This application note demonstrates an UHPLC-Q-TOF/MS method to simultaneously qualitatively screen and quantitatively determine 415 pesticide residues in red cabbage. The method has sensitive and reliable screening capacity with accurate and robust quantitation capacity that can expand to many other food matrixes of plant origin.

Download this free Application Note today!

The post Simultaneous Screening and Quantification of Pesticide Residues in Red Cabbage appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Effects of Hot Air and Microwave Drying on Celery Stalk Slice Quality

Celery (Apium graveolens) has extensive culinary usage given its characteristic aroma and flavor, which are due to the presence of butylphthalide and sedanolide. The aim of this work was to study the preparation of dried celery stalk slices through hot air or combined microwave and hot air drying at 50°, 60°, or 70°C with or without blanching pretreatment. The celery stalk slices that were dried at low temperatures retained aroma well. Although blanching reduced drying time (DT) and global color change, it also reduced the retention of the characteristic aroma of celery. Therefore, combined microwave and hot air drying without blanching was selected for celery stalk slices given that it reduced DT, minimized chromatic aberrations, and maximized the retention of the characteristic aroma of celery. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, Vol. 44, No. 1, January 2020, e14310. Read the full journal article here.

Hempseed in the Food Industry: Nutritional Value, Health Benefits, and Industrial Applications

Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) seeds have been consumed in Asian communities since prehistoric times. Recently, Australia, Canada, and the United States have legalized the cultivation and consumption of hempseed at low (<0.3%) tetrahydrocannabinol levels, and there’s a growing interest in hempseed due to its nutritional value and pharmaceutical potential. This review aims to summarize the chemical composition, nutritional value, and potential health benefits of hempseed, as researched via in vitro and in vivo trials. The application of hempseed in the food industry is limited due to its poor performance on some functional properties, so the latest processing methods developed to improve these properties were compared. Additionally, manufacturing technologies incorporating hemp seeds into existing food products are also elaborated. This review would promote further in‐depth research on this recently approved food resources and maximize its utilization in new food product development. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, Vol. 19, No. 1, January 2020, Pages 282-308. Read the full journal article here. 

Changes of Liposome Activity in Immature Rice During Development

For the past several decades, only a few studies were conducted on the change in immature rice liposomes during seed development. To evaluate and compare the lipid material of different degrees of developing rice grains, this paper focused on fresh rice seeds from only one most popular species of Dasan divided into five growth periods. The lipid components of fresh rice, especially γ‐oryzanol and fatty acids equipped with extremely beneficial phytonutrients, were investigated. The results illustrated that the level of extracted liposome increased gradually along with the development of rice and, in the third stage of development, the level of liposome achieved maximum levels. Instead of increasing, it was decreased at later stages of development. Moreover, the antioxidant activity of fresh edible rice (FER) was also evaluated by DPPH and ABTS assay. It was shown that FER has higher antioxidant activity than the ripened rice seed on lipids, which will improve FER using functional foods and help provide a theoretical basis in the food processing industry. Journal of Food Science, Vol. 85, No. 1, January 2020, Pages 86-95. Read the full journal article here. 

The post Food Science Research: February/March 2020 appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

What might the following terms have in common?

• Quality assurance
• Capital investment
• Risk metrics
• Duration and timeline
• Research and development
• Communication channels
• Operational manual development
• Management and associate training
• Marketing

The post Going Global with International Consultative Projects appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Image Credit: © zhitkov – Fotolia.com

When we talk about food safety, numerous factors that impact the overall safety of our food come to mind. For some, it could be making sure the food is prepared to and served at the right temperature, and for others it is ensuring that produce is washed properly. Yet, how many of us think about the importance of hand hygiene?

Practicing Good Hand Hygiene

The practice of good hand hygiene—washing with soap and water or using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer—is the first step that needs to be taken to ensure the safety of food. Whether it takes place on the farm where the food is being grown or in the kitchen (at home or in a restaurant), hand hygiene is vital to preventing food from becoming contaminated.

Bugs of Concern

According to research conducted by Charles P. Gerba, PhD, from the University of Arizona, more than 80 percent of illnesses can be transmitted by the hands. This includes potentially harmful bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria, Shigella, Campylobacter, and viruses like norovirus, which all pose a serious threat to public health.

Oftentimes, restaurant workers do not realize the germs from items such as raw meat can be on the gloves they are wearing. They then unknowingly contaminate their hands when they remove the gloves and the microorganisms are then transferred to the food that is about to be served to restaurant patrons. The best way to remove the bacteria from a food worker’s hands is through practicing good hand hygiene.

How Hand Hygiene Products Work

When people think about hand hygiene, they typically think about handwashing with soap and water. Anti-bacterial soaps, which are common in the food service industry, contain ingredients designed to kill germs on the skin, adding an extra level of protection from microbial contamination.

While handwashing with soap and water is a common practice among restaurant workers, alcohol-based hand sanitizers also provide food handlers with convenient hygiene when soap and water are not readily available. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers can also be used as part of an overall hand hygiene regimen following handwashing. In fact, a study showed that using a hand hygiene regimen, which included handwashing followed by hand sanitizer, was more effective at reducing transient microorganisms on hands soiled with chicken broth and ground beef than handwashing alone. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are effective antimicrobials that reduce the spread of foodborne disease-causing microorganisms on the skin.

Soap and hand sanitizer dispensers also play a key role in reducing the spread of illness-causing germs. For example, touch-free dispensers allow for portion-controlled dispensing and easy access to hand hygiene products. Another reason to move towards touch-free dispensers is that the use of these dispensers has been shown to improve compliance rates over manual dispensers because these touch-free dispensers are typically used more often than manual dispensers. However, there is one system to avoid: an open, refillable bulk soap dispenser.

Open, refillable bulk soap dispensers are refilled by pouring soap into an open, partially filled reservoir. Three published studies mentioned below revealed potential human health risks for those who wash their hands with these dispensers. The studies found that these types of dispensers are rarely cleaned, leading to exposure to fecal contamination.

• A study published in the March 2011 Journal of Environmental Health finds 25 percent of open, refillable bulk soap dispensers in the public are contaminated with unsafe levels of bacteria.
• A follow-up study published in the May 2011 issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology reports washing with soap from refillable bulk dispensers can leave hands with 25 times more bacteria after washing.
• According to a study published in the January 2012 issue of Biofouling, biofilms grow in open, refillable bulk soap dispensers, causing recontamination of the soap even after the dispensers are cleaned with bleach.

Continuing to use these types of dispensers actually works against efforts to create a healthy environment. One way to overcome this challenge is to switch to sealed soap systems, which provide the solution to reducing contamination risks. The soap inside of these systems is protected from contamination because it is factory sealed and includes a fresh nozzle with each refill. Having the right kind of product and dispenser in place is only the start. It’s also important to understand there are factors and variables that impact efficacy of hygiene products used in the food service industry.

Variables that Influence Efficacy

There are numerous variables that influence efficacy. These include the following.

Product volume. Generally, people don’t use enough of a product—soap and hand sanitizer—to get an efficacious dose. There are dispensing systems available that have optimized the right product output for hand hygiene effectiveness.

Contact time. Guidelines recommend for handwashing to be at least 20 seconds long and hand sanitizing 15 seconds.

Formulation. Hand hygiene products need formulations that are effective, deliver good skin performance (not damaging to the skin), and provide a good sensory experience, i.e. it is likeable to use.

Compliance. Have the right hand hygiene products in place as workers will not use products they do not like.

No difference between foam and ­liquid soap. Both can be effective as long as they are properly formulated.

Hand Hygiene Compliance

Some studies have indicated that 0 to 61 percent of restaurant workers, 6 to 73 percent of workers in institutional settings, and 2 to 82 percent of workers in deli operations properly follow recommended handwashing procedures.

There are many factors driving these low compliance rates. These include a lack of understanding about the importance of hand hygiene, insufficient training, access and promotion of hand hygiene, and lack of management support. So is there a way to increase compliance rates and get workers to practice good hygiene on the job?

A Risk-Based Approach

Current recommendations are to wash hands whenever hands may have become contaminated. However, might it make sense for the food industry to move towards a more risk-based approach?

According to Food Protection Trends’ “Rethinking Hand Hygiene in the Retail and Food Service Industries: Are Recommended Procedures Based on the Best Science and Practical Under Real-World Conditions?,” criteria for rethinking hand hygiene include the following.

• Verify which actions in the food preparation environment pose the greatest risk for pathogen contamination via hand and human contact. Consider basic food microbiological principles, along with conducting observational studies of food handler behavior and production of quantitative risk models, which could help identify hand hygiene “critical control points.” Such findings could be used to prioritize hand hygiene actions based on potential public health risks.
• Engage in studies to understand motivations associated to the lack of food handler compliance with hand hygiene recommendations, perhaps capitalizing on lessons learned from the healthcare sector. A multi-model strategy to improve food handler compliance with hygiene practices should be developed, tested, validated, and implemented at a larger scale.
• Study the efficacy and overall risk-benefit of the use of alternative hand antiseptics. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers especially should be studied as a replacement for rigorous handwashing when hands are not soiled or likely to be contaminated with parasites or bacterial spores in cases where a worker has engaged in less risky practices before contacting ready-to-eat foods and before or between gloving.
• Revise education and training material to reflect changes in recommended hand hygiene procedures based on sound science and risk.

All in all, hand hygiene plays a critical role in food safety. The right products, an understanding of the barriers to compliance, and a sound plan to strengthen hand hygiene compliance will help decrease the occurrences of foodborne illnesses.

Shumaker is a microbiologist at GOJO Industries. Reach him at ShumakeD@gojo.com.

