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.

Vendors at farmers markets could benefit from lessons in food safety, according to researchers at Pennsylvania State University.

The researchers visited farmers markets across the state and clocked unsafe vendor practices that could potentially spread foodborne illnesses. They also surveyed the vendors and compared the responses with their own observations and those of state health inspectors.

The findings, published online November 1 in Food Protection Trends, show a discrepancy between how vendors said they conducted themselves and how they were observed conducting themselves, by both state sanitarians and researchers involved in the study.

For example, 34.2 percent of surveyed vendors self-reported using disposable gloves. But direct observations by researchers showed less than 24 percent of vendors had disposable gloves at vending stands. Within the group of vendors observed to be using disposable gloves, slightly less than half used them improperly.

These results suggest there may be a general lack of understanding among vendors on when to use disposable gloves, when to change them and what practices are unacceptable while wearing gloves, the paper notes.

“If you look at how farmer’s markets are set up, they’re just sometimes pop-up tents that have coolers with food or tables with plastic tablecloths on them,” Catherine Cutter, an author on the study, told Reuters Health over the phone. “Little things like using a cleanable or disposable table cloth, because wood surfaces are difficult to clean and can be sources for bacterial contamination, can help. Those kinds of things are very simple and relatively inexpensive.”

Cutter and colleagues estimate in their paper that in the U.S. alone, there are over 8,500 farmers markets, where vendors sell fresh produce, ready-to-eat snacks, meat, and seafood.

But given that these markets generally take place outdoors and lack permanent infrastructure, access to handwashing facilities is often limited. Vendors were observed eating, coughing, or sneezing and then handling raw or ready-to-eat food without washing their hands.

“Lack of adequate handwashing stations and improper glove usage were probably the biggest problems we observed because there are opportunities for cross-contamination,” Cutter said.

“The question of how food is handled at farmers markets is important. Given the growth in farmers markets, people are able to buy more than just raw fruits and vegetables,” said Carolyn Dimitri, who was not involved in the study.

Dimitri is an Associate Professor of Food Studies at New York University. She found the results of the study unsurprising but said it was unclear which of the results were statistically significant.

Based on observations made during the study, the research team designed a curriculum on food safety practices that vendors could benefit from.

“We have developed a four-hour face-to-face or online class on farmer’s market food safety specifically for vendors, that builds on the things that we saw in the study as problematic,” Cutter said. “The program discusses the rationale for why you need to change your gloves and wash your hands when handling money and food.”

Data of this sort is also useful for policy making and the structuring of guidelines, said Dr. Senaka Ranadheera, a food scientist at the University of Melbourne, who was not involved in the study.

“The study was designed very well…Many foodborne diseases…are associated with steps in the food production chain, from farm to fork. Mishandling at any stage would cause serious issues related to food safety concerns.”

The post Hygiene Standards Not Up to the Mark at Farmers Markets 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.

More stringent measures in the production process have led to a greater emphasis on the hygienic design of production line equipment. The trend in the general food sector is to purchase equipment that has been smartly designed to incorporate both hygienic construction and the challenges they face in terms of product handling.

Image credit: Eagle Product Inspection

Many of the applications are in the meat and poultry industry—predominantly because in many cases other types of foods go through secondary processes prior to the product reaching the consumer. These processes, that may include cooking, reprocessing, or significant alteration of the raw material, often help to sterilize the product.

For meat and poultry, a large percentage of products are provided to the consumer in the raw state. They will go through a series of processes that will alter form, such as grinding for hamburgers, or deboning and trimming chickens, but those items that are reaching consumers are still raw and haven’t usually been secondary processed.

What is Hygienic Design?

The latest guide from the Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education, which was produced from their Equipment Design Task Force in 2014, can be found on the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) website. In terms of sanitary design principles, it is an ideal workmanship style document that outlines what sanitary design should mean both to a customer and a manufacturer. It is a good roadmap for suppliers to be able to look at the design and to quantify whether a system is going to be compliant with these design best practices.

