According to the World Health Organization, there are 600 million cases of foodborne diseases that lead to 420,000 deaths worldwide each year. Proper hand hygiene is an important and effective way to prevent cross-contamination in a food processing facility. Contaminated hands can transfer germs to surfaces, utensils, office supplies, telephones, door handles, and other items commonly touched, making hand hygiene the first line of defense to prevent cross-contamination.

Here, we look at several techniques for good employee hygiene in the food plant setting.

Personal and Hand Hygiene

Practicing proper hand washing techniques is a good way to reduce bacteria on hands. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for proper hand washing technique are as follows: Thoroughly wet hands with clean, running water, apply an adequate amount of soap, rub palms and backs of hands, rub thumbs and interlace fingers, rub fingertips into palms of opposite hands, and rub wrists.

The actual hand washing portion should last 20 seconds to ensure effective cleaning. Rinse well with running water and dry hands thoroughly with a disposable paper towel. For maximum results, sanitize hands after they’ve been properly washed to further reduce the presence of pathogens on the hands. The goal of hand hygiene is to reduce the number of pathogens on the hands to the smallest number possible, making hand sanitizing a crucial part of the process.

When choosing soap, choose a quality hand soap that won’t dry out employee hands and, preferably, choose a sanitizing hand soap designed specifically for food processors. Choose an E2-rated, fragrance and dye-free hand soap formulated with emollients to keep skin soft and healthy. Sanitizing with a quality alcohol-based hand sanitizer after handwashing will further reduce germs on the hands. An atomized spray saturates fingernails, cuticles, cracks and crevices of the fingers and hands, where pathogens commonly hide.

Footwear Sanitation

In addition to practicing proper hand hygiene, implementing more personal hygiene best practices, such as a footwear sanitation program can help reduce pathogens in a food processing environment. A footwear cleaning and sanitation program is important for food processing facilities because employees can bring pathogens into critical control areas through contaminated footwear. Without a dedicated footwear cleaning and sanitation program, food production facilities are at risk of workers bringing contaminants into their facilities and possibly contaminating product. Footwear should be cleaned prior to sanitization to re­move any dirt or debris on the bottoms or sides.

A successful footwear hygiene program should be customized to fit a facility’s specific needs, making it crucial for food processors to choose the equipment best suited for their facility. Footwear should be properly cleaned using a boot scrubber or some other method that effectively removes debris. Once footwear is cleaned, food production workers can move on to a footwear sanitation station for maximum pathogen reduction. Adding a walkthrough footwear sanitizing unit helps reduce cross-contamination. Unlike traditional footbaths, a footwear sanitizing unit provides more consistent results because it provides each worker with a fresh dose of sanitizer; there is no need for constant monitoring. Traffic flow can be designed to eliminate the possibility of workers avoiding the units, and the unsightly visual of a messy foot bath is replaced with a clean, effective piece of equipment.

Training Employees for Proper Sanitation

When training employees on hand hygiene, it’s important to implement a training program that presents the how, when, and why of proper hand hygiene. Using an expert to conduct the training and demonstrate correct hand washing techniques is crucial. In addition, demonstrations and Q&A sessions can help make the training more dynamic and interesting. A written quiz at the end of the training helps evaluate the trainee’s knowledge and readiness. As with any training, refresher training courses are important to help improve the effectiveness of the initial training.

Once training is complete, schedule your next training to help ensure that your employees retain all the information they learned the first time.

The Impact of the Pandemic on Hygiene Best Practices

The pandemic impacted best practices by placing an emphasis on hand sanitizer that we have never experienced before. By mid 2021, soap orders continued to be strong, indicating that facilities are using more soap, which is notable because hand washing seemed to be overshadowed by hand sanitizing early in the pandemic. Both hand washing and hand sanitizing play an important role and work best when used together to ­reduce pathogens on hands.

According to the CDC, practicing proper hand hygiene is an important and effective way to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus, making hand hygiene trainings more crucial than ever.

Nelson is a regional sales manager for Best Sanitizers, Inc.

The post Hand and Personal Hygiene for Food Safety appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Root of The Claim

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

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

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

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

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

Wiping it Down

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was introduced in 2011, aiming to prevent food contamination and subsequent foodborne illnesses rather than just respond to it. One overlooked element within the FSMA is disposable gloves. Labeled as intermittent contact items, the risk of contamination from these products is not seen as great enough to warrant close observation.

However, growing scientific evidence shows disposable gloves, in direct contact with food, can and do affect food safety, with around 15 percent of food service foodborne outbreaks implicating contaminated gloves as contributory factors in the outbreak.

What are Food Service Gloves?

Food service gloves are certified under FDA Title 21 CFR Part 177, which states that the components of the glove must comply with the FDA regulations and consist of “Substances generally recognized as safe for use in food or food packaging.”

However, the quality and safety of disposable gloves is limited to Letters of Compliance and Guarantee on the general make and model of the glove submitted (once) for testing, not necessarily the subsequent gloves produced. There are few controls required for glove manufacturing relating to the reliability of raw materials, manufacturing processes, and factory compliance after the certification has been awarded.

It is possible for a glove manufacturer to achieve FDA Title 21 CFR Part 177 certification for a glove, then alter manufacturing and hygiene practices, and use cheap raw materials to save costs. Cheap raw materials lower glove strength, flexibility, and durability—increasing glove failure rates, and may also introduce toxic compounds, including known endocrine disruptors and potassium cyanide to glove users and food products.