The post Hand Hygiene’s Critical Role in Food Safety appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Image Credit: © Jérôme Rommé – Fotolia.com

“Big data” is being talked about everywhere, including increasingly in the context of food safety and food quality. For example, while only one symposium covered “big data” in the 2014 annual meeting of the International Association of Food Protection (IAFP), the recent 2015 IAFP annual meeting included at least four sessions that mentioned “big data” in the session title or abstract. While the potential of big data and data analytics to improve our ability to address food safety and quality issues is increasingly recognized, use of these tools in food safety and quality still appears to be limited. Even if “big data” are used in this space, many may argue that the amount of data used in these cases rarely qualify as truly being big data, rather these data may often simply be large traditional datasets. While big data may only be slowly making their way into food safety and quality, there is a need for food science professionals to critically discuss and contemplate the impact of big data and associated analytics to allow for timely and appropriate implementation and use of these tools in food safety and quality to achieve improved decision making.

Big Data Introduction

While many definitions exist for “big data,” a common definition reads along the lines of “Big data is a broad term for datasets so large or complex that traditional data processing applications are inadequate” (Wikipedia, accessed Aug. 3, 2015). Based on Douglas Laney’s definition of data by the “3Vs,” today a “4V” definition of big data is often used, which can be summarized as “Big data represents high volume, high velocity, high veracity, and/or high variety information assets that require new forms of processing to enable enhanced decision making, insight discovery, and process optimization.” Often, “big data” also is linked to predictive analytics, as compared to the more typical use of data in food safety, which focuses on retrospective identification of associations and increasingly real-time or near real-time monitoring of processes. Most uses of large datasets and big data analytics in food safety and quality to date focus on providing improved root cause and retrospective analyses, but development and use predictive analytics in food safety is likely to grow quickly in the near future.

Big Data Sources for Food

Many of the early discussions on big data have focused on the use of genomics data as well as social media-related information in food safety. Whole genome sequencing (WGS)-based subtyping has been used for more than five years to create large sets of data that can be used for high resolution subtype characterization of foodborne pathogens (and spoilage organisms), which allows for better outbreak detection and source attribution. Importantly, WGS data for foodborne pathogens are also often rapidly released by public health and regulatory agencies, allowing for use of these data by industry. For example, WGS data for Listeria monocytogenes isolates identified as having been obtained from ice cream in Kansas became publicly available soon after a listeriosis outbreak linked to ice cream (with cases in Kansas) was reported in early 2015. Other omics datasets, such as metagenomics data, have also been used to identify and characterize food spoilage issues. It is likely that these types of data sources will also increasingly become available to the food industry.

(click for larger image)
Big Data in Food Safety and Quality – A Call to Action for Industry

Use of social media-related information has seen considerable early enthusiasm based on initial reports that suggested that “Google Flu Trends” can allow for early detection of flu outbreaks. Subsequent studies have suggested though that this tool may often inaccurately predict flu outbreaks. However, a recent CDC report suggests that mining of Yelp reviews can help public health agencies to identify foodborne disease outbreaks, which are linked to restaurants and may have otherwise gone undetected. Similarly, sales data, including data from shopper club cards and similar instruments, are also available to many retailers and companies and can be used to help detect and identify foodborne disease outbreaks, aiding in rapid initiation of product recalls and other consumer safety actions.

In addition to data sources briefly discussed above, food safety professionals can also have the opportunity to access a number of other structured and unstructured data sources, including often large amounts of data that are automatically captured through recording devices in food processing and retail environments (e.g., temperature data for heat treatment steps or refrigerated storage) and employment data (identifying the individuals that perform certain tasks, such as sanitation, on a given day). Unstructured data that could be mined for relevant information include, but are not limited to, video-captured data of facilities and employees.

It is also possible to rapidly acquire, often with no cost (other than computer and personnel time), large sets of metadata associated with samples that have been collected for microbiological or other testing. For example, public data sources are available that provide weather patterns (temperature, rain events, wind direction and speed, etc.) that are associated with a sample collection site and a specific sample collection date. These type of data can be used to rapidly determine whether out-of-spec samples (for example, samples positive for a pathogen or indicator organism) are associated with specific weather patterns (for instance, rain in the preceding day(s)), which can help in root cause analysis; for instance, associations with rain may indicate roof leaks or other water intrusions as a root cause. These same metadata could also be used for predictive analytics that may show an increased risk of pathogen findings or spoilage events after certain weather patterns, which could trigger enhanced preventive efforts.

Examples of Approaches in Food

One of the most mature examples of the use of large datasets in food safety is the use of WGS-based subtyping methods by both public health and regulatory agencies. In the U.S., the CDC and state partners are performing WGS on every human clinical Listeria monocytogenes isolate. Similarly, regulatory agencies such as the U.S. FDA are currently performing WGS of foodborne pathogen isolates obtained from foods and food associated sources. WGS will determine the sequence of virtually all 3 million nucleotides (A, T, C, and Gs) in the Listeria monocytogenes genome, typically with at least a 20-fold coverage, therefore creating 60 million data point per genome, which is used for extremely high resolution subtyping. Use of these WGS tools has significantly improved the ability of public health agencies to detect human listeriosis outbreaks, which allows for identification of more outbreaks than with previous subtyping tools (i.e., pulse field gel electrophoresis), including detection of smaller outbreaks (with less than five cases) that may also have gone undetected previously. As these tools are being applied to other pathogens, in particular Salmonella, the number of detected outbreaks caused by these other pathogens will likely increase considerably.

In addition to WGS, metagenomics-based tools also provide large datasets (often providing gigabases of sequence data), which can help characterize total microbial populations in samples. These tools have allowed for detection of new or previously unrecognized pathogens in clinical and food samples and have been shown to detect pathogens that were undetected by traditional microbiological methods. These methods also can facilitate detection and identification of spoilage issues and could be used as untargeted screening tools for raw materials streams and ingredients.

Use of geographic information system (GIS)-based datasets to predict and manage food safety risks are also rapidly gaining traction. For example, recent studies have shown how GIS data can be used to predict locations and time intervals that may represent a higher risk for foodborne pathogen contamination in fields.

The Challenges

While there clearly is considerable potential for big data-based approaches to facilitate improved approaches to food safety and food quality, a number of challenges remain for industry to take advantage of these tools. Most of these challenges are not unique to this industry, but some of them may be more pronounced. For example, data capture in the food industry is still often manual and often involves paper records that cannot be used easily for data mining. Also, there are few trained data ­scientists who are also familiar with food systems type issues (or food systems ­scientists who can work with large datasets), which further affects the ability of industry to develop and implement effective systems that utilize large datasets to address food safety and quality issues. Based on these and other challenges, there is a clear need for the industry to take action to prepare to take advantage of big-data tools and solutions for food safety and quality dilemmas.

What Could the Future Bring?

With the rapid advances in both collection and analysis of big data, it can be valuable to speculate on what the medium- and long-term future may look like as these tools are increasingly applied to food safety and quality. For example, the use of WGS for characterization of foodborne pathogen isolates by regulatory and public health agencies in the U.S. has gone hand-in-hand with rapid public release of full sequencing data. This puts industry in a position where it may soon be able to monitor subtype data for human clinical isolates and where it can then rapidly detect possible outbreaks, e.g. through comparisons with subtype data for isolates from processing facilities and other data (e.g., distribution pathways, purchase patterns). In the processing environment, integration of diverse data sources with historical microbial testing data may not only allow for improved and accelerated root cause analysis, but also for prediction of time intervals that may present lower and higher risk for spoilage or food safety issues; this information could be used to adjust food safety and operational practices in near real-time to include additional barriers and controls, including adjustments in preventative maintenance schedules, etc. Data sources that could be used in these analyses include weather patterns, environmental parameters in a facility (monitoring humidity, dews points, etc.), and equipment related parameters (vibration, flow rates, etc.).

With possibilities that may seem nearly unlimited, it’s essential for industry to critically evaluate its needs and high impact areas and define specific questions and issues, rather than simply collecting increasingly large datasets and hoping that “something useful will come out of it.”

Dr. Wiedmann is the Gellert family professor of food safety in the Department of Food Science at Cornell University and a member of the Cornell Institute for Food Systems. He also serves as director of graduate studies for the Field of Food Science and Technology at Cornell. Reach him at mw16@cornell.edu.

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I acknowledge helpful and stimulating discussion with many colleagues on the topic of big data in food safety, including with Frank Yiannas, Pajau Vangay, Laura Strawn, Jamie Kaufman, Sean Leighton, Barbara Kowalcyk, Julie Stafford, Courtney Parker, and many others. This article is based on a presentation at the 2014 Cornell Food Systems Global Summit.

The post Can Big Data Revolutionize Food Safety? appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

As much focus as there is on the general issue of hand hygiene, why is it that the discussion around hand drying in particular seemed to have, ironically, dried up?

Decades of research from hygiene authorities suggest that wet hands transfer bacteria much more readily than dry ones, as the residual moisture left on hands after leaving the wash station allows bacteria and viruses to transfer to food and solid surfaces by touch. Despite this clear research, it seems that a majority of discussion is focused almost exclusively on the importance of soap and water, washing long and vigorously.

Drying, on the other hand, has been given little attention. A recent search through research portal Lexis-Nexis for hand hygiene-related news stories over the past five years suggests that references to “handwashing” practices occurred over 250 times, whereas “hand drying” was only discussed twice.

The risks of touch-contact-associated bacterial transfer can be particularly dangerous and pervasive for food service workers, so it’s essential to place a spotlight on the “total picture” of hand hygiene. In fact, a study that observed restaurant workers showed food service employees wash hands only one-third of the time as required by the Food Code.

Although the Food Code doesn’t specifically prescribe the kind or configuration of hand drying devices (paper towels, heated air dryers, air-knife systems) to be used, it does require that adequate provisions be provided to prevent food workers from drying their hands on their clothing or other unclean materials. It also notes that for environments in which employees are expected to wash and dry their forearms, air-knife systems—automatic hand dryers that provide separate drying areas for each hand—do not accommodate sufficient arm drying, and the establishment is expected to provide an alternate means of drying.

Hand Drying Methods

Not all hand-drying methods are equally effective in reducing chances of cross-contamination.