Machines built using sanitary principles such as those provided by NAMI and the Sanitary Equipment Design Taskforce are designed so they meet a set of industry driven criteria that quantifiably defines sanitary construction. This includes such topics as the types and finishes of materials to be used and elimination of harborage areas where product can accumulate and create a microbiological risk. But the specifications are also very operations-centric providing guidance on best practices for inspection, maintenance, and cleaning protocols. The continuing challenge to manufacturers is to define what is the right amount of hygiene and sanitation for their specific operation and environment while still being profitable, protecting the consumer and the brand while complying with governmental standards and regulations.

In theory, every supplier of product inspection equipment should be able to design a device to perform a certain way at a specific point of time in a given environment. What’s difficult is to keep that performance consistent and within specification for long periods of continuous operation. Hygienically designed systems must be built to last—especially given the rigors and conditions of the meat and poultry industry and they also must perform their inspection tasks as specified throughout their useful life. Therefore, the overall robustness of the entire system is extremely important.

Where inspection is concerned, precision X-ray technology performs best when applied in a well-defined and controlled manner. When the necessary robustness required for the environment and operational longevity is added in, these two things may appear to be in conflict. Robustness and precision do not necessarily go hand-in-hand but are not mutually exclusive either, they must be balanced carefully with each specifically addressed. In an X-ray system, for example, there is a generator, which produces a beam that is shot through a window, through the product, through the conveyor, and then through to the detector, all contained within a housing to prevent X-ray emissions. When addressing sanitary design both inside and out with the need to clean machines rigorously every day, it should be done while maintaining the integrity, the technology, and its safe operation. Good design practices take these varying requirements into account with the manufacturer integrating them into a solution that effectively satisfies the needs for hygiene, longevity, and precise inspection.

In most cases, product is being inspected anywhere from 100-200 feet per minute in an environment that is wet from the product and periodic washdowns, creating a challenge to keep the conveyors moving and transporting product day in and day out. Like the design of the X-ray generator and detector assembly, the same rigor must be applied to the material handling and reject sortation system.

Other external influence factors around the machine such as floor and adjacent machine vibration and cold air handlers that can cause significant changes in temperature as they cycle on and off can impact machine performance, so it’s important to consider the surrounding area to mitigate those external influences before finalizing the machine placement to ensure a successful installation.

Benefits of Hygienic Design

It may be obvious to say, but the more hygienic the design the less the risk manufacturers have of an event occurring where the machines themselves contribute to it. When considering equipment purchase, customers should be encouraged to sit down and review the designs and to carry out their own scoring. If there is no set method of scoring within their business, the guide previously referred to from the Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education and found on the NAMI website is easily accessible and can be invaluable in the decision-making process. An educated customer—particularly when it comes to the principle of hygienic design—will see the benefits of procuring a system that has been designed specifically for its environment. Of course, many customers are aware of what’s required already, but sometimes there is a preconception that inspection technologies need a “hall pass” when it comes to hygienic design and that there must be a compromise to achieve the desired inspection results to the detriment of the hygienic element. This is not always the case, as a system designed from the ground up to the specification can meet most of, if not all of the check boxes required. Just because it’s an inspection technology doesn’t mean there should be a compromise on standards.

Machines built to strict industry standards are designed to minimize and eliminate harborage areas where product can accumulate and create a microbiological risk, but the design must also be very operationally-centric, providing methods for user operation, maintenance, and cleaning. The continuing challenge to manufacturers is to define what is the right amount of hygiene and sanitation for their specific operation and environment while still being profitable, protecting the consumer and the brand while complying with governmental standards and regulations. Needless to say, when most consumers are shopping for dinner they don’t understand what it takes to produce a pound of ground beef—not least to produce it and still only charge $3.99 a pound, make a profit, and stay in business to continue to produce enough to meet future demand.

IP69 Doesn’t Guarantee Hygienic Design

Although hygienic design is paramount in the meat and poultry sector, due to the raw element of the product and the frequent washdown requirements in the harsh environments, the food sector in general is making it much more of a priority.

Things such as ease of cleaning are very important, as is ensuring there are no areas that could trap contaminants or microorganisms, and these challenges should be addressed at the initial design stage. Part of the process for sanitary and hygienic design is making sure the machines are easy to inspect once cleaned to ensure the process has been carried out completely. The latest systems enable line of sight inspections that do not take long at all—leading to further time and therefore production savings.