Fluctuations in raw material prices and the demand for lower costs from the end user puts manufacturers under pressure to sacrifice ingredient quality and substitute raw materials to meet these demands.

The opportunity also exists for deliberate or accidental contamination within the manufacturing process, which the FSMA is now addressing.

Are Food Service Gloves Food Safe?

The AQL of a disposable glove is the “Acceptable Quality Level” and refers to a quality standard for measuring pinhole defects. Glove manufacturers test a random sample of gloves from a batch during initial production. The lower the AQL, the less defects gloves have. An AQL of 1.5, for example, requires that gloves be manufactured with no more than 15 failures for every 1,000 gloves produced.

In comparison to medical or examination grade gloves, no formal government regulations or inspection program exists for food service gloves over and above the FDA Title 21 CFR Part 177 regulation. There is no AQL requirement for food service gloves, meaning there are no guidelines for maximum pinhole defects—no guidelines for the number of failures per box.

Glove Holes and Food Contamination

Moreover, the human skin is a rich environment for microbes consisting of around 1,000 species, and the skin surface can contain on average 2 million to 10 million microorganisms. Most are resident species, some with the potential to cause disease (Staphylococcus spp. or Streptococcus spp.), but transient pathogens are the driver of foodborne infection transmission.

Organisms can become resident colonizers on hands, and combined with a glove puncture, a “liquid bridge” of microbial contamination can flow to contact surfaces of food.

Studies have shown up to 18,000 staphylococci can pass through a single glove hole during a 20-minute period, even though the hands had been scrubbed for 10 minutes prior to gloving. With more than 250 different foodborne diseases associated with food or drink, there is ample opportunity for leaky gloves to share responsibility for transmission.

In-use glove studies show that 50-96 percent of glove punctures go undetected by wearers, with the potential to release tens of thousands of bacteria from internal glove surfaces to food.

Chemicals that Cause Cancer

Vinyl (PVC, polyvinyl chloride) gloves are the most commonly used glove in food handling and processing in the U.S. due to assumed price savings. Up to 50 percent of vinyl glove raw materials are made up of plasticizers which, to reduce costs, can contain inexpensive phthalates DINP (Diisononyl phthalate) and DEHP (Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate), and BPA (Bisphenol A).

Phthalates have been shown to leach from products into the human body via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption. Because phthalate plasticizers are not chemically bound to PVC, they can easily leach and evaporate into food, particularly fatty foods, such as butter, oils, and meat—where they become mostly soluble. Phthalate plasticizers can also be absorbed through workers’ skin and quickly contaminate food products.

Exposure to DEHP has been associated with adverse reproductive, neurobehavioral, and respiratory outcomes in children and metabolic disease risk factors, such as insulin resistance in adolescents and adults.

Both DINP and DEHP have been found to adversely impact human health and have been added to the Californian Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.

Studies conducted in Japan found that use of disposable PVC gloves during the preparation and packaging of meals was a major source of dietary intake of DEHP. The same study also demonstrated a decline in DEHP levels in prepared meals after the ban of DEHP in PVC gloves in Japan.

Food is likely contaminated with phthalates and BPA during processing from PVC in materials such as PVC (vinyl) gloves and food packaging materials.

In 2001, Japan banned PVC gloves for food handling due to the well-documented adverse effects on health. The European Union (2008) has banned the use of DEHP in food service gloves out of concern that the chemical will leach into food and be ingested.

Adverse health effects of exposure to BPA and phthalates in U.S. food and occupational settings is estimated to result in $175 billion in healthcare costs.

Vinyl Gloves and Cross-Contamination

Gloves have the potential to mitigate, transfer, or amplify cross-contamination risks.

There is a growing accumulation of scientific evidence showing vinyl gloves (over other types) are responsible for a majority of cross-contamination events in food handling related to glove use where glove type is identified.

Due to their polymeric structure, numerous studies have shown vinyl gloves have an increased permeability to bacteria and virus, and in some cases, begin leaking as soon as they are donned, increasing the risk of cross-contamination for both the glove users and the food they are handling.

Recent independent research conducted by international scientific consultant on food safety and glove expert Barry Michaels has also shown that the risk of cross-contamination via vinyl gloves when used in food handling is significant when compared to nitrile gloves.

The science involved in cross-contamination is complex, involving the physical chemistry of surfaces, soils, and pathogens. Liquid and soil transfer to and from surfaces is controlled by forces of attraction governed by the surface tension of liquids (or semi-solids) and the surface free energy of surfaces.

The surfaces of polyvinyl chloride (vinyl) gloves are more energetic than nitrile gloves, with pickup and spread thermodynamically favored. This means that food and human soil contaminants are more easily picked-up and spread over vinyl glove surfaces and anything they touch when compared to lower-stick nitrile gloves.

Published studies by independent investigators confirm that glove material and glove hydrophobicity were the most important factors influencing bacterial transfer from a contaminated surface to a gloved hand—more hydrophilic vinyl gloves favor transfer while the more hydrophobic nitrile gloves have reduced risk.

From a food safety point of view, because food worker’s gloves are in direct contact with food, cross-contamination will follow the path of least resistance, in this case favoring vinyl glove pickup and transfer. Protecting food from bacterial and viral transfer from a gloved hand is essential for food and consumer safety to reduce foodborne illness and death.