Multiple studies have looked at the effectiveness of air dryers versus hand towels and results strongly favor paper towels. For example, one study published by the University of Leeds in 2014 found that levels of airborne germs collected and counted near warm air dryers to be 27 times more than those near paper towel dispensers. Another paper, published in 2012 by the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, which observed research from a dozen investigations, stated that “from a hygiene standpoint, paper towels are superior to electric air dryers” and “should be ­recommended in locations where hygiene is paramount.”

These findings, and others like them, reinforce the World Health Organization’s stance that proper hand hygiene involves drying “preferably with a paper towel.”

Compensating for Bad Habits

People are their own worst enemies when it comes to hygiene. Even with proper training, signage, and hygiene tools, people rarely lather, rub, rinse, and dry long or thorough enough.

Technologies that compensate for people’s hygienic imperfections—killing bacteria and preventing transmission without adding extra steps—can be valuable to the food industry. For example, Cascades Tissue Group developed the Antibacterial Paper Towel, which third-party labs have shown kills over 99.99 percent of bacteria on hands without requiring any change in habit. The dry paper towel is “impregnated” with a safe antimicrobial agent, benzalkonium chloride, commonly used in products ranging from mouthwash to contact lens solution. Benzalkonium chloride is released when the paper towel is in contact with wet hands.

In addition, the use of touch-free paper towel dispensers is increasing, which helps reduce the spread of bacteria. But organizations sometimes have a tough time finding space to install these bulky automatic dispensers, so it may be necessary to “think small.” For instance, Cascades Tissue Group’s no touch hand towel dispenser, Tandem+ Nano, is designed to fit into smaller spaces.

Setting the Trend

While proper handwashing protocols and techniques will always be critical to a healthy restaurant environment, proper hand and forearm drying is equally important and shouldn’t be overlooked. The impact that food service and hospitality can play in creating more awareness and adoption of this practice is enormous. It’s not uncommon for innovations applied in away-from-home spaces to seep into our daily life, so hand drying improvements made at the back of the restaurant can migrate its way to patron restrooms, spurring cleaner hands and more awareness about the value of drying. Similar to how the trend toward sustainable residential homes sprung out of LEED-certification in commercial buildings, healthy practices can eventually travel into consumers’ homes to permeate society on all levels.

Trudel is VP of marketing and communications for Cascades Tissue Group. Reach him at thierry_trudel@cascades.com.

The post Why Hand Drying Protocols Shouldn’t Be Hung Out to Dry appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

(IMAGE CREDIT: ©ZSOLT FULOP /RCFOTOSTOCK /SUKHAREVSKYY DMYTRO -FOTOLIA.COM)

Fifteen years ago, the number of craft distilleries in the U.S. barely topped 20. By 2010, there were 90, and today that number is edging toward 1,000.¹ The craft spirits industry is riding the wave of public enthusiasm for distilled spirits and locally sourced foods and beverages.

Overall revenue in the distilled spirits market—including the industrial-sized brand-name distilleries—has increased significantly in the past 15 years, reaching an all-time high of $4.2 billion in 2014, according to the Distilled Spirits Council. The craft distillery share of that revenue was $400 to $500 million, representing about 1.7 percent share of the spirits market by volume.¹

Nicole Austin, master blender at King’s County Distillery, Brooklyn, N.Y., says there has been a significant shift in market trends since the late 1990s. “In the ’80s and ’90s, during the height of the appletini cosmo drink, people weren’t caring or asking questions about how things were made or where they came from or even distinguished what was good or what was bad. It was just, ‘I want the purple drink or the green one.’”

Now, things are different, agrees Ralph Erenzo, co-founder of Tuthilltown Spirits Farm Distillery, Gardiner, N.Y.

Maggie Campbell, head distiller and vice president, Privateer Rum, Ipswich, Mass. (Image Credit: @Privateer Rum)

“The general market itself began to be inclined toward handmade goods, to know where they are coming from, to know what they are made of, and to know the people who are making them. And they were insisting on higher quality,” says Erenzo, whose distillery was the first in New York State when it started operation in 2005. “Suddenly, vodka started falling off and there was a new generation of drinkers who were exploring whisky and aged spirits again. We never anticipated the kind of success we have had.”

This change in general tastes has benefitted the distilling industry, which has undergone extraordinary development in a very short period of time, he says.

Pouring Quality into Craft Spirits

Quality in craft spirits is rightly measured by taste. “With every batch, what is most important to us is whether it meets our flavor profile and deciding whether we would want to drink this and whether it is a quality product,” says Andrew Tice, head distiller at House Spirits Distillery, Portland, Ore. “A lot of our best tools for that are our experience and tasting the product every day.”

Maggie Campbell, head distiller and vice president at Privateer Rum, Ipswich, Mass., says that craft distillers have a unique relationship with their customers. “People understand that we are a small handmade product and that, if we want to make it better, we will make it better. But with that comes the commitment that if it is not better, we have to be willing to throw it away.”

Coaxing out the desired flavors requires aging spirits in barrels from different places in the warehouse and then blending spirits from different barrels to get “this large spectrum of character,” Campbell explains.

“When the spirit is fresh off the still, we call that the primary flavor. At that stage it will taste like a fresh cut green apple.” Secondary flavor development happens when both the flavors from the wood and the spirit can be tasted. “And eventually when it has enough age to it, that fresh cut apple will begin to taste like dried apple peel and that oak flavor will begin to taste like caramel and vanilla and lavender. We call that tertiary flavor development. It is like imagining a fresh fruit becoming a dried fruit. That’s how we know that the flavor has actually matured,” Campbell says.

Distiller Colton Weinstein at Corsair Distillery in Nashville. (Image Credit: Corsair)

For Austin, skillful blending is key. “The number one thing I focus on for quality control is determining, after the barrels have matured, which ones are ready to come out and which barrels are going to be blended together to create the product. Blending is a lot about nosing and tasting, knowing what you are aiming for, setting rules and parameters for yourself, being committed to not taking a shortcut and just dumping barrels in a tank because you have got to bottle,” she says.

The art of spirit making is the nosing and tasting rather than a scientific analysis. “There is no scientific test for delicious. So much of that process is the brain making sense about what it is smelling, putting together vanilla, cinnamon, and fruit smells, and interpreting that to mean apple pie. That’s where the artistry comes in,” Austin says.

Flavor Begins in Ingredients, Oak Barrels

Selecting high quality ingredients is the first step in quality and consistency. Craft distilleries are known for being willing to experiment with a variety of ingredients to build in unique flavor. Corsair Distillery in Nashville, for example, uses quinoa in a whiskey and has started its own malting facility so that it can establish specifications for malting, according to distiller Colton Weinstein. Corsair buys barley but is hoping to start growing its own in the future to have even more control over the quality of the raw ingredient.

Achieving consistency of ingredients is a concern, Erenzo says, given that each batch of raw material is different. A distiller may start with one crop of rye and the next season have a different crop, grown during a different weather cycle. “That’s where the blending comes in to get your desired flavor profile,” he says.

Ralph Erenzo and Brian Lee, founders of Tuthilltown Spirits Farm Distillery, Gardiner, N.Y. (Image Credit: Tuthilltown)

Distilling begins with selecting ingredients, of course, but it’s in the charred oak barrels where the spirits are aged that the flavor notes develop. Getting enough of those barrels can be a challenge, however. The rapid growth in craft distilleries began at about the same time as the housing slowdown, a slowdown that trickled down to the wood harvesting business and led to a shortage of dried oak for coopers, who could not keep up with the increasing demand for aged barrels.

Erenzo says that when Tuthilltown started distilling spirit, it was one of only about 10 in the country, and getting barrels wasn’t much of a problem. Now, with between 700 and 800 distilleries operating in the U.S., cooperages are working around the clock to keep up with the demand, and some have an 8-month waiting list.

The wood in the barrel comes with its own history—whether it grew slowly or quickly, its age when cut, whether it was air dried or kiln dried, how long it sat in the cooper’s yard protected or unprotected, or how it was charred. Barrel making is an art, distillers say, and a good barrel isn’t made in a day.

“You can’t get around the fact that it is a natural product, and you can’t get around the fact that when you fill it in September or in November, the weather will be slightly different, even if all the barrels are kept in the same room together,” Austin explains. But those differences are desirable because the finished product should not have just one note. “You build that complexity by bringing those barrels together.”

Temperature interacts with the wood barrels during the aging process. If whisky is placed in a barrel in October, it will take longer to age than if it is placed in the barrel in May because the temperature will drop during the first months of aging, according to Erenzo. Tuthilltown has no climate control in the building where its barrels are aging, so “whatever happens outside is what is happening inside, which is absolutely necessary,” he says.

A barrel is charred so that the sugars in the wood are caramelized. When the barrel is filled with a spirit, the barrel warms up, the wood expands and sucks the liquid spirit, a solvent, into the wood. The solvent then dissolves the sugars and tannins and colors that are in the oak. When the barrel cools off, the wood contracts and pushes the liquid back out into the barrel. “So that hot-cold cycle is very important because that is what causes the exchange between the liquid and the wood,” Erenzo says.

Tuthilltown now ships some freshly emptied barrels used to age one of its whiskeys to a maple syrup producer in Canada. After the maple syrup has been aged in the barrels for 4 to 5 months, those barrels are shipped back to Tuthilltown where they are refilled with rye whiskey. Both the maple syrup and the whiskey benefit from this exchange of flavors, Erenzo says.

Thomas Mooney, CEO and co-founder of House Spirits and president of the American Craft Spirits Association, says that, unlike craft brewers who must control temperature to ensure the quality of their products, craft distillers want that variation. “Whiskey matures at a better rate and gets to a better place if you have temperature variation. What a craft brewer tries to avoid is what we actually look for.”

According to Weinstein, temperature control is also not an issue in storage and shipping. Keeping a distilled spirit out of direct sunlight is a good idea, but temperature ranges will not affect the quality of the spirit even after it is bottled.