Many associate hygienic design with IP69 ratings, but these are often confused. IP69 and hygienic design are not the same thing. Having a system with an IP69 rating does not mean you have a hygienic machine. It is purely an ingress protection rating. It has nothing to do with the sanitation of the machine and how well it has been designed in terms of hygiene. It simply ensures that cabinets and enclosures will not leak when washed down to that specification. For instance, Eagle has machines that are IP69 compliant that are not hygienically designed—whereas nearly all of the hygienically designed machines are IP69 compliant. It is important to understand the difference.

Correct Approach to Design

It is far better to have a machine that is designed specifically for purpose using specific guidelines, such as NAMI, NSF, and European EHEDG. This way, customers can be supplied with a robust product that is designed to most closely match their purpose. If you compare a product designed in this way to one that has been adapted, the differences are very noticeable. Of course, an adapted machine will be cheaper, but in the bigger picture a machine designed for the application will have a far more attractive total cost of ownership, and will deliver a far bigger incremental value to a customer.

How long do you want a machine to last? That is the question. If you have to decommission a machine four years into a seven-year depreciation cycle, then that’s a fairly large hit to take financially. But there are other things such as cleaning cycles that are important to consider. These machines are cleaned on a daily basis—often multiple times—so to have a machine that has been designed to be disassembled, cleaned, and ready to be sanitized by one person in a matter of a few minutes is highly desirable. Most machines require two people to tear down and it takes longer. Subsequently it takes longer to put it back together. The time saved in man hours over the course of the machine’s life alone is significant, coupled with the uptime advantages associated with those hours makes for a very attractive proposition.

Working with an expert supplier to talk through requirements and to cover all available options is the first step to take when considering the purchase of a hygienic product inspection system. It’s not all about the initial investment. There is a far bigger picture to take into consideration, and in doing so manufacturers can ensure the protection of both brand and consumer, at the same time making considerable savings.

Thomas is strategic business unit manager at Eagle Product Inspection. Reach him at kyle.thomas@eaglepi.com.

The post Hygienic Design: No Compromises in Inspection Technology appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

It’s been nearly a decade since an unemployed Roy Choi took to the streets of Los Angeles in his mobile taco truck. In 2008, it was a cheap alternative to a brick and mortar restaurant as the economy took a downturn; now, in Choi’s wake, food trucks have flourished into a $1.2 billion industry that shows no signs of slowing up.

According to market research firm IBISWorld, the U.S. has over 4,000 food trucks roaming its streets, with annual revenue growth at 7.9 percent between 2011 and 2016. This obviously makes the venture attractive to many entrepreneurs who see the potential for a small (relative to a brick and mortar) investment to reap a large reward. Yet, it seems easy to forget that going mobile doesn’t mean going exempt.

“There is already an awareness and recognition that food trucks aren’t going away and that they need to be held to the same food safety standards as other restaurants,” explains Erin DiCaprio, PhD, assistant specialist in Cooperative Extension at University of California Davis’ Department of Food Science and Technology. “The same retail food code that applies to the brick and mortar restaurants also apply to food trucks.”

In itself, that code could be quite challenging to adhere to for vendors; which just screams danger for food safety. Dr. DiCaprio explains the challenge for vendors lies in the difficulty to guarantee they are equipped with the proper facilities to ensure cleaning and sanitization, plumbing and hand hygiene, and refrigeration and pest control.

“If you can’t ensure that you’re going to have clean water, or even have soap available, it’s a major problem in terms of food safety because it’s been shown numerous times that food handlers are major contributors to foodborne outbreaks.”

This is why it’s especially important for food truck owners and operators to educate themselves on what’s expected and required of them. Once a vendor puts in the effort to meet local codes and regulations, food safety is bound to fall into place—satisfying regulators and consumers alike, and saving vendors from future headaches. Here are a few factors to get food vendors started.

Do the research. With education in mind, the first thing a food truck vendor needs to do is study up on the laws and standards they are expected to meet.