As a result of his work Michaels commented that, “Food safety managers are gambling with the odds of a Listeria monocytogenes outbreak or some other extreme event if they do not look at the science involving bacterial transfer and glove use. Conditions for cross-contamination can be disrupted by making scientifically based, food safe glove selection choices”

Consider the following takeaways when procuring your disposable gloves to lower the risk of adverse foodborne events.

• Only choose disposable gloves with an AQL of 2.5 or less—pay for gloves that are suitable for food handling. The cost of an inferior glove is low, but failure rates can be high.
• Beware of cheap imports that may be reject clearance lines—you may be paying for glove failures and the potential spread of bacteria and virus.
• Prevent glove fraud by purchasing from reputable suppliers with quality control procedures in place and known raw material content of gloves.
• Purchase cost-effective nitrile gloves to reduce the risk of cross-contamination of food.
• Following correct hand hygiene is essential. Effective handwashing procedures, including washing around and under fingernails, limit microbes exposed to the damp inner glove environment.

Ardagh is CEO and founder of Eagle Protect PBC, which specializes in the supply of food safe disposable gloves and clothing, while Ronaldson is VP of marketing at the organization. Reach Ronaldson at Lynda@eagleprotect.com.

The post Are Your Disposable Gloves Food Safe? appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

People. It’s the title of the iconic song that legendary Barbra Streisand made famous starring in “Funny Girl,” the Broadway musical and the movie.

And it’s the number one consideration in food sanitation.

So says food scientist Ronald Schmidt, PhD, professor emeritus at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and active industry trainer in food safety and hygiene.

“Regardless of the type of processing or food handling operation, it is people who set the rules, follow the rules, and also break the rules of sanitation,” Dr. Schmidt points out. “A sanitation program is as good as the attitude, willingness, and efforts of people. That is why the most important aspect of a sanitation program is ongoing personnel training.”

It is essential that the full meaning of sanitation and its wide economic scope be accepted by everyone concerned in the food system, including management, Dr. Schmidt emphasizes.

“Personnel training should include appropriate sanitation principles and food handling practices, manufacturing controls, and personal hygiene practices,” he elaborates. “Personnel training should instill and nurture an understanding of the desirable hygienic features of food handling facilities, environment, and equipment, the processing steps and technologies for each product manufactured or handled and where potential problems exist, and create a keen desire to satisfy and guard the consumers’ interests.”

SaniTimer offers employees a visual and audio aid to ensure proper handwashing.

Image credit: Zachary Eddy

To that end, the SaniTimer handwashing timer is proving to be an effective tool for enhancing hand hygiene protocols in commercial food facilities, according to Charles Abraham, marketing director, SaniTimer, Fort Worth, Texas. “Our clients represent fast food chains, restaurant chains, and food processing facilities including dairy, meat, poultry, and nuts,” Abraham says.

“Installed quickly and easily on handwashing faucets throughout food establishments, the patented SaniTimer offers employees a visual and audio aid for assistance in meeting the CDC time requirement of a minimum of 20 seconds for handwashing each time,” Abraham points out. “SaniTimer raises compliance rates for hand hygiene up to 90 percent.”

Introduced commercially in 2016, the SaniTimer is slated to be included in a new study gearing up at Purdue University on changing behaviors to enhance food safety, Abraham notes.

Abraham says Elite Spice, an industrial seasonings manufacturer, was one of the companies selected to use the SaniTimers on a trial basis starting in 2015.

“We installed SaniTimers on all the handwashing sinks at the entrances to our production areas,” says George Meyer, manager of the 160,000-square-foot Elite Spice headquarters, Jessup, Md. “Before we had SaniTimers, it was a challenge to train our employees to wash their hands for the correct amount of time each time. And it was difficult to document that training. Even with instructing employees to sing recommended songs like ‘Happy Birthday,’ handwashing times were not consistent.”

Meyer reports that SaniTimers have taken all the guess work out of handwashing time for his entire team. “SaniTimers are simple and straightforward to use,” he relates. “You turn on the water, you see the timer right in front of you, you wash your hands. When the timer goes off, you know you have been washing for 20 seconds and you turn the water off. Now with this tool our employees know exactly how long to wash their hands every time, so consistency has improved dramatically. Using SaniTimers has been incorporated into our handwashing training protocol.”

“We are on a mission to correct the misstep of  improper hand hygiene in food safety, while raising food safety standards along the way,” Abraham says. “We have found that providing a tool for food safety professionals to use in accomplishing this goal is getting all components of the industry close to constant compliance standards for hand hygiene. We are pushing the FDA review board to require handwashing timers as a tool to ensure the current hand hygiene code that requires employees to wash for a minimum of 20 seconds is complied with.”

Washing one’s hands for the minimum of 20 seconds using approved soaps and scrubs and creating enough friction for bacteria removal is the ideal way to get employees compliant, Abraham emphasizes. “Putting a timer right in their face is a no-brainer approach to this concept.”

Brush Brigade

Every element of Hillbrush’s Total MDX Hygienic Tools product line is metal and X-ray detectable.

Image credit: Hillbrush Co. Ltd.