Ensuring Safety

Andrew Tice, head distiller at House Spirits, Portland, Oreg. (Image Credit: House Spirits)

Although the alcohol content of distilled spirit is a sanitizer on its own, safety concerns are considered paramount within the industry. Campbell, who has an extensive background in Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, or HACCP, understands the various ways that contamination can be introduced into the product. Every barrel must be visually inspected and smelled for the presence of sulfur, taint, and even a dead animal; any bag of ingredients with even a small tear should be thrown out.

Staff must be trained about safety protocols for using ladders and chemical cleaners. No sparks or flames can be allowed in the building, and welding repair must be done outside the building. Every hose pump should be rinsed with reverse osmosis water; all of the fittings must be cleaned after every use and then stored; every bottle must be inspected before filling.

“People who are around stills and high-proof alcohol tend to be pretty aware of the danger. But it’s the little things that many people don’t think about, such as ladders, chemical cleaners, and cleaning materials,” Campbell says.

Most craft distilleries have not yet caught the attention of OSHA, but the potential for an inspection is always present. Monthly training at Privateer Rum focuses on preventing accidents, and the company has compiled a safety notebook that includes the ”near misses” that could potentially have been serious accidents.

Challenges of Small Volumes

There are advantages and disadvantages to operating a distillery on a small scale. A certain number of employees are needed to make distilled spirits, but there can be a point at which a company becomes staff-heavy without the sales to cover those costs. Purchasing of grain and other essential ingredients and barrels is more expensive when a distiller can only buy in small volumes. Without enough storage space, bottles and other supplies cannot be purchased in large quantities, driving up costs.

According to Mooney, there is a lot of overhead associated with running the distillery and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. “We know we will never have the cost structure of a large brand, which is why you rarely see our brands at comparable prices.”

Austin says there are many inefficiencies of labor because of the size of craft distilleries. “A distillery 100 times the size of us may have only 20 percent to 30 percent more staff.” Big distilleries are also in a stronger negotiating position with distributors because they operate on a bigger scale, she says.

Disposing of waste is a huge operational and safety issue and an expensive one for smaller operations, comments Erenzo.

“Almost no distiller that gets into the business thinks about waste, but it’s one of our biggest and most expensive problems,” he says.

Meanwhile, getting rid of thousands of gallons of spent mash requires trucking it somewhere because it cannot be spread on the ground or dumped into the municipal waste system. An expected revision of a Food Safety Modernization Act, or FSMA, proposal that spent grain intended for animal feed must first be inspected and then packaged will be welcomed by the industry, he says. For large distilleries with huge quantities of spent grain, selling it is another form of revenue; for craft distillers disposing of it is only an expense.

There are advantages to operating a small distillery that offset the disadvantages, one of the best being that these operations can be “very agile,” according to Campbell. “If I want to change something or tweak something, it’s very easy, whereas in a large distillery we wouldn’t be able to do that. We get to question what we do and try out new things.”

“Our advantage is that we can be more nimble,” Mooney says. “We can create products and test them out here, and there are no layers of bureaucracy to go through. We look for all the ways that being small is an advantage and that allow us to make things with greater care.”

References

1. Distilled Spirits Council 2014 Industry Review. New York City. Feb. 3, 2015. Accessed Sept. 3, 2015.

The post Developing a Taste for Specialty Distilleries appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Change has been the one constant in assuring food quality and safety at US Foods Inc., says Jorge Hernandez, senior vice president of food safety and quality assurance (FSQA) at the Rosemont, Ill., food and distribution company. Over the years, it has grown by acquiring a number of different companies, which in turn necessitated culling the best practices from all of them while reducing overlap.

“This is a continuous improvement process,” explains Hernandez. “It has a lot to do with the culture we established from the beginning.”

When Hernandez started the FSQA department at US Foods 10 years ago, there was no single food quality program across all the different companies.

“My first job was to integrate the program into one function that would be across all the different businesses and distribution centers,” he explains. “So from the beginning the challenge was to take the best of all of those programs and put them into one that was not only able to meet regulations, but that would have a sense of innovation with more effective processes and solutions.”

He adds, “We saw the world of safety, quality, and compliance was starting to change and speed up, and we needed a program that could adapt with those changes and make continuous improvements so it would be easier to move forward with new regulations, new findings from investigations, and new technology.”

For its corporate-wide integration and focus on quality and safety, US Foods was recently named the winner of the 14th annual Food Quality & Safety Award. The Award presentation was held during the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) conference, Portland, Ore., on July 26.

The company has a challenging task, with 350,000 products, including 20,000 high-quality exclusive brands, distributed through 63 nationwide locations on more than 6,000 refrigerated trucks. It also has 12 beef processing facilities, four culinary equipment and supplies distribution centers and six Cash & Carry retail stores.

Despite those huge numbers, it has managed to require that all of its 1,200 private-label co-packers—as well as its own distribution centers—obtain Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) certification. It initiated a web-based complaint system that has made it easier to report, investigate, and catch problems earlier. The results: a 24 percent reduction of product foreign material complaints and an 11 percent reduction in quality complaints in 2014 compared to the previous year.

In addition, US Foods has added new technologies such as a system to control meat package leakage. The company also developed and required food safety training for every job function in its distribution centers. And, it is the first broadline distributor to use DNA testing to verify seafood species and prevent mislabeling or detect fraud.

“The need for the application of food safety science has never been greater than it is today,” Gale Prince, CFS, founder and president of SAGE Food Safety Consultants LLC of Cincinnati, Ohio, said in giving his keynote address during the Award ceremony. “You must be proactive with futuristic thinking in preventing food safety issues.”

US Foods has been a strong proponent of partnerships across the industry at GLOBALG.A.P., GFSI, the International Food Protection Institute, the Center for Produce Safety, Produce Marketing Association, Association of Food & Drug Officials, IFS, and the American National Standards Institute. The company has also been an advocate of sharing best practices among food companies throughout the country.

Accepting the Award at the July ceremony were Hernandez and his colleagues Jeff Semanchek, director, supplier food safety and quality; Frank Ferko, director of distribution-FSQA; Stephen B. Posey, manager distribution FSQA–Central/Southwest Regions; and Roberto Bellavia, director of FSQA Stock Yards National.

Past winners of the annual Food Quality & Safety Award include Backyard Farms, Hans Kissle, Mastronardi Produce, Fieldale Farms, West Liberty Foods, and Hormel Foods.

GFSI: A Central Strategy

Image Credit: US Foods
Proper storage and appropriate rotation are critical to ensure the safety and quality of the foods in US Foods’ warehouses.

While US Foods has continued to upgrade its technology, staff training, key performance indicators, and other FSQA systems and procedures over the past year, Hernandez says that GFSI certification of its different businesses was central to its strategy.

“The reason is that certification provided a vehicle for us to get the food safety directive into each business unit’s leadership while instilling the discipline to measure, track, and review the food safety and quality key performance indicators on a regular basis as part of the business review,” he says. “That combination allowed us to drive food safety and food safety performance into the business.”

That being said, he emphasizes that each food safety and quality project and action is important since they each provide value to the company and its business.

Staff training is also important. Every staff member has specific food safety and quality training aspects to their job. For example, he says a delivery driver’s training focuses on time and temperature risks, as well as controls and his/her role in keeping the food safe in transit and during delivery. The same training is also taken by his/her supervisor, with the added tasks of how and when to check and document a drivers’ non-compliance.

“All these are checked by internal and third-party audits several times a year,” he says. “This allows us to embed the food safety and quality actions into the day-to-day delivery operations.” The same strategy is followed with all other positions.

Hernandez explains that while everyone who handles food at US Foods has a food safety and quality responsibility, his team is formed by 40 corporate FSQA staff with direct line responsibilities and more than 300 associates in the distribution centers who have FSQA functions embedded in their jobs with dotted line responsibilities. For example, every distribution center has several recall coordinators, a couple of produce inspectors, and a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) coordinator.

“So there are a number of different folks who do those things in a distribution center, but who do not report directly to FSQA,” Hernandez says. All corporate workers are HACCP-certified, as are two to three staffers at each distribution center.

“HACCP is one of our basic building blocks. It’s expensive and time-consuming, but it goes to the approach you take on how you embed food safety within the business,” he says. “When you make food safety and quality a requirement of the business, it’s just another thing that you have to do. But when you make it a value to the business, it becomes a lot easier to explain the disruptions, changes, and expenses you’re making to the business.”

Image Credit: US Foods
Most of the company’s distribution centers have state-of-the-art kitchens used by US Foods Fanatic Chefs not only to work with their local customers in the latest culinary techniques, but also to teach proper “hands on” food safety practices that can be used in restaurants.

He adds, “From the beginning, we’ve been able to provide information on how that investment pays back the business. When we’re able to win more customers because we have better documentation than others with more certifications, and you make that more well known, it becomes a value rather than a cost.”

US Foods has also invested in a number of new technologies aimed at improving the quality of its food products. Its online complaint system streamlines the complaint process, making it easier to catch and solve problems earlier.

Technology improvements extend to other parts of the company. For example, Stock Yards Chicago implemented a leaker reduction program earlier this year that involves both meat film wrappers and technologies to reduce leakage rates by about 1 percent so far this year. And its Las Vegas Stock Yard conducted a Lean Six Sigma project to reduce waste from the Roll Stock packaging line. One form of waste was leakers created by bone-in products that pierced the Cryovac film. The company added a bone guard to the product to remedy the situation, which the company says saves it $72,464 annually.

“From the beginning we developed a program that met the most stringent food quality and safety compliance,” Hernandez says. “As we looked at new findings from the industry and new technology, we tried to obtain it year to year rather than waiting for the regulators to react. When it comes to regulations there’s been a lot of changes but we, for the most part, have been ahead of them, whether it’s an approach to product sourcing or stronger management systems.”

Keeping Score

The company also is using a scorecard-tracking system to document, track, and trend its facilities’ food safety and quality key performance indicators. The same program provides customized charts for each of US Foods’ private-label suppliers and compares their scores against “best in class” and “worst in class” in their specific food category.

“This type of communication has made an impact and improved the suppliers’ performance significantly,” comments Hernandez, in some cases as much as 20 to 30 percent over previous period scores.