“Although the FDA Food Code is the standard thread in all 50 state food laws, there are variations in each of the food laws, and additional laws when it comes to the city and county health departments, which means there is not a standard set of food regulations outside of the FDA Food Code recommendations in the United States,” explains Christine Venema, an educator at Michigan State’s Nutrition and Health Institute.

Dr. DiCaprio proposes owners go even a step further, suggesting they “build a relationship with the local or county environmental or public health department, or those entities that would inspect the truck.

“I find that often times that if there is some question, or if something in the food code doesn’t make sense, then those regulatory bodies will provide guidance to the food truck to help make sure that they are compliant with those regulations,” continues Dr. DiCaprio.

Be portable and potable. One of the biggest cited challenges for food trucks is ensuring access to clean water.

“It’s probably my number one food safety tip for mobile food vendors,” says Venema. “Without enough potable water, particularly for handwashing, the vendor’s hands become a carrier of foodborne illness bacterium.”

It’s not just for hands though; clean water is also needed to easily clean and sanitize equipment. Given how small a food truck’s workspace is, consumers and regulators will notice if isn’t neat and tidy—giving the impression that you’re practically begging for scrutiny.

“Even in a regular restaurant, making sure that you have the facilities setup to ensure that equipment is easily cleanable and easily sanitized is a difficulty,” Dr. DiCaprio relates. “Working in such a confined space, that’s just another major challenge for the food trucks.”

The Danger Zone. The FDA Food Code considers food left in the temperature range of 41 degrees Fahrenheit to 135 degrees Fahrenheit to be in what they refer to as the “Danger Zone.”

“You could imagine, if it’s 103 degrees outside today in California, and you had a food truck out there with a refrigerator trying to maintain a safe temperature below 41 degrees Fahrenheit—it’s going to be much more difficult for that equipment to keep cool compared to a refrigerator in a brick and mortar facility where, of course, you have more environmental control,” Dr. DiCaprio expresses.

“There needs to be adequate access to utilities to operate the refrigerator and stove,” Venema notes. Otherwise, “they’re not able to keep hot foods hot and cold foods cold, which can lead to foodborne illness.”

Take it seriously. While owning and operating a food truck undoubtedly seems like an exciting venture, it’s an endeavor that requires meticulous care and understanding.

“A big issue is that mobile food vendors often lack food licenses and permits, which translates into a lack of food safety training,” Venema says, referencing a study by Lucan, et al. “Take a food safety training class to become licensed and have the appropriate permits,” she suggests, putting it plainly.

Finally, Dr. DiCaprio would like to see food vendors perceive inspections as a teachable moment, rather than as something dreadful and worrisome.

“They’re being inspected by the health agency to really pay attention to what the inspector is looking at,” she says. “When they get the reports, they should really look at what the deficiencies were, and try to understand why that would be a food safety risk, why that something would be cited on, and try to improve moving forward from there.”

Novis is an editorial intern for Wiley’s U.S. B2B editorial division.

The post Food Truck Food Safety 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.

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.

When food is your business, the safety of your product is vital to long-term success, and careful control of all processes in the facility is critical to achieving regulatory compliance. That’s where your Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) plans come in.

To ensure food safety, food-related businesses must adopt a HACCP/GFSI mentality in virtually every aspect of their program—right down to the uniforms that outfit their food industry workers.

To help prevent contamination within food manufacturing, processing, distribution, and retail operations, and to aid general safety of food products, businesses in the food industry must pay careful attention to how work garments worn by food industry employees are designed, maintained, processed (hygienically cleaned), and managed so they are not a potential source of food contamination. Careful controls are vital to minimizing cross-contamination risks and achieving regulatory compliance.

If your food-related business does not have a specialized food service uniform program provider that is HACCP/GFSI-conscious and can aid in your compliance goals, you could be exposing the business to significant risks. That’s because product safety is non-negotiable in food-related industries.

A specialized food service uniform program can help ensure food safety and minimize cross-contamination risks, while removing bacterial contaminants that can colonize on employees’ workwear.

When selecting a uniform provider, businesses should make sure the supplier is HACCP/GFSI-conscious in the following areas.