Addressing cleaning and foreign object contamination concerns is Total MDX Hygienic Tools, a line of fully metal detectable brushes introduced in the U.S. in 2015 by Hillbrush Company Ltd., Mere, Wiltshire, England, a manufacturer of cleaning tools for hygiene sensitive environments.

“These brushes complement our other metal detectable cleaning tools, including scoops and scrapers, which were first available in the U.S. in 2010,” says Mike Rutt, Hillbrush’s quality manager.

“Every element of the Total MDX Hygienic Tools product line is metal and X-ray detectable, including the brush back, antimicrobial resin, and filaments,” Rutt relates. “If a piece of this tool is broken during cleaning, provided you’re using correctly calibrated detection equipment, it can be detected and then removed from the product.”

Metal detectable cleaning tools enhance Hillbrush’s portfolio that includes Resin Set DRS (Dual Retention System) and Anti-Microbial Hygienic Tools, all commercially available in the U.S. also since 2010.

“Resin Set DRS brushware directly answers the number one brush related concern for food processors, ‘How do I prevent filament loss?’” Rutt says. “Resin Set DRS brushware is manufactured using FDA approved materials and contains food grade, stainless steel staples to hold filaments securely into place. Antimicrobial epoxy resin is then floated into every part of the brush back, locking the filaments into position.”

According to Rutt, Anti-Microbial Hygienic Tools get to grips with the second biggest brush concern of food processors, how to prevent bacterial contamination. “If bacteria are unable to grow on the brush, scraper, or squeegee, they cannot reproduce and will therefore die,” Rutt points out. “This product line meets ISO standards and contains silver-ion technology, which actively inhibits the growth of bacteria for the lifetime of the product.”

Hillbrush’s Total MDX Hygienic Tools are manufactured with Resin Set DRS technology, including antimicrobial resin, so they are at once metal detectable, filament locking, and antimicrobial.

With the exception of Total MDX and Anti-Microbial Hygienic Tools, which are manufactured in navy blue and purple, respectively, Hillbrush’s hygiene range is available in up to 10 colors.

“Hillbrush’s technologically advanced color-coded cleaning products not only support HACCP initiatives for workplace segregation, but actively support good hygiene practices,” Rutt emphasizes.

Ford Gum & Machine Co., Akron, N.Y., a manufacturer and distributor of gumballs and gumball machine banks, as well as a private label confections manufacturer, has been using the Hillbrush Total MDX products since early 2017.

“Not only are these Hillbrush products more durable than other brands of hygiene tools we previously used, we consider their metal detectable capabilities a real food safety advantage,” says Kevin Dunnigan, Ford Gum’s quality assurance manager.

Knowledge-Based Services

In early 2017, Sealed Air launched several new hygiene solutions in its suite of Diversey Knowledge-Based Services, including CIPTEC, which offers precise clean-in-place (CIP) monitoring so CIP cycles can be shortened; and Dynamic Flow Monitoring, an advanced water management improvement program.

Diversey CIPTEC can provide users with precise CIP monitoring to allow for shortened CIP cycles.

Image credit: Sealed Air

These offerings augment the company’s provision of services, such as CIPCheck and AquaCheck, that have been in place for many years, says Roger Wagler, director of technical services for Diversey Hygiene North America, Charlotte, N.C.

“Our Knowledge-Based Services offer a holistic approach to help food and beverage manufacturers measure, monitor, and improve operational efficiency and food safety throughout their operations,” Wagler relates. “These services are designed to streamline processes, increase efficiency, and reduce food safety risks, all while closely managing costs and pursuing the efficient use of resources.”

CIPCheck. Diversey CIPCheck focuses on the technical, environmental, and economic optimization of CIP installations to help a plant discover if its CIP system is underperforming, says Eric van der Beek, a Diversey Hygiene sector specialist.

“While CIP systems are designed to automate a plant’s cleaning process and efficiently clean and sanitize enclosed processing equipment, we have found that more than 50 percent of CIP systems run unvalidated, using the original settings,” van der Beek points out. “With today’s emphasis on improved resource management, it’s important for food and beverage processors to consider a detailed analysis of their CIP system to determine whether incremental improvements like balancing out line capacity or adding a recovery tank to re-use water will improve efficiency or resource use.”

When a system hasn’t been fine-tuned to perform optimally for a specific plant, including needed modifications to accommodate any production process changes that occurred since installation, the plant may not be getting the full operational benefit from its CIP system investment, van der Beek points out.

For the CIPCheck process, the Diversey service team conducts a detailed probe into the CIP system to assess the system design; audit current cleaning procedures; map the current water, energy, and chemical usage; and measure cycle time.

“As necessary, we conduct additional assessments into the cleaning result, microbiological standards, and specific soils or allergens,” van der Beek relates. “Clients get an analysis benchmarking their plant’s performance against industry standards and a detailed report identifying areas of improvement.

“CIPCheck results help food and beverage manufacturers prioritize areas of improvement and take action, so a repeatable clean can be delivered sustainably with each cycle,” van der Beek adds. “The CIPCheck program helps processors improve cleaning results, maintain microbiological standards, and safeguard food safety.”

CIPTEC. Diversey CIPTEC harnesses the power of light to monitor a CIP system in real time. A series of patented CIPTEC spectrophotometers are placed through the CIP system to measure light traveling through the liquids inside a CIP system, van der Beek explains.