US Foods also has a customer education blog on food safety and quality topics to help customers learn about better, safer food handling and get the most from their food delivery. Recent topics include how to read code dates, improve food rotation in storage, maximize shelf life, and the best and safest food temperatures.

In addition, US Foods has developed a Supplier Expectations Manual (SEM) outlining its food safety, quality, packaging, and regulatory compliance requirements for all private-label products and for all facilities producing US Foods-branded products.

Image Credit: Chris Ryan Photography
The US Foods team members at Award ceremony, from left to right, Jeff Semanchek, director, supplier food safety and ­quality; Frank Ferko, director, distribution-FSQA; Jorge Hernandez, SVP FSQA; Stephen B. Posey, manager distribution FSQA – Central/Southwest Regions; and Roberto Bellavia, director, FSQA Stock Yards National.

“This is a living document and is reviewed regularly and updated as often as necessary to focus on the criteria that are important from a regulatory or food safety and quality perspective,” says Hernandez. Revisions and updates occur every two to three years to reflect emerging risks, changing regulations, and suppliers’ performance.

“The SEM is an important document in the training of all FSQA staff and contains general requirements for all commodities and category-specific expectations,” he adds. “The manual is provided to all prospective vendors and they are bound, by contract, to comply with it.” He says his staff or its representatives conduct regular onsite audits of facilities to verify SEM compliance.

Staying Nimble

This past summer, US Foods had to rethink how it will move forward in the wake of a failed takeover bid by rival distributor Sysco Corp., which terminated the potential merger in June after a U.S. District Court judge granted a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) request for a preliminary injunction. The reason: it feared the combination of the country’s two largest food service distributors would increase prices at food establishments nationwide and significantly reduce competition in the industry.

Hernandez explains that before the deal fell through, US Foods and Sysco were preparing for the merger for 18 months by putting together a “Best of Both” FSQA program.

“While we were disappointed by the FTC ruling, our goal at US Foods has always been to serve our customers by never forgetting what we’re about: delivering great, safe, quality food, cultivating talented food people, and making it easy for them to work with us. This internal belief now makes it easier to go back with renewed focus and unwavering dedication to take the company to the next level,” he says.

In relaunching as a single company, US Foods will focus on accelerating the progress it has already made, says Hernandez, with innovation, a long-time company strength, at the center of its relaunch strategy, entitled “Just Taking Off.”

The company states that it is in a strong financial position and is well-prepared for growth. Over the last 18 months, it invested millions of dollars into new technology and fleet and building improvements, including the construction of new LEED-certified facilities that service the Boston, Mass. and Jackson, Miss. markets.

“Our customers can expect to see more of the innovative and exclusive food items that empower them to explore on-trend dishes and freshen up menus,” comments Hernandez. “New technology enhancements and intuitive business solutions will increase their business success and make working with US Foods even easier. The company will continue to revolutionize the way the industry experiences food and business consultation with its Food Fanatics program.”

He adds that food safety is part of the campaign, making sure US Foods has the best-in-class programs that ensure the safety and quality of the foods it delivers.

According to Hernandez, “That makes it easier for our customers…so they don’t have to take that worry into their business.”

Valigra is a writer based in Harrison, Maine. Reach her at lvaligra@gmail.com.

The post US Foods Receives 14th Annual Food Quality & Safety Award appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Image Credit: © Alex Yeung – Fotolia.com

Perhaps poutine is your thing, that ubiquitous Canadian fast food dish featuring French fries and cheese curds topped with light brown gravy. Maybe you take to tacos, tamales, and enchiladas, those iconic staples of Mexican cuisine. You could have an affinity for the all-American favorites, hot dogs, macaroni and cheese, and mom’s apple pie à la mode.

Your personal preferences aside, these culinary delights are all popular mainstays in three wildly different countries that share three undeniable commonalities. They are friendly neighbors, they are important food trade partners, and they are devoted to food safety.

O Canada / Ô Canada

The Canadian food safety system is a mature one, where the shared responsibility paradigm between industry, consumers and government oversight is well illustrated, says Samuel Godefroy, PhD, professor of food risk analysis and regulatory systems with University Laval’s Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences in Québec, Canada and formerly (2009 to 2015) director general of Health Canada’s Food Directorate, Canada’s federal food standard setting body.

Dr. Godefroy is quick to mention a consumer survey conducted in 2010, where a representative sample of Canadians indicated that witnessing a higher number of recalls (during 2009 and 2010) for them was more conducive to having a higher level of trust in the country’s food safety system rather than the opposite.

“This demonstrates that the Canadian food system was, in fact, working,” Dr. Godefroy asserts. “When consumers achieve this level of understanding with such an overwhelming majority, it is telling as to the level of maturity achieved.”

Without question, Canada, population 35,749,600, is a world powerhouse, not just in ice hockey, but where a food safety system should be expected to thrive. With its 10 provinces and three territories extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific and northward into the Arctic Ocean, the land of the maple leaf covers 3.85 million square miles, making it the world’s second-largest country by total area (after Russia) and the fourth-largest country by land area, not to mention the largest country in North America. Canada’s common border with the U.S. forms the world’s longest land border.

Dr. Godefroy says several factors contribute to the trustworthiness of the food safety system north of the U.S. border.

“For starters, Canada’s food safety system has been under regular review with the purpose of updating it and strengthening it,” he begins. “The recent food safety events either at the international level, especially the 2008 melamine contamination issues related to dairy products and other food fraud scandals in various parts of the world; or at the domestic level, XL Foods’ 2012 massive beef recalls and the 2008 listeriosis outbreak, are still in the memory of Canadian consumers, producers, and regulators alike. As a result, there has been more emphasis on enhancing the food safety system in the country through major government investments, but also through added emphasis by the food industry itself to instill and maintain a food safety culture.”

Another illustration, Dr. Godefroy says, is a 2014 assessment conducted by University of Guelph researchers, led by Sylvain Charlebois, PhD, who identified Canada’s food safety system in the top ranking of food safety systems globally, based on a robust standard setting environment and on a risk-based approach.

“Moreover, Canada’s food regulatory agencies have been subjected to a number of reviews and audits, the latest of which was a 2013 Auditor General report that reviewed the country’s food recall systems,” Dr. Godefroy continues. “As a result of these reviews and audits, a number of actions have been undertaken to modernize the system and address shortcomings. This constant review and update process is considered one of the strengths of the system.”

Add to that, Dr. Godefroy says, Canada’s food safety legislation was subjected to recent updates, with an amendment to Canada’s Food and Drugs Act and the development of a new legislation under the name of Safe Food for Canadians Act.

“This latter legislation constitutes a major overhaul of the Canadian food legislative landscape with a consolidation of the various federal acts under which food is managed,” Dr. Godefroy points out. “Regulatory provisions under this legislation are still to be developed.”

Like the U.S.’s FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the new Canadian legislation and subsequent regulatory provisions are to focus on preventive measures taken by industry to manage and mitigate food risks during production from farm to table, Dr. Godefroy explains.

“This overhaul will result in major enhancements and clarification of regulatory requirements associated with food production,” he says. “In parallel, Canada’s food inspection agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, has embarked on a major food inspection modernization process aiming to create a more uniform approach to inspect and enforce food safety legislations and regulations. Until recently, the system was disproportionately putting emphasis on meat and poultry and was relying on a commodity-based approach.”

While these changes will likely result in major simplification, modernization, and improvements of the country’s food regulatory system, some challenges remain, Dr. Godefroy relates.

“Fragmentation of regulatory requirements, which make a distinction between foods crossing provincial boundaries versus those that are sold within one single province, continues to be an issue,” he says. “According to the new proposed rules, the enhanced regime would only apply to the former category of foods. Foods sold within the boundaries of a single province are only subject to general rules under the Food and Drugs Act and provincial requirements. They would therefore not be subject to the application of the ‘preventive measures’ paradigm. Similarly, it will be important that the application of preventive controls and the way this is verified be commensurate with the size and importance of the food establishment. Such details of the development and application of the regulatory provisions are therefore still to be worked out.”

Also, in an environment of scarce resources, there continues to be fragmentation and dispersion of efforts, between the various levels of governments and between agencies within a single level of government overseeing food, Dr. Godefroy adds.

“For example, the risk assessment and standard setting mandate is shared between Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, resulting in the need to rely on complex governance mechanisms and major efforts of coordination that add pressure on existing resources, all in a constrained environment,” he explains. “There are a number of opportunities for improvement in integrating efforts and maximizing the use of resources, such as the consideration of a single food standards authority. This would simplify the system for industry, for consumers, and for the agencies themselves.”

Canadian Challenges

As far as thematic priorities are concerned, Dr. Godefroy says Canada’s food safety system is challenged by the same drivers of change as what are witnessed internationally. These include:

• Applying a preventive approach through the development of guidance to identify, prevent, and/or mitigate hazards and associated risks during all phases of food production.
• Identification and management of emerging pathogens (resulting from climate change or other drivers) and occurrence of known pathogens in new food sources/vehicles.
• Continued importance of managing risks associated with allergens in food processing, without the reliance on the propagation of allergen precautionary statements on food labels.
• Multiplication of food chemical risks from known and emerging sources (environmental contamination, natural contaminants such as mycotoxins and phycotoxins, process induced chemicals) and their management in a changing environment influenced by changes in climate and food production patterns globally.
• The emergence and propagation of antibiotic-resistant pathogens from food sources and potentially linked to the administration of such drugs to food-producing animals.
• Applying the relevant risk-based approach to the management and administration of chemicals used in conjunction with food production such as packaging materials, processing aids, and other indirect additives such as sanitizers used in food production.
• The emergence of novel food formulations, which include a broader range of bioactive ingredients either extracted from other foods or from synthetic sources and added to foods as a vehicle of administration or to respond to consumer demand related to the development of functional foods. These foods have a different risk profile and currently face a system varying from either a vacuum of oversight or a too rigid environment unfavorable to product innovation.