Hygienic laundering. Food service uniform laundering programs should be based on principles set forth in HACCP and GFSI application guidelines, and address safety risks involved with the process. All garments ideally should be sorted, hygienically cleaned, dried, finished, and poly-wrapped while addressing CCPs.

Ultimately, an effective food service uniform provider should offer a hygienic laundering program that helps reduce microbial contamination threats in four key laundry processing stages, including:

1. HACCP/GFSI-specific wash cycle;
2. Dryer/moisture removal cycle;
3. Steam tunnel finishing/garment pressing; and
4. Poly-wrapping (for an added preventive measure to help protect cleaned garments from exposure to environmental contaminants after processing, throughout the delivery process, and prior to being worn).

For example, UniFirst Corp. has a program specifically for the food industry called UniFirst UniSafe Service. This service includes a portal-to-portal process designed to minimize cross-contamination risks, with independent testing showing results of greater than 99.99999 percent reduction in microbial contamination associated with uniforms and other food worker garments. These types of processes begin at customer facilities and extend throughout all garment handling, laundering, and finishing procedures to regularly deliver hygienically clean garments.

Training and product protection processing. HACCP/GFSI-specific training for personnel involved in the processing of food-related customer garments is another important consideration. These specialized education programs should call for individual training of all point-of-contact personnel so that everyone involved fully understands food safety concepts, handling, and compliance. These types of specialized training programs can prove extremely useful, especially when developed in conjunction with a certified HACCP instructor. Such programs show a commitment on the provider’s part to making a positive difference in delivering the results customers need.

Furthermore, as an added measure of security, seek out a food service uniform laundering program that has been verified through scientific testing by an independent laboratory, showing that its services are designed to be effective for killing pathogens found on food industry uniforms and known to cause foodborne illnesses.

Uniform program providers should adhere to the following product protection processing (PPP) steps.

Delivery of clean garments. Hygienically clean garments (poly-wrapped, if desired) should be delivered to a designated area at customer sites.

Pickup of soiled garments. Soiled garments need to be sorted, placed in plastic bags, and put on route truck in segregated containers/bins.

Return to uniform provider’s laundry processing facility. Soiled garments are to be kept segregated during transport.

Unloading soiled garments. Garments need to be accurately sorted and those identified as “food-related” kept segregated.

Washing and drying. Identified “food-related” soiled garments should be hygienically laundered with a specified HACCP/GFSI wash process and cleaning formula. After the wash cycle, items get loaded into dryers for moisture removal and garment conditioning.

Inspection and garment finishing. All hygienically clean garments should undergo multi-point quality inspections; garments passing inspection should go through a high-temperature steam tunnel or garment pressing; garments failing inspection need to be routed for mending or replacements and go through the complete PPP again.

Loading the route vehicle for delivery. Trucks should be loaded for delivery with appropriate segregation and protection between soiled and hygienically clean garments.

Final delivery of hygienically clean garments. Finished garments (with optional poly-wrapping) are to be properly segregated and transported from the plant to the designated site at the customer location for final delivery.

Laundering process certification. When evaluating which food service uniform program works best for your business, another important consideration is food service laundering certification. Look for providers that have been awarded hygienic laundering certifications for their processes specific to the food industry.

There are a few organizations that provide these types of certifications.

For example, TRSA Hygienically Clean Food Safety (HCFS) certification status for cleaning and servicing of work apparel for food-related industries lets the world know that your uniform service provider is doing its part to help ensure food safety for consumers. TRSA is an international organization, representing textile industry companies, with expertise to determine appropriate hygienic laundering solutions for food manufacturing and food processing facilities and workplaces.

NSF International and others have also launched similar certification programs for commercial laundering operations to verify their design effectiveness in providing hygienic laundering solutions.

Using a hygienically clean certified laundry can reassure customers that you are committed to product safety, and can further establish your credibility as it relates to a focus on quality and concern for consumers. More and more, businesses in food-related industries are looking for such third-party validation from credible organizations.

Specialized food service clothing designs. Uniform designs for food-related industries are not just for show. This is another area for consideration, as uniform design also helps address critical safety functions. Be sure to choose a food industry uniform provider that offer garments with HACCP/GFSI-conscious designs and features.

