marketed instructions for use.

One of the biggest issues was the testing didn’t include soiling, so it was assumed that a mobile device would be pre-cleaned before every use, but there were no parameters in place to ensure that.

Also, the data showed testing was done in 45-second cycles, though the marketing efforts mentioned it would be 30 seconds.

Additionally, the bacteria used in PhoneSoap’s testing did not align with the specific pathogens claimed in their marketing materials, furthering the red flags.

Though this complaint was targeted for those in the medical field, Mann worries that food processors could see the claims or be targeted as clients themselves.

Wiping it Down

Regardless of what industry someone works in, everyone should be cleaning their phones regularly and proper hand sanitation is important for everyone.

Mann says that’s a very complex challenge as a lot of people don’t want to or don’t take the time to disinfect their phones properly. That further plays into the complaint, as PhoneSoap’s solution did not take that into consideration, he alleges.

“Chemical wipes right now are the default in hospitals, but also in a lot of food facilities where you’ll have Ecolab or other typical multipurpose surface disinfection products, but the phone or other devices tend to stay in pockets,” he says. “People are constantly going in and out of these areas, going across red lines into production facilities, which are mandating pretty strict hand hygiene protocols with critical control points. But then the phones are touched as soon as they get over that red line.”

The big challenge that many food facilities and biotech facilities are facing right now is the difficulty in ensuring those devices are wiped down every time, in part because a lot of people don’t want to put corrosive chemicals on their phones.

Mann says that simply because the new solution is being used, it’s not going to solve the problem that already exists, which is getting employees to use it in the first place. “Compliance is ultimately the main goal,” he stresses.

The post CleanSlate UV Files FTC Complaint Against PhoneSoap appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Cleanliness is fundamental in any food processing facility. When any incidence of contamination can prompt product recall, factory closure, and ultimately reputational damage and potential litigation, maintaining food safety in your operations is paramount. A clean-in-place (CIP) system is the first line of defense, helping to drive operational efficiency, ensure that processing equipment is clean, and protect your bottom line.

The post CIP System: Are You Cleaning Enough or Too Much? appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Dr. Winter gets the crowd waving their hands in the air like they just don’t care during one of his musical medleys.

(Editor’s Note: This is an online-only article attributed to the October/November 2018 issue.)

Do you ever catch your audiences dozing off during your presentations or lectures covering important food safety topics? Do you admit that you sometimes find it hard to stay awake during dull, boring, tedious presentations about sanitation and hygiene, allergen control, foodborne pathogens, and other often mundane food safety issues? If you answered “yes” to these questions, you are sure to be inspired by some food safety professionals who strive to make their presentations worthwhile, memorable, and lots of fun.

Food scientist Ronald Schmidt, PhD, a professor emeritus with the University of Florida, Gainesville, is quick to point out that it’s a constant struggle for professionals to find effective ways of communicating food safety messages to people of all ages and walks of life, from students to food industry and food service employees, and to consumers—while keeping them interested.

“Program design and modeling are important for the success of food safety messaging,” Dr. Schmidt says. “But all the information sharing in the world is of no avail if no one pays attention.”

So how can you grab people’s attention and hold it? How do you make learning science-based food safety information fun? How do you creatively motivate others to embrace sound food safety practices in order to minimize the risks of foodborne illnesses?

For starters, Dr. Schmidt says, there is a place for humor, poetry, and music in teaching. “These tools can improve learning,” he notes.

As a reference, Dr. Schmidt credits the Greek philosopher Plato for saying “musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful.”

Livening up the Microbiome

Frequently in demand as a food safety trainer, Dr. Schmidt firmly believes food safety training need not be tedious. He sets an example by often grabbing his guitar and livening up the microbiome with a toe-tapping song or two. He delights audiences with songs he wrote called “FSMA on His Hip” to the tune of Marty Robbins’ “Big Iron” and “Salmonella Wind” to Tom Russell’s “Santa Ana Wind.” Another of his crowd pleasers is “Chop, Cook, Slice (Listeria in the 1990s),” a song about Listeria in deli meats inspired by Slaid Cleaves’ “Hickory.” During December, he invites audiences to participate in his version of “The Twelve Days of Christmas,” “The Twelve Steps of HACCP.”