“Traditional CIP metrics measure the flow, conductivity, and temperature, which can indicate that the cleaning cycle has met predefined parameters, but this data cannot indicate the level of clean,” he points out. “Typically, CIP cycle times are based on empirical averages, generally resulting in cleaning cycles that are too long. In some cases, however, even these long cycles can fall short, impacting the safety of a product or the efficiency of an operation. We have found that the majority of CIP systems are over-washing by as much as to 50 percent.

“The light spectrum more accurately measures the contents of the CIP system, and CIPTEC data can tell the difference between water, chemicals, or milk residues, which conductivity can—but not to the level that CIPTEC can,” van der Beek elaborates. “CIPTEC systems and our statistical data analysis methods calculate the optimal regime to eliminate over-rinsing and over-washing. In many cases, we’re able to reduce cycle times by more than 50 percent, while maintaining a safety margin at Six Sigma level.”

According to van der Beek, benefits of CIPTEC include reducing the water, energy, and chemical used unnecessarily; improving the recovery of product by measuring more accurately the soil and chemical level; shortening the overall CIP time; reducing waste water generation, carbon dioxide emissions, and chemical oxygen demand loading; ensuring the correct level of hygiene is achieved during the CIP process without over-washing; improving quality control monitoring of the CIP system, in real time; and providing the plant with additional time for valuable processing and packaging.

Dynamic Flow Monitoring. In most food processing operations, open plant cleaning (OPC) is a resource intensive event that incorporates water, energy, labor, and chemicals, according to Barry Sperling, a global applications expert for Diversey Hygiene. “However, because in most facilities, cleaning events take place outside of normal operations, OPC doesn’t typically receive the same level of resource use analysis as does regular production,” he says. “This creates the opportunity for ‘leakage’ or wasteful processes that can go unnoticed, costing food and beverage processors significant dollars each year.”

Diversey Dynamic Flow Monitoring provides an ongoing water use monitoring and management program that facilitates process improvement opportunities based on the day-to-day impact of OPC. Sperling explains that it is the next generation of water management improvement programs built from the Diversey AquaCheck model.

AquaCheck is a three-step program that audits, quantifies, and analyzes. It also recommends holistic improvement for water use optimization. “AquaCheck sets a baseline strategy and defines goals, then Dynamic Flow Monitoring digs deeper into day-to-day operations to let a client know the impact of water use during all OPC events, and shows their water usage in real-time,” Sperling relates.

“Dynamic Flow Monitoring enhances visibility to resource usage across an entire facility,” Sperling says. “The analytics then facilitate adjustments that can lead to significant cost savings from the reduction of critical resources used during cleaning including water, energy, chemicals, and labor.”

Leake, doing business as Food Safety Ink, is a food safety consultant, auditor, and award-winning journalist based in Wilmington, N.C. Reach her at LLLeake@aol.com.

The post Simplifying Hygiene and Sanitation Practices appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

(Editor’s Note: This is an online-only article attributed to the June/July 2017 issue.)

A stringent health and safety training plan with a focus on hand hygiene is more than likely in place wherever you work or do business within the food industry. However, over time bad habits can develop and without the proper refresher training this can cause implications for businesses.

Whether working in a restaurant kitchen, behind a counter serving food to waiting customers, or even in a warehouse or factory environment that deals with food directly, it’s imperative to understand the importance of hand hygiene and note what practices are incorrect.

Common Mistakes

Here are some misdemeanors that many who work with food may be guilty of:

• Not washing or sanitizing hands before coming into contact with food;
• Handling food with bare hands in a retail environment;
• Dealing with cleaning chemicals and not washing hands before handling food again;
• Not wearing the correct gloves when handling food;
• Continuing to wear protective gloves while handling money and food;
• Using latex gloves when handling food as this can cause adverse allergic reactions for staff and customers;
• Handling raw meat and then other foods without washing hands or changing gloves;
• Not cleaning under fingernails before handling food;
• Handling cleaning cloths while wearing protective gloves; and
• Using an ineffective handwashing method—Health and Safety Executive recommends washing hands with warm running water and soap to reduce bacteria and contamination.

Avoid Poor Hand Hygiene

Provide easy to access washing stations. Clean, easy to access sinks are a good way of maintaining good hand hygiene. Ensure that there is always soap dispensed via a pump to minimize cross-contamination and clean paper towels are available to dry hands—a towel can dirty quickly and require laundering. If your business does not have access to hot running water—you may operate from a mobile kiosk, for example—hand sanitizing gel is a good option.

Signage. Signage is an excellent tool in every workplace, to remind yourself or employees to keep hands clean and also when to consider hand hygiene. Have these signs clearly visible at wash stations as well as where food is prepared and served.

Training. Updated training is also a good idea, and also ensures you can tick that box on the company risk assessment when it rolls round. You can conduct this training yourself in house or make it part of your regular updated staff training alongside first aid requirements and site safety.

Protective gloves. Gloves are also a good way of ensuring hand hygiene. While hands should always be washed before handling food, even if gloves are being worn, they can act as an effective barrier against germs and cross-contamination.

It’s best to avoid latex gloves, to minimize the risk of allergic reactions in staff and also customers who come into contact with food that has come into contact with the latex protein. Nitrile gloves are an ideal option, not only are they highly resistant to tears and puncturing but they can be worn by everyone.