When choosing food processor coats and food service uniforms for employees, business customers and the public can benefit from certain safety design features. Below are a few examples.

• No pockets above the waist that could potentially trap hazardous bacteria; or could potentially store items that may fall into the food or packaging.
• No buttons on the garment that could also potentially fall into the food or packaging; snaps are preferred in food industries.
• Durable materials, such as industrial-grade fabrics, can resist contamination and help prevent erosion.
• Long sleeves to cover arms and long pants to cover legs to prevent hairs or other skin contaminants. Elastic cuffs add another level of protection as well.
• Color coding of garments to distinguish workers wearing uniforms in food processing areas, those who handle raw and/or cooked food, from other workers to help avoid cross-contamination of harmful bacteria.

Working with a uniform service provider that can regularly maintain uniforms can help assure that hygienically clean uniforms are readily available on a daily basis. The provider should also regularly inspect all garments for any compromises in quality that could expose the company to contamination risks.

Simply put, the importance of having a specialized uniform service provider that is knowledgeable about HACCP/GFSI and the safety needs of food-related industries cannot be overstated. Minimizing cross-contamination risks and complying with food safety regulations are musts in order for food businesses to be successful—and the right uniform service provider and employee workwear designs can really make a difference.

Cosgrave is the environmental health and safety director for UniFirst Corp. Reach him at Timothy_Cosgrave@unifirst.com.

The post Choosing Work Garments to Promote Hygiene appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Food monitoring procedures are strongly focused on hygiene to avoid microbiological hazards such as bacterial or viral contamination. A general increase in microbiological safety has already been achieved over the past decades through the establishment of various standards (HACCP, IFS/BRC, ISO 22000). Despite greater safety and longer-lasting products, microbiological control must be improved particularly with respect to fresh products. Most foodborne microorganisms that cause illnesses are zoonotic or geonotic but some have human origins, such as the Hepatitis A, Salmonella phi, and Vibrio cholera. These contamination can occur during the food manufacturing process.

A significant increase in diseases stemming from microbiological infections can be expected in the future. The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment stated that foodborne infections will pose a serious problem to the global public health in the coming years. In the last two decades, there has been an  overall increase in foodborne illness outbreaks and cases linked to fresh fruits and vegetables:

• Vegetables, juices, and related products comprised 4.4 percent of all foodborne outbreaks in the EU between 2008 and 2013.
• In the U.S., 13 percent of foodborne outbreaks between 1990 and 2005 have been associated with fresh produce. Green salad, lettuce, seed sprouts, tomatoes and cantaloupes were identified as the main sources of foodborne illness outbreaks.

Frequent combinations are: Salmonella and cantaloupes, sprouts, or tomatoes; E. coli and leaf green vegetables; Cyclospora and raspberries; and Hepatitis A with green onions.

Within the structured approach to food safety management (Risk Analysis framework), Food Safety Objectives (FSO) are essential tools to meet public health goals. FSOs define the maximum level of microbiological hazards permitted in various foods at the point of consumption. Maximum hazard levels at different points along the food chain represent further performance objectives.

Unlike other commodities, such as beef or chicken that is rigorously inspected, microbiology is often neglected when testing fresh fruit and vegetables because adequate strategies are lacking. Fruits and vegetables are foods with generally short shelf life: however, investigations of microbiological risk take some time. A number of different microbiological testing can be used by industry and government actors. Within-lot testing is one of the most common methods when measuring the hazard against a pre-defined limit but the sampling plans are generally time-consuming and resource-inefficient.

Point source contaminations that cause individual consumer illnesses might occur in fresh produce due to bird feces, for example. However, these kinds of risks are difficult to detect once the product is packed and optical control is insufficient. General or nonpoint source contaminations could cause foodborne epidemics because of the effect on a broad range of products. Pre-harvest sources of nonpoint source contamination are most often soil, feces, irrigation water, water used to apply fungicides and insecticides, dust, insects, inadequately composted manure, wild and domestic animals, and human handling.

The earlier a risk is detected, the better the odds for effective measures and lower overall costs.