“Playing and listening to music works several areas of the brain,” Dr. Schmidt relates. “Research shows that music increases memory and improves test scores. Moreover, music increases optimism, decreases anxiety, and enhances both attention and creativity.”

Human beings have learned through rhyme throughout history, Dr. Schmidt notes. “That started with cave people, who communicated with musical grunts.”

Drawing on his 40 some years as an educator, Dr. Schmidt offers several tips to anyone interested in adding creative touches to their teaching. “Never use humor at a student’s or audience member’s expense,” he emphasizes. “Self-deprecating humor usually goes over, but don’t overdo it. And don’t be offensive.”

Know your audience, Dr. Schmidt advises. “The generation gap is real. And it’s important to be aware of cultural differences,” he relates.

The Author of Parodiomics

As an extension toxicologist in the University of California-Davis Department of Food Science, Carl Winter, PhD, focuses on protecting consumers from chemical contaminants of food.

Aside from his more traditional professional endeavors, Dr. Winter is known by his many fans as the Elvis of E. coli and the Sinatra of Salmonella. That’s because he is a pioneering educator and performer who uses musical parodies he writes and records himself to provide food safety information in a creative and fun way. In fact, he is so into writing parodies, he credits himself for creating parodiomics, the innovative concept and the word.

“The major goal of incorporating music and fun into food safety is to improve learning,” Dr. Winter emphasizes. He’s been doing just that for nearly 30 years. Since the early 1990s, from humble beginnings and while continually honing his presentation skills, he has performed at dozens of food safety events throughout the country, including Institute of Food Technologists section meetings.

In July 1998, Dr. Winter recorded his first CD titled “Stayin Alive.” He is showcased on the cover photo wearing a white lab coat and holding an iconic “Saturday Night Fever” pose that would make a polyester shirt-clad John Travolta proud. The following year, he released his second CD, “Sanitized for Your Convenience.” The cover features a graphic of a paper strip like the ones found on toilets in cheap motels, Dr. Winter notes.

What songs are on these wildly popular CDs? If you love the Beatles, you are sure to enjoy Dr. Winter’s version of their iconic “I want to Hold Your Hand,” “You’d Better Wash your Hands.” Fans of Marvin Gaye’s “I Heard it Through the Grapevine” will appreciate “I Sprayed it on the Grapevine.” With Dr. Winter, Queen’s “We are the Champions”/“We Will Rock You” becomes “They Might Kill You”/“We are the Microbes.” The list goes on, but you get the idea.

Dr. Winter says rap music offers any hip food safety parodiomist a great advantage in reaching younger audiences. “Rap has so many words that you can convey many messages with one song,” he relates, citing his take on Will Smith’s “Gettin’ Jiggy Wit It,” “Don’t Get Sicky Wit It,” which addresses Fight Bac!’s major concepts: clean, separate, cook, and chill.

In 2002, Dr. Winter snagged a five-year USDA National Integrated Food Safety Initiative grant for a study about using music to improve food safety curricula. Collaborators included New Mexico State University, Clemson University, the University of Idaho, North Carolina State University, and the University of Delaware. The study yielded three peer-reviewed journal articles.

Empowered by his successes, Dr. Winter offers several take home messages relative to spicing up food safety education.

“Humanize yourself by being yourself and telling your own story to communicate more effectively,” he says. “You don’t have to do music if that’s not your thing. Maybe you write poetry or have an interesting hobby. Consider your unique attributes and interests and how you can incorporate them in your work.”

Be flexible and go with the flow, Dr. Winter adds. “Food safety is serious, but it doesn’t mean you can’t have fun at the same time,” he relates. “Fun can definitely be used to covey messages and make messages stick.”

Super Active Learning

David Baumler, PhD, recalls when he joined the faculty of the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul in 2014 as an assistant professor of molecular food safety microbiology, attendance in the undergraduate introductory microbiology lectures that met at 8:00 a.m. was less than 50 percent, especially during the Friday morning sessions.