Ensure gloves are available in a variety of sizes to accommodate all hands and teach those using them to dispose of them when they start to show signs of wear and tear or when moving on to a new food type.

It’s also a good idea to note that the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizing gels can have an effect on some glove types, increasing their risk of tearing and disintegration and so they may not last as long.

Hygiene Affects Business

In the latest Food Standard Agency survey conducted this year, it uncovered that 72 percent of people felt the cleanliness of an eating establishment was important in determining whether they ate there or purchased from it.

Hand hygiene is one of the first things they will note, as well as the general appearance of the location, and if they believe it is not up to standard it will deter them from eating or purchasing food there. Rumors spread fast when it comes to an eating establishment and bad practice can quickly see sales fall and engagement slow down.

Hand hygiene is something that can be easily adopted into every working environment to ensure staff and customers are protected from illness or allergic reactions. Take note of the points above and ensure you’re getting it right, every time.

 Taylor is a freelance content writer for Brosch Direct. Reach her at bethanytaylor900@gmail.com.

The post Hand Hygiene: What You’re Doing Wrong! appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

When contaminated food reaches consumers, the results can range from a mild case of cramps to outright loss of life. According to USDA’s Economic Research Service, foodborne illnesses cause 53,245 hospitalizations in America each year, and take the lives of 2,377 people. The USDA says these incidents result in a loss of $15.6 billion a year for the organizations responsible—not counting the millions of dollars in recovery costs and loss of brand reputation incurred by companies caught up in these outbreaks.

Consider the E. coli outbreak that recently enveloped Chipotle, resulting in a food safety crisis that sickened hundreds of its patrons. Business across the Chipotle chain immediately decreased and remained that way months after the outbreak with comparable-store sales still down by more than a fifth.

The company spent millions of dollars to determine the cause of the outbreak, on promotional food giveaways to win back customers, and on an intensive advertising campaign (the largest in its history) designed to restore its brand.

While foodborne illnesses likely will never be eradicated, utilizing the “Core 4” principles of food safety remain a viable approach to limiting its prevalence. Core 4 includes clean, separate, cook, and chill.

Clean

Bacteria is a major reason why food is deemed “unsafe.” When the temperature of food is not properly maintained, bacteria develops. There are many opportunities for this to happen during production, transport, after it is delivered, and while it’s stored in the backroom.

Infectious bacteria can thrive anywhere. By placing an emphasis on hand, utensil, and surface washing, the risk of foodborne illness can be reduced. Easy-to-follow cleansing tips include:

• Wash your hands for at least 20 seconds with soap and warm running water before and after handling food or using the bathroom;
• Wash the surfaces of cutting boards, counters, dishes, and utensils after each use with warm, soapy water;
• Use paper towels to clean counters or spills as they soak in potential contaminants rather than spread them like cloth towels; and
• Rinse or blanch the surfaces of fresh fruits and vegetables to rid of any dirt or bacteria.

Separate

Even after washing hands and surfaces consistently, people can still be exposed to dangerous illness-inducing bacteria by not properly separating raw meat, seafood, poultry, and eggs. To avoid cross-contamination, follow these rules:

• Avoid placing ready-to-eat food on a surface that previously held raw meat, seafood, poultry, or eggs;
• Use separate cutting boards when preparing fresh produce and uncooked meats to eliminate the spread of any bacteria either may be carrying to the other; and
• Always properly wash the surfaces exposed to raw meat, seafood, poultry, and eggs under warm, soapy running water.

Cook

Regardless of being proactive with cleaning and separating, cooking food to the appropriate internal temperature is still vital. Undercooking may result in the survival of dangerous bacteria that could make consumers ill. FoodSafety.gov recommends safe minimum temperatures for steak/ground beef at 160 degrees Fahrenheit, chicken/turkey at 165 degrees Fahrenheit, seafood at 145 degrees Fahrenheit, and egg dishes warm until 160 degrees Fahrenheit.

Chill

Last yet not least, chilling food is important because it decelerates the bacterial growth process. By mitigating this, it allows businesses to reduce the risk of being responsible for foodborne illnesses. Be sure to:

• Always keep the refrigerator at 40 degrees Fahrenheit or below;
• Not over-pack the refrigerator—proper airflow circulation is paramount; and
• Not allow raw meats, eggs, or fresh produce to sit out for more than 2 hours without refrigeration.

Check It

Enforcing the use of checklists can help food businesses ensure the previously mentioned best practices are indeed executed.

In today’s world, checklists are not just reminders for school children to complete trivial tasks. They are key cogs in the everyday operations of surgeons, military leaders, and food safety practitioners. Utilized as a reminder exercise, and comprised of a list of tasks to complete, checklists have become necessary in the food safety industry.

For years, food businesses have endured periodic and even surprise health inspections from local, state, and federal agencies. To generally prepare, an establishment would put together a last-minute checklist to ensure cleanliness. However, this would not necessarily be reflective of its day-to-day consistency regarding its food safety practices.

Technology can now assist in the development and consistency of these protocols. Rather than filtering through a book or manually logging checklists, all-in-one digital food safety solutions offer a complete digital Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan to replace these outdated methods. These devices automate processes to comply with the Food Safety Modernization Act and HACCP processes to improve efficiency and allow for continuous monitoring of compliance. Checklists can be digitally stored and accessed via cloud-based storage capabilities. This not only encourages employees to follow food safety procedure, but offers a paradigm to ensure food is safe for consumption and not the cause of a foodborne illness outbreak. ■

Anderson is the product marketing specialist for the PAR SureCheck platform where he helps provide education on the consequences of improper food safety practice. Reach him at jordan_anderson@partech.com.