“Canada’s food and agri-food production sector is amongst the most developed and prolific globally with a high throughput, given the sheer size of agricultural land and the vitality of the livestock sector,” Dr. Godefroy says. “Yet, Canada’s food processing sector has been shrinking, impacted by amongst other challenges, global consolidation.”

The development of innovative products is key to supporting the development of this sector, using the throughput of the primary production sector, Dr. Godefroy believes.

“Sectors such as pulse, oil seeds, and grain production continue to contribute to such innovation by creating new ingredients and new foods,” he notes. “A flexible, nimble, and agile food safety regulatory system will be imperative to support such developments, including a robust presence in international food standard development forum, in view of the importance of international market access for these products.”

Enhanced North American collaboration in creating added convergence in food regulatory provisions is also needed, Dr. Godefroy emphasizes.

“Given the level of integration of food production in North America, the ever-increasing complexity of scientific assessments to support robust risk management measures and to preserve consumer confidence, improved use of safety assessment resources to support the appropriate level of food safety oversight is definitely needed,” he says.

Distant Dream?

“In this context, and while achieving a single set of food standards in North America seem to be a distant dream, does it still make sense to have different Canadian and American scientific assessments of the same product using the same scientific methodologies, the same techniques, and sometimes even the same data?” Dr. Godefroy asks.

“The time may have come to consider the creation of a single food safety risk assessment authority for Canada and the United States,” Dr. Godefroy purports, “pooling the best of the scientific resources dedicated to this area and providing advice to food safety regulators in both countries.”

This would not impede the ability of each country to develop its own set of food standards, based on its own policy and risk management considerations, but at least the reliance on scientific assessments would be consistent and streamlined, he notes.

“This is without speaking of the importance and weight that such assessments would have on the international stage, positioning North America as a center of excellence of science-driven food safety oversight,” Dr. Godefroy emphasizes. “If Europe with its far more diverse population and its 28 countries did it, why can’t our two countries with their decades of food safety and food regulatory cooperation achieve this goal?”

And what about including Mexico in any possible North American regulatory collaboration?

“With the relevant efforts of coordination and capacity building, I would think that it would be the natural subsequent step once Canada and the U.S. manage to agree to move in that direction and implement the idea,” Dr. Godefroy says.

Southern Ally/Aliado al Sur

Every growing season, thousands of trucks, nearly 200,000 trucks, cross the border from Mexico into the U.S. to deliver more than 3 million metric tons of luscious fresh fruits and vegetables to U.S. markets, according to Cristóbal Chaidez, PhD, a food safety research scientist focusing on microbial contamination of food, water, and the environment, and director of the National Food Safety Research Laboratory of the Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo (Research Center in Food and Development), a government agency based in Culiacán, Mexico.

Among Mexico’s 2014 top 10 exports, vegetables (the only food item on the list) ranked tenth, and were valued at $5,497,363,000, according to worldstopexports.com.

Not surprisingly, a whopping 60 percent of Mexico’s agricultural exports go to the U.S. Along with iconic chili peppers of assorted varieties, edible export products from South of the border include coffee, corn, and,wheat, plus the aforementioned array of tropical fruits and various winter fruits and vegetables.

“Fresh produce from Mexico has the potential to meet most of the growing global demand for fruit and vegetable products,” Dr. Chaidez boasts. “However, the globalization of the food supply may introduce new food safety risks and the potential widespread dissemination of contaminated food.”

Several pre- and post-harvest factors can contribute to the presence of microbial pathogens on fresh produce, Dr. Chaidez points out, including irrigation water, soil, feces, insects, composted manure, wild and domestic animals, and human handling.

“The presence of Salmonella remains a major cause of detention and rejection by the U.S. of shipments of Mexican fresh produce,” Dr. Chaidez elaborates. “A large multi-state Salmonella outbreak involving peppers and tomatoes sickened over 1,535 people in 2008. Salmonella Saintpaul was the causative agent of this outbreak, and it was isolated from Serrano and jalapeño peppers from two packinghouses in Tamaulipas, Mexico. Since then, the U.S. FDA has documented a number of different commodities in Mexico contaminated with Salmonella species, including cucumbers, jalapeño peppers, serrano peppers, papaya, spinach, mangoes, and coriander.”

Other important microbial issues are recently arising in Mexico, such as the presence of Cyclospora on cilantro, Dr. Chaidez notes.

Relative to quality issues, one of the biggest challenges Mexican produce growers face is weather extremes, especially frost, drought, and torrential rain damage, he says. “These extremes are expected to become ever more frequent and unpredictable in major production zones,” Dr. Chaidez purports. “Thus, pests and disease remain a major problem for Mexican growers.”

Covering more than 760,000 square miles, Mexico is the fifth largest country in the Americas by total area and the 13th largest independent nation in the world. With an estimated population of some 125.5 million, it is the 11th most populous and the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world, and the second most populous country in Latin America. Mexico is a federation comprising 31 states and a Federal District, its capital and largest city.

Regulatory System

According to Dr. Chaidez, who in addition to conducting research, serves as a consultant in Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems for the fresh produce and processed food industry, a key strength of the Mexican food system as it impacts the quality and safety of food produced in Mexico is national institutions such as the country’s National Service for Health, Food Safety and Agricultural Food Quality (Servicio Nacional de Sanidad, Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria, SENASICA).

Mexican government efforts are focused on implementing and applying GAP, GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices), and HACCP throughout the food chain, Dr. Chaidez relates.

“SENASICA is putting in place an initiative named Contamination Risk Reduction System from initial production through to the packing and transportation of fruits and vegetables,” he says. “This initiative is focused on reducing the risk of contamination during fruit and vegetable production and covers 16 elements, including company registration, business history, water use, hygienic practices, traceability, fertilization, and damage to wildlife, among others.”

Dr. Chaidez mentions that the “Mexico Calidad Suprema” (“Mexico Supreme Quality”) program is an official brand identification that guarantees quality and safety of the Mexican products under this brand. “This label seeks the identification of products that comply with several regulations,” he explains, “namely Mexican Official Norms (NOM), Mexican Norms (NMX), and international rules, all in a confident and transparent system for the benefit of producers, packers, distributors, and consumers.”

Other official efforts are the ones established by federal (SENASICA) and state authorities (Government of Baja California), Dr. Chaidez says. “Both agencies enforced the implementation of the green onion protocol based on FDA guidelines,” he mentions.

Industry Initiative

A big plus in the world of Mexican produce is that growers are organized, Dr. Chaidez says. “The industry effort to maintain the safety and credibility of their brands took them to develop and implement food safety programs on their own,” he points out. “A major example is Eleven Rivers, an initiative of Sinaloa growers to meet the responsibility of offering consumers fresh, healthy, safe, and sustainable products.”

Established in 2009, Eleven Rivers seeks to change the perception of the consumer and ensure accountability and security of Mexican horticultural products, Dr. Chaidez says.

“Eleven Rivers is open to all producers affiliated with the Confederación de Asociaciones Agrícolas de Sinaloa, so that they participate and obtain the benefits of the program,” he relates. “The program is designed to implement, verify, and apply a certification scheme in food safety through a periodic review by independent bodies, oriented towards ensuring consumer health; but also promoting the systematization of safe food production processes in the food chain, with social and environmental responsibility.”

Eleven Rivers strives to achieve a differentiated produce supply in the market, based on the highest standards demanded by consumers, buyers, and authorities. To that end, Dr. Chaidez says Eleven Rivers is focused on becoming an important label and a food safety reference in Mexico and worldwide, as reflected in a market and consumer preference for the certified product.

“In the Eleven Rivers regulatory scheme, companies certify their modules of agriculture production, packing, and shelter facilities,” he explains. “This scheme is not only focused on food safety, but it also seeks to comply with the best industry practices, including process quality, traceability and corporate responsibility. Participating growers agree to be subject to a seasonal certification, and weekly compliance verification, conducted by independent certification, and verification organizations.”

FSMA will have an impact on the fresh produce industry, Dr. Chaidez adds. “One of the biggest destinations for Mexican fresh produce is the U.S. market, and if growers do not meet the FSMA requirements, they’ll just lose that opportunity,” he emphasizes.

As FSMA functions as a mandatory food safety risk reduction system, Mexican produce growers need to include in their operations the following items, Dr. Chaidez says.

• Designing public policies to correct or minimize risks.
• Tracing the origin and causes of microbial contamination.
• Determining the genetic fingerprint, to know whether is endemic or external.
• Characterizing pathogens and times of the year in which they occur.
• Regulations for mandatory food safety practices.
• Science.

Science-Based Support, Por Favor

Dr. Chaidez is quick to point out that some aspects of the Mexican produce industry definitely need improvement.

“Comparison of foodborne pathogens isolated from fresh produce and the environment, and from produce-associated human infections, infers that pathogens may differ markedly in their potential to infect humans,” he begins. “The acquisition of further data on this aspect would inform potential future quantitative risk assessments and also inform hygiene controls and pathogens standards for fresh produce.”

The current dose response curves are determined using a variety of other foods, Dr. Chaidez continues. “Studies on dose response using fresh produce as the matrix using environmental isolates from foods and dose response information from outbreak data would be useful for quantitative risk assessments,” he believes. “Also, the application of more precise tools such as whole genome sequencing will help to identify the source of an outbreak far more quickly and prevent additional cases,” he says.

These advanced technologies will help growers to more quickly match bacteria from environmental samples with their database, he believes.

“The Mexican government and produce growers need to undertake more science-based studies to better understand microbial pathogens,” Dr. Chaidez advises. “The benefits of science-based support can definitely help our growers, ultimately by more productivity reaching better market niches.”

Stars and Stripes Status

As is the case with Mexico, produce safety issues are no small concern in the U.S.

The three main food safety issues impacting the U.S. today are produce, imported foods and bacterial contamination of high fat foods, according to Michael Doyle, PhD, the regents professor of food microbiology and director of the Center for Food Safety at the University Georgia, Griffin, GA.