Trusty ukulele in hand, Dr. Baumler is proud to report that he was soon able to raise Friday morning attendance to more than 90 percent. He even had students saying they looked forward to coming to class. “Some students who had previously said they dreaded ‘another boring micro class’ actually ended up changing their career paths to a focus on microbiology after completing my course,” Dr. Baumler boasts.

So, what’s his secret to sparking student interest in early morning micro lectures and inspiring micro careers? Answer: A little something Dr. Baumler calls super active learning.

“Active learning, or constructivism, is a pedagogical term for teaching methods that enhance student learning by engaging the students to actively participate, and super active learning is taking this method to the next level of engagement with creativity, props, and activities that really engage the student learning experience,” he explains.

Dr. Baumler’s stash of classroom visual aids includes real and toy musical instruments, costumes, glow powders and sticks, confetti cannons, bubble machines, smoke machines, and post-it notes. He also has dozens of hula hoops, which he uses during the evolution of bacteria lecture to demonstrate plasmid conjugation and the acquisition of new genes such as antibiotic resistance, virulence factors, and new metabolic capabilities. Then there is a collection of more than 100 wacky hats.

“The staff at my local Party City knows me by my first name, and once, while purchasing an abundance of zombie make up and costumes, one of the employees said to me ‘sir, I don’t know what your job is, but I want it,’” Dr. Baumler quips.

In micro lab, he is known to tap into his German roots when making fermented foods like sauerkraut. “Wir machen sauerkrauten,” he sings, while playing his concertina and sporting a chef’s hat and apron. He adds to the fun by using a real sword to chop the cabbage.

To enhance E. coli O157:H7 studies and give his students the opportunity to express any angst with their professor, Dr. Baumler passes out pieces of paper in assorted colors, each color representing a different virulence factor gene category. (The bacteria use these genes in a cascade to cause disease and severely damage the host.)

“I ask the students to pretend to be E. coli O157:H7 and to make paper airplanes and crushed balls representing the different virulence factor categories,” Dr. Baumler says. “Then they shoot them at me in the order the bacteria use them to cause disease, while I run around the classroom being attacked by the audience of pathogenic E. coli. They attack me with their paper projectiles, weakening the host as I stagger around, and after enough Shiga toxin-colored airplanes hit me and my kidneys shut down (feigned), then I fall down, pretending to be dead. It’s always a great way for students to learn the cascade of genes required to sicken and cause death in a human, and it allows them to cut up and vent their frustrations.”

To help his micro students review Gram staining for their midterm exam that is typically scheduled close to Mardi Gras, Dr. Baumler went to the local Ax-Man Surplus store and purchased 16 secondhand Mardi Gras costumes in red, purple, and green for two dollars each. At the neighborhood dollar store he picked up hundreds of strings of red, purple, and green beads.

“I recruit a cadre of food science graduate students to don the costumes and stage a Mardi Gras parade, with signs on their backs denoting different bacteria, including Gram positive (purple), Gram negative (red), and spore formers (green),” Dr. Baumler relates. “I play ‘When the Saints Go Marching In’ on my invisible trumpet while the grad students march around and toss the beads to the undergrads. Some of the students note that by learning through this activity, they will remember forever that E. coli is Gram negative (red/pink) and Bacillus and Staphylococcus are Gram positive (purple).”

Without question, Drs. Schmidt, Winter, and Baumler convey extraordinary examples of how people can use their talents to liven up food safety presentations and keep any audiences awake, attentive, and more apt to retain important messages, not to mention more prone to jump to their feet, applauding for more. Dr. Baumler, who moonlights as Davey Doodle, a children’s entertainer, is quick to emphasize that even those lacking musical talents should be able to figure out how to think outside the box and incorporate some creativity into teaching any age group. “Magic tricks, costumes, and glow powders with black lights are a few ideas,” he suggests.

The post Creative Approaches to Food Safety Education appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.