The post Preventing Foodborne Illness Using ‘Core 4’ appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Foam soaps are increasingly replacing traditional liquid soaps in hospitals, nursing homes, schools, the food industry, and other public spaces, but the trend may carry a risk, a small study suggests.

Foam soaps may not be as effective as liquid soaps in eliminating bacteria that can lead to infection, the authors say.

“In this pilot study, when standard hand washing techniques were used—washing wet hands with one pump of foam soap for six seconds and drying with a paper towel for four seconds—the foam soap was not as effective as the liquid soap in eliminating the hand bacterial load,” Dr. Ozlem Equils at UCLA’s School of Medicine and the Miora Educational Foundation told Reuters Health by email.

Equils and colleagues tested two common brands of foam and liquid detergent-based soaps that are available in grocery stores.

When volunteers washed with foam soap, the average bacterial colony count on each hand went from 3.6 to 2.6 on a scale from 1 to 4—a difference that could have been a coincidence. With liquid soap, the colony count went from 3.8 to 1.2—a statistically significant drop, according to an online report in the American Journal of Infection Control.

Each group had five healthy test subjects. Two more sets of experiments were conducted with additional volunteers and yielded similar results.

The research team suggests foam soap may be less effective than liquid soap because it comes out of the pump as a lather, whereas the liquid soap lather is built up in the process of hand washing. Also, the amount of soap in foam is markedly less in a single pump than is found in its liquid counterpart.

Dr. Guenter Kampf, a hand hygiene expert at the University of Ernst in Germany, told Reuters Health that because the study was small and the methods weren’t rigorous, more robust research is needed to confirm the findings.

In the meantime, he says, “For domestic use, it may not make a difference whether a foam or liquid soap is used because cleaning of the hands is the main purpose of washing them.”

The FDA “has recently banned the marketing of over-the-counter consumer antiseptic wash products containing antibacterial chemicals due to the concern over emerging antimicrobial resistance,” Equils says.

According to the FDA, it’s not clear that antibacterial soaps available to consumers are any more effective at preventing sickness than regular soap and water. The two brands of soaps in this study did not claim to be antimicrobial.

As for alternatives to potentially ineffective foam soaps, Kampf says, “The most effective formulations are alcohol-based hand rubs or gels. That is why they are used in health care.”

The second most effective type of product will be antimicrobial soaps closely followed by plain soaps, he says. “But it should always be kept in mind that the efficacy depends on the antimicrobial substance, its concentration, the volume of the product used, and the application time. That is why a general assessment has limitations.”

The genesis of the study was the collaboration between Nicolette Dixon, an undergraduate biochemistry major at Washington State University in Pullman and lead author on the paper, and the Miora Educational Foundation, which connects high school students with mentors in healthcare and STEM fields.

The post Foam Soap May Not Measure Up to Liquid appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

After being in service for several years in Europe, Hand-in-Scan has been evaluated by the FDA and is now available to U.S. healthcare and food services. The hand hygiene scanner identifies un-sanitized areas on the user’s hands. This digital technology helps workers learn the technique of proper hand hygiene. The scanner provides immediate feedback related to the quality and thoroughness of handwashing. It can also monitor hand hygiene compliance with its online reporting system. CleanScan LLC, www.handinscan.com.

The post NEW PRODUCT: Hand Hygiene Control appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

If food service and retail employees don’t practice proper hand hygiene, they could be serving a side of norovirus with their customers’ orders. Norovirus outbreaks from contaminated food in food service settings are often linked to infected food workers, according to CDC report. These outbreaks can be prevented by educating workers about proper hand hygiene on the job and making sure they stay home when they are sick.

Norovirus is highly contagious and can spread anywhere food is served, making people sick with vomiting and diarrhea. According to the CDC, about 20 million people get sick from norovirus each year. In addition to the risk of a norovirus outbreak, poor hand hygiene will lead to increased illness and can result in:

• Disruption cost and lost productivity through employee absence from work;
• Reduced employee efficiency through illness at work and lower employee morale; and
• Damage to a business’ reputation.

For any organization, implementing and maintaining an appropriate hand hygiene routine is a daily challenge. Employers and facility managers have a legal responsibility to ensure that they provide a safe working environment for their employees—addressing hand hygiene is a vital asset.

Common Norovirus Carriers

According to the CDC, health departments reported 1,008 norovirus outbreaks from contaminated food between 2009 and 2012, most of which occurred in food service settings, such as restaurants, catering, or banquet facilities.

The CDC also looked at foods that were commonly implicated in norovirus outbreaks. Of 324 outbreaks with a specific food item implicated, more than 90 percent were contaminated during final preparation (such as making a sandwich with raw and already cooked ingredients) and 75 percent were foods eaten raw. Leafy vegetables, fruits, and mollusks, such as oysters, were the most common single food categories implicated in these outbreaks.

Best Practices for Clean and Healthy Hands

Wash hands properly and often. Apply a small amount of hand cleanser to dry hands. Rub hands vigorously together for at least 20 seconds. Scrub all surfaces, including the backs of hands, wrists, between the fingers, and under the fingernails. Rinse well and dry hands with a clean or disposable towel. Make sure to use a clean towel to turn off the faucet.