“One-third of the outbreaks of foodborne illnesses in the U.S. during the past five years, according to the U.S. CDC, are linked to contaminated produce,” Dr. Doyle asserts.

On the “List of Selected Outbreak Investigations, by Year” posted on the CDC’s website, there are 54 outbreaks listed for 2011 through 2015 as of August 28, 2015, and of these, it appears some 19, or 35 percent, are attributed to fresh produce products.

Of these specific cases, the most notable is arguably the 2011 outbreak of listeriosis traced to cantaloupes from Colorado. Thirty-three people died, making it the second deadliest recorded U.S. foodborne disease outbreak since the CDC began tracking outbreaks in the 1970s. (Ranking number one is the 1985 California outbreak of listeriosis attributed to queso fresco, which accounted for a reported 52 deaths or perhaps even more.)

“Produce safety is a real challenge,” Dr. Doyle emphasizes. “As Dr. Chaidez says, we know the principal sources of contamination in the field are water, manure, wildlife, and harvesters (the people doing the harvesting), which are a challenge for producers.”

Compounding all this, Dr. Doyle predicts, with the drought in California, the U.S. will soon lose produce growers to other parts of the world. “FSMA will raise the bar on domestic produce safety, as long as its implemented and carried out,” he adds. “But a major concern is that FSMA will not have control of the safety of produce coming in from other countries, especially other countries not committed to food safety.”

Imported foods in general, especially ingredients like spices, are an ongoing food safety concern, Dr. Doyle continues.

“Lots of ingredients in processed foods can be contaminated with Salmonella but they are typically hard to pick up in foodborne illness outbreaks,” he says. “An FDA survey of spices between 2007 and 2009 showed that 6.6 percent of untreated spices were positive for Salmonella, and 3 percent of spices treated to kill Salmonella were still positive.”

Sadly, some of the most popular and widely consumed, albeit high fat, foods in the U.S. can be guilty of harboring pathogens and causing illness with ease, Dr. Doyle points out, citing lip smacking goodies like peanut butter, ice cream, and chocolate.

“The fat protects the bacteria from the acid in the stomach, and since they are protected, a smaller dose, as few as 10 to 100 cells, is required to cause illness,” Dr. Doyle explains.

The beautiful rainbow gracing the stormy skies of U.S. food safety issues, Dr. Doyle says, is the country’s advanced and exemplary foodborne disease outbreak surveillance capabilities.

“The United States, I believe, is far ahead of the rest of the world in foodborne disease outbreak surveillance,” he emphasizes. “Even if others fault us for so many foodborne illness outbreaks, because we have a state-of-the-art surveillance system, we are head and shoulders above the rest of the world.”

PulseNet

Driving these surveillance capabilities, Dr. Doyle says, is the CDC’s PulseNet USA system.

Established in 1996, PulseNet is a national laboratory network comprised of 87 public health and regulatory (FDA and USDA) laboratories, at least one in each state. PulseNet connects foodborne illness cases together to detect and define outbreaks using DNA “fingerprinting” of the bacteria making people sick using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and multiple locus variable number tandem repeat analysis.

PulseNet tracks what is being reported to CDC today compared to what was reported in the past to look for changes. As a result, PulseNet keeps a cumulative database representing nearly half a million isolates of bacteria from food, the environment, and human foodborne illness.

Detection capabilities of PulseNet include subtypes of E. coli O157 and other Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, Clostridium botulinum, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, Shigella, Vibrio cholerae, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, and Cronobacter. (Note: Clostridium botulinum is considered a select agent and, as such, follows different handling procedures than other pathogens covered by PulseNet.)

Since the creation of PulseNet in 1996, more than one-half billion pounds of contaminated food have been recalled due, in part, to PulseNet activities.

Dr. Doyle is quick to point out that PulseNet has revolutionized the detection and investigation of foodborne disease outbreaks, especially in multiple sites across the country which, before PulseNet, often went undetected or were detected only after they grew very large.

“PulseNet, in collaboration with FDA’s GenomeTrakr, is rapidly adopting whole genome sequencing as its next generation fingerprinting method,” Dr. Doyle says. “This will enable more rapid detection of outbreaks, as well as increasing CDC’s ability to identify outbreaks having only a few cases, and enabling FDA to better track outbreaks back to their source.”

What’s more, the success of PulseNet USA inspired the formation of its collaborator, PulseNet International, which now spans some 82 member countries in Canada, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia Pacific, the Middle East, and Africa; and includes some 126 laboratories.

Whole Genome Sequencing

Dr. Doyle greatly appreciates all the benefits the landmark tool whole genome sequencing offers for solving foodborne illness puzzles and mysteries.

“Sequencing allows scientists to trace pathogens right to the source,” he says. “One recent example is the Salmonella contamination of frozen raw scraped ground tuna that infected 425 people in 28 states in 2012 and was traced to India. The genome sequencing led to this discovery.”

Whole genome sequencing reveals the complete DNA makeup of an organism, enabling scientists to better understand variations both within and between species. This in turn facilitates the differentiation between organisms with a precision that other technologies do not allow.

Having utilized whole genome sequencing since 2008, FDA says on its website that it is using this technology to perform basic foodborne pathogen identification during foodborne illness outbreaks and applying it in novel ways that have the potential to help reduce foodborne illnesses and deaths over the long term, both in the U.S and abroad.

With its ever-decreasing cost and continually increasing speed, genome sequencing is used to identify pathogens isolated from food or environmental samples. Dr. Doyle concurs that these can then be compared to clinical isolates from patients. According to FDA, if the pathogens found in the food or food production environment match the pathogens from the sick patients, a reliable link between the two can be made, which helps define the scope of a foodborne illness outbreak.

This type of testing has traditionally been done using methods such as pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), but there are some strains of Salmonella spp. that PFGE is unable to differentiate. FDA explains that whole genome sequencing performs the same function as PFGE but has the power to differentiate virtually all strains of foodborne pathogens, no matter what the species. Its ability to differentiate between even closely related organisms thus allows outbreaks to be detected with fewer clinical cases and provides the opportunity to stop outbreaks sooner and avoid additional illnesses.

However, FDA asserts the most promising and far-reaching public health benefit may come from pairing a foodborne pathogen’s genomic information with its geographic location and applying the principles of evolutionary biology to determine the relatedness of the pathogens. That’s because, FDA explains, the genomic information of a species of foodborne pathogen found in one geographic area is different than the genomic information of the same species of pathogen found in another area.

Knowing the geographic areas that pathogens are typically associated with can be a powerful tool in tracking down the root source of contamination for a food product, especially multi-ingredient food products whose ingredients come from different states or countries, FDA notes.

Obviously, as FDA points out, the faster public health officials can identify the source of contamination, the faster the harmful ingredient can be removed from the food supply and the more illnesses and deaths that can be averted.

To realize this goal, FDA is spearheading an international effort to build a network of laboratories that can sequence the genomes of foodborne pathogens and then upload the genomic sequence of the pathogen and the geographic location from which the pathogen was gathered into a publicly accessible database. As the size of the database grows, it’s anticipated that so will its strength as a tool to help focus and speed investigations into the root cause of illnesses.

“The power of our surveillance system will be even better in next few years,” Dr. Doyle predicts. “With continued advances in whole genome sequencing, including more organisms from food processing facilities and products in the database, the system will become even more sensitive and robust, enabling the FDA and USDA to be able to do more detailed trace back to any field or plant that is the source of contamination.

“If any stakeholders have not picked up on what our surveillance system can do, they are in for a rude awakening in the future,” Dr. Doyle continues. “New surveillance technologies will be a real challenge for these companies. Any companies that are slack with their food safety standards should be aware that if they have a contamination problem, they are likely to get caught. They need to realize that you either pay now or you pay later if you are not on top of food safety.”

Recalls

Food recalls are one of the biggest food safety issues in the U.S. right now, says Pam Coleman, MBA, vice president of research services for Mérieux NutriSciences, Chicago, Ill. “We still have huge, devastating recalls and they always seem to be a surprise, even though some of these contamination issues seem to have gone on for years,” she relates. “For as much effort as we’ve put into food safety in the United States, some serious blemishes remain. We’re a developed country, yet we have these black marks on our resume.”

There were 25 recalls in the U.S. between August 5, 2015 and August 31, 2015 alone, as per http://www.recalls.gov/food.html.

Touting itself as the biggest food micro testing operation in the U.S., and third largest relative to analysis of nutrition, chemical contaminants, heavy metals, and pesticides, Mérieux NutriSciences operates 80 labs in some 20 countries, including 14 labs in the U.S., three in Canada and three in Mexico.

Armed with extensive academic and hands-on career bench work credentials in both biology and chemistry, Coleman currently oversees the company’s research services team, a group she explains is focused on helping clients answer their food related research questions encompassing food safety, food quality, sensory, and clinical research functions.

“We test raw ingredients, dairy, some produce, meat, poultry, FDA regulated products, grocery, mixes, canned, and frozen foods,” she mentions. “We serve thousands of companies of all sizes, including large ones with multiple facilities and small family start-ups. Our research projects are designed to enable new products to enter the market place with more safety and quality built in.”

Coleman believes a major strength of the U.S. food chain is the scrutiny of its meat and poultry, both raw and processed. “USDA has done a fantastic job of driving continued improvement in the reduction of Listeria in processed meats,” she says. “They have also developed increasingly more data driven micro baseline levels for the raw meat plants, holding plants accountable for the contamination levels of their products over the past 20 years.”

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) collects samples of meat and poultry products to estimate the national prevalence and levels of bacteria of public health concern. Each report is a compilation of data obtained for a particular species or type of animal.

For example, FSIS conducted the first Raw Chicken Parts Baseline Survey (RCPBS) from January to August 2012.

The RCPBS was designed to determine the presence and the levels of selected bacteria on raw chicken parts produced in federally inspected plants. In addition, FSIS wanted to determine the national prevalence of Salmonella and Campylobacter on raw chicken parts.

Additional goals for this survey were determining if there was a significant difference between production shifts as they related to bacterial levels, and comparing the bacterial presence and levels on raw parts with skin-on versus parts with skin-off.

Relative to qualitative microbiological results, the Salmonella percent positive rate for chicken parts was 26.3 percent and 21.4 percent for Campylobacter.

Using data from this study, FSIS calculated national prevalence estimates for Salmonella and Campylobacter; specifically they calculated the prevalence or weighted average of Salmonella and Campylobacter for all chicken parts. (These national prevalence estimates are different from the percent positives because they are weighted in relation to production volume.)

The estimated national prevalence of Salmonella in chicken parts is 24.02 percent with a 95 percent confidence interval between 19.24 percent and 28.79 percent. The estimated national prevalence of Campylobacter in chicken parts is 21.70 percent with a 95 percent confidence interval between 18.70 percent and 24.69 percent.

“Having a known baseline level is step one to improvement in any process,” Coleman points out. “Now the challenge is clear and industry is responding with ways to reduce levels over time.”

Environmental Monitoring

When environmental monitoring came in vogue, it was viewed as a tool to help reduce the prevalent risks that are an issue in nearly every type of food plant, Coleman mentions. “But after years of running these programs, there is a tendency to react less and less to a few isolated positive results,” she says. “So while many companies have embraced environmental monitoring over the past 15 years or so, which is evidenced by the number of environmental swabs we receive to test daily in our laboratories, as an industry we need to figure out better ways to extract actionable information from the sporadic positives that many plants experience.”

“To that end, we are working along with other industry stakeholders to elevate environmental monitoring to the next level through progressive solutions, such as EnviroMap, helping to track and map specific organisms,” Coleman relates.

Will metagenomics techniques impact environmental testing in the future? “Environmental testing will likely be improved by the application of metagenomics techniques,” Coleman predicts, “but I think we have a ways to go to get a good practical application.”

Metagenomics is the study of genetic material recovered directly from environmental samples. The broad field may also be referred to as environmental genomics, ecogenomics, or community genomics.

There is more work to be done on tracking and investigating foodborne contamination with a focus on prevention of contamination and subsequent recalls, Coleman believes. “We recommend that companies use all of the available tools to uncover issues before a recall becomes necessary,” she notes. “If sporadic pathogen positives are found via an environmental monitoring plan, conducting selective finished product testing before shipping might be a good idea to verify the effectiveness of a specific remediation effort.”

What else will help any such efforts? “We need a way to look at all microorganisms in a sample and then use the information to track them,” Coleman says. “We need to be able to tell if this is the same system we saw last week or a new one. We need to determine how to get to the molecular level with bacterial diagnostics.”

It will take a proactive approach on the part of all food industry stakeholders to be more effective with bacterial monitoring, expansion of routine testing, and control, Coleman asserts.

“Companies offering laboratory services need to expand services to help food manufacturers, retailers, and restaurants get results in a more efficient, state-of-the art, user-friendly manner,” she advises. “Phone apps for iPhone and Android that allow busy food industry professionals a way to track lab testing results is something we’ve invested in. Adapting new analytical methods to food safety while also catering to smartphone communications preferences are two ways this company is striving to serve their clients.”

FSMA Impacts

Robert Buchanan, PhD, director of the Center for Food Safety and Security Systems at the University of Maryland, College Park, Md., emphasizes that FSMA’s impact does not stop at the U.S. border since all the countries and companies that export to the U.S. will have to meet the requirements of the regulations.

That’s a noteworthy point, because another issue in the U.S., Dr. Buchanan says, is that more and more foods and ingredients are coming in from underdeveloped or developing countries.

“It’s good if these countries have an infrastructure that can handle food safety and food fraud issues, but we can’t count on that,” he relates. “If you think they are inspecting their products before they are shipped out, you need to think again. There definitely needs to be some way to manage these imports on our end. To that end, the new FSMA rules have multiple new requirements designed to improve our confidence in imported foods.”

Dr. Buchanan considers the U.S. taking the lead on new regulations a positive thing. “The regulations derived from FSMA seem to be paying a great deal of attention to ensuring that a level playing field does not favor certain segments of the food industry, such as small versus larger manufacturers, or domestic versus foreign manufacturers,” he says. “And fortunately, the drafters of the regulations also appear to be very careful about not hampering innovation. If we tamper with this ability, we reduce the potential for continuing improvement in our food supply.”

With FDA leading the way with new regulations, the USDA FSIS can be expected to follow at some point with regulatory reform, too, Dr. Buchanan predicts. “For example, as with FSMA, FSIS will likely have to deal with international trade issues to meet the U.S.’s obligations under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures” he explains.

In terms of science having an effect on food safety, modern epidemiology has, in some instances, exceeded the ability to control pathogens in a number of foods, Dr. Buchanan asserts.

“With some of the recent diffuse outbreaks, the contamination rates exceeded the ability to detect the pathogen,” he points out. “It thus becomes a challenge to determine how much otherwise safe food we should throw away when pathogens are detected. As a result, one of the major challenges facing government, industry, and society in general is how do we reach a consensus of what is a tolerable level of risk before the next incremental increase in food safety becomes burdensome to society?”

It’s tough to get an agreement on a tolerable level of residual risk, Dr. Buchanan continues. “I’m all for risk assessments, but I’m not sure they are applied correctly,” he notes. “When developing new standards, they reflect the tolerable level of residual risk, whereas outbreaks typically involve a lack of compliance to a standard, a different risk based on reliability. In the debate over standards and performance, many of the participants do not fully understand the difference between compliance and residual risks.”

We still haven’t figured out what to do with dry products, Dr. Buchanan mentions, relative to risk assessment. “Consumers think dry products are sterile, but they are not,” he emphasizes. “So how do we get rid of Salmonella in flour, for example? Bread gets baked, but there are some uses for which flour doesn’t get baked. For instance, they often dust hot bread with raw flour.”

Fortunately, there are some new technologies coming out to help with that problem, Dr. Buchanan says, including macrowave treatments, and also new processing tools, such as improved thermal processing modeling.

Population Growth and Pathogens

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates point to the need to increase global food production by 60 percent by 2050 to feed a population that will top the 9 billion mark. (With more than 320 million people, the U.S. is currently the world’s third most populous country.)

Population growth is an additional challenge that can be expected to impact food safety in the years ahead, Dr. Buchanan predicts.

“We will continue to find new pathogens that are creating themselves, and as the human population increases, we are likely to see the emergence and rapid spread of new foodborne pathogens,” he explains. “To minimize these risks, we need to get the population of the world to level off. Furthermore, food growing and processing is a huge drain on water and energy. If we continue to use energy to ship food all over the world, we will ultimately reach a point where this cannot be sustained economically. So we definitely need more sustainable foods.”

Dr. Buchanan is quick to credit the federal acts that established the foundation of the U.S. food system. Research and Cooperative Extension programs involve interaction between government, agriculture, and food industries, which in turn generate new food products and processes that solve food safety and security problems, while enhancing productivity, he points out.

“This investment has paid massive dividends to the U.S. citizenry,” he says. “And despite decreases in government funding, we have been able to maintain a good food chain infrastructure in the U.S.”

Our system is based on three legs, government, industry, and academia, Dr. Buchanan notes. “In any country, having all of these three legs offers a tremendous advantage,” he says. “In contrast, in many countries academia plays a minor role in solving food safety problems, and those countries’ food safety status suffers. It is very important to continue to invest in our public/private partnerships if we are going to improve the safety and quality of our foods.”

A really great characteristic that is unique to the U.S. food system, Dr. Buchanan says, is that a single person can have tremendous positive impact, especially with regards to regulations. “If you have the scientific knowledge and the ability to communicate this effectively to the policy makers in the U.S., you can make a huge difference,” he emphasizes.

“We have an open process in the U.S. that allows citizens to provide their input into new or changing regulations, something that is not common in many parts of the world,” Dr. Buchanan says. “If you take advantage of the way regulations are developed, then you have the potential for influencing how we are governed. This is where the members of the academic community can play an increasing and important role in explaining the science underlying continuous improvement in food safety. ”

The post Food Safety in North America appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

An analysis of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) conducted by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University contends that the benefits of the “four most burdensome regulations” in FSMA will most likely not outweigh their costs. “In some cases the rules are unnecessary; in others they are likely to be ineffective,” the report states.

The author of the analysis, Richard Williams, PhD, is a senior research fellow and vice president of policy research at the Mercatus Center. “As the rules stand now, they are simply too expensive for the return on food safety that we are getting,” he says, adding that he anticipates meeting with the Senate Steering Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee about the report.

Dr. Williams’ report focuses specifically on four of the proposed regulations: the human food rule, the animal feed rule, the produce rule, and the intentional adulteration rule. According to Dr. Williams, a former director for social sciences at the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, “there is very little evidence of the significant food safety problems purportedly addressed by some of the regulation and, for others, there is insufficient evidence the rules will be effective at reducing foodborne risk.”

Patricia Wester, a food safety consultant and president of PA Wester Consulting in Gainesville, Fla., says that the FSMA rules that impact food safety are designed to close gaps in the current regulatory requirements and are focused on the manufacturers’ responsibility for producing safe products. “FSMA simply takes HACCP [Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points] one step further and requires industry to document more thoroughly what they should already be doing.”

“These regulations have tremendous support across the industry,” she says. “[Dr. Williams] used data selectively to support his stance. His stance appears to be no regulations are good regulations if they cost any money, and then only if enough people get sick and or die to make it cost effective.”

David Acheson, MD, founder and CEO of The Acheson Group and a former chief medical officer at the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, says he also disagrees with the report’s conclusions. Foodborne illness outbreaks demonstrate “the need to set an industry standard that is a regulatory baseline, and big sectors of the food industry support it. FSMA sets a baseline that needs to be there. This is not a short-term solution. Many other countries in the world have set baseline standards for food production, and as a country we need to do that.

“I’m an advocate of FSMA,” continues Dr. Acheson. “It needs to be done right and there are aspects of it that are not perfect, but it’s an evolution.”

The post Analysis Contends FSMA Not Cost Effective appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.