Use the right cleanser for the job. There is an ongoing misconception that a hand cleanser’s performance is measured by its ability to clean hands aggressively. In actuality, most cleansers far surpass the user’s actual requirements. Make sure to choose a sanitation product that takes into consideration the impact on the hands, yet is still effective for the job.

Keep cleansers accessible. The location of hand cleansers can help increase handwashing compliance. Place them where they are easy to find and enforce the importance of handwashing throughout the day.

Use gloves where required or necessary. It’s not always practical to use gloves when working. Nonetheless, gloves should be used whenever possible to ensure that cross-contamination is less of a risk.

Once your team learns more about prevention, pick the best-suited hand cleanser and dispensing system. Table 1 (click on to enlarge) provides a quick reference guide to keep employees clean and compliant.

The appropriate products should be available and accessible to workers where and when they are required, such as food processing area entrances, washrooms, and handwashing stations.

Developing a good handwashing technique is imperative to ensure hands are thoroughly clean. Pay particular attention to the backs of the hands and fingertips as these spots are frequently missed. To limit sickness and absenteeism in the workplace, implement the following handwashing steps:

1. Rub palm to palm;
2. Rub palm over back of hand, fingers interlaced;
3. Palm to palm, fingers interlaced;
4. Fingers interlocked into palms;
5. Rotational rubbing of thumb clasped into palm; and
6. Rotational rubbing of clasped fingers into palm.

Workers should rub theirs hands together for at least 20 seconds; the length of humming the “Happy Birthday” song from beginning to end twice. Skin should always be properly dried to avoid risk of chapping, particularly during the winter months. Clean towels should be available at all times—dirty towels mean exposing the skin to more dirt and the risk of infection. Ideally, single issue disposable towels should be used as communal towels can lead to contamination.

Hand Sanitizers Come in Handy

When it’s not convenient to use soap and water or when soap and water are not available, it is acceptable to use an alcohol-based broad spectrum hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol. According to the CDC, hand sanitizers with an alcohol concentration greater than 60 percent are very effective at killing germs and can reduce the number of microbes on a person’s hands quickly. However, it’s important to note that hand sanitizers don’t eliminate all bacteria. Washing your hands with soap and water is more effective against specific types of germs, especially norovirus. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers used in food handling environments should be fragrance-free and ideally have an NSF E3 rating (NSF International certifies food-related products and systems, hand sanitizers fall under the NSF standard E3). Gel-based products can be sticky and leave gelling agent residues on the skin. Foam based products enjoy a higher consumer acceptance and do not leave an unpleasant or sticky residue on the skin.

Training is Key

New employees should be trained on proper handwashing techniques and frequency during orientation. Show new workers where the sinks and sanitizing stations are and remind them when to wash their hands.

Employers can encourage good hand hygiene practice among all employees by providing easy-to-understand awareness materials such as posters and stickers for use in washrooms, food processing areas, and on mirrors and doors to remind employees of the importance of clean hands.

Employers can also work with their washroom services supplier to create a communications campaign to educate employees on this necessity. Free downloadable posters are readily available from established suppliers to help promote good hand hygiene practices.

A systemized approach to skin care combined with programs to educate employees about their skin allow employers to provide a simple yet cost-effective solution to help all employees adopt these proper practices.

Klotz is technical product manager at Deb Group. He holds extensive experience in professional skin care products to prevent work-related occupational skin diseases. Reach him at andreas.klotz@degroup.com.

The post Keeping Hands Clean and Healthy appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Employees’ personal electronic devices are beginning to make their way into food service and processing facilities in large enough numbers that experts are taking notice.

The Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) trend, in which organizations save on buying individual devices for each employee by allowing employees to use their own smartphones and tablets for work purposes, continues expanding across industries. It will only be a matter of time before personal devices become widespread in food facilities.

“The last number I saw was around 20 percent of food manufacturers using mobile tools on the production floor,” says Reid Paquin, food and beverage industry analyst for GE Digital. “However, that number is rising.”

Paquin says that although the risk posed by BYOD-mandated devices in food facilities is relatively low compared to other contaminating factors, he stresses lower risk does not at all mean “no danger at all.”

“The biggest risk that stands out is the fact that personal devices are rarely cleaned and can serve as reservoirs for microorganisms and germs,” he says. “While the device itself may not come in direct contact with a processing line, it could come in contact with a worker’s hands or equipment, which can transfer contaminates.”

Systemic solutions to prevent contamination from smartphones and tablets are beginning to enter the market.

The CleanSlate UV Sanitizer is a box that can sanitize a smartphone in under a minute using UV light. The device was originally designed by Toronto-based company Limestone Labs for use in hospitals, but is now being marketed to the food industry as well.

While high-tech solutions for BYOD contamination problems may be around the corner, Paquin stresses that, in the meantime, individuals can still make a big difference through proper hand sanitization.

“If I had to guess, I would say less than half take enough precaution with mobile electronic devices,” he says, “which I think can be attributed to a lack of awareness. The food processing industry should look towards a sector like healthcare and adopt the lessons they have learned when it comes to sanitation and control of personal devices.”

The post Personal Devices Pose Contamination Risk in Food Facilities appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.