On the basis of the European Food Safety Authority results and personal experiences with more than 400 microbiological samples and over 2,500 field visits within the last two years, Analytica Alimentaria has developed a new risk analysis process when testing fruit and vegetables:

1. Effective microbiological risk assessment in the field with a new evaluation system, structured questionnaires, and defined approval policies;
2. Synergies via the efficient linking of risk analysis with pre-harvest sampling;
3. Risk-oriented sampling and laboratory analysis of the correct parameters;
4. Clear escalation scheme in the case of positive findings; and
5. Fast decision-making for retailers.

This article describes the complete process of microbiological risk assessment, which can be a general or nonpoint source contamination of the sampled object (field, warehouse) that can cause a foodborne epidemic or individual illness. As the result of the process, the risk can be calculated and mitigated.

(click to enlarge)

Results and Discussion
The questionnaire developed for the field and warehouse is based on information from scientific literature as well as on the samplers’ own experience. It is also based on the growth of microorganisms along the entire food chain. It is well known that pre- and post-harvest environments are significant sources of pathogens.

Questions and answers are divided into two weighted categories: high-risk questions (HRQ) and low-risk questions (LRQ), as well as additional information on the conditions of the work. The number of “Yes” and “No” votes are summarized separately and taken for a decision on microbiological sampling.

The assessment of microbiological risk is based on the evaluation of the questionnaire, which takes place using Excel spreadsheets.

HRQ specifies the conditions where microbiological contaminations are very likely to occur. Potential sources for microbiological infection in the field are direct sources of living pathogens (past infections, animals, organic fertilizer/manure) and particularly favorable environmental conditions (high water level).

Salmonella, Shigella, and E. coli O157:H7 and other pathogens that can survive for extended periods of time in water. Flood and spray irrigation represent the greatest risk because contamination can be directly deposited onto edible parts of produce. Reconstituted pesticides may also serve as potential sources of pathogens.

LQR collects and evaluates marginal conditions for microbiological contaminations that could be a risk when a common occurrence. The choice of questions was based on respective regulations:

• Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs;
• Regulation (EC) No. 1935/2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food; and
• Guidance for dealing with fruits, vegetables, potatoes.

(click to enlarge)

Additionally, a monitoring process is included that evaluates the minimum hygiene standards in the field.

The questions should be answered by growers, agricultural technicians, engineers and experienced samplers with “yes,” “no,” or “not known.” Objective criteria is defined to enable correct answering of questions.

The action plan. In case of a positive finding, the main problem often is the absence of an effective plan to restore microbiological safety. The laboratory that has detected the pathogens is responsible for forwarding information to the corresponding grower/producer and to the whole supply chain via the trader. A second sample has to be stored for cross-checking. The laboratory is also responsible for source identification as well as the magnitude of microbiological contamination in the field or warehouse of the grower/producer. The trader has to ensure the grower and all affected goods in the supply chain are temporarily blocked from the market. The trader also contributes to restoring the delivery capacity of the grower.

(click to enlarge)

The control plan. In case of a detected risk, a microbiological sampling takes place according to the rules of the Questionnaire for Microbiological Risk Assessment (QMRA). A microbiological sample consists of a number of individual subsamples. Each individual subsample is transported and analyzed separately. If any of the subsamples contain pathogens, harvesting is forbidden on the field of origin. A special controlling plan is implemented to identify the source and to decide if point source or nonpoint source contamination exists. Using GPS coordinates and other markers, the affected field is divided into five different, clearly separated areas that adjoin the area where the original sample was found. Control samples from the crop, the soil and the irrigation water have to be taken from each subarea and analyzed to measure the extent of contamination. A nonpoint source contamination exists if two or more control samples are positive. If only one sample is positive a partial contamination of the corresponding subarea exists. A point source contamination exists if all control samples are negative. This implies that only a part of the original sample was contaminated and that contamination could not be detected again. To detect and permanently address the source of microbiological contamination, further microbiological samples from irrigation water and soil must be taken, especially in cases where the same water or fertilizer is used for the subareas.

Examples for averted hazards by QMRA. According to the QMRA, a microbiological risk was found in a Spanish field with cabbage lettuce after strong rainfalls and floods in 2012 (QMRA question No 3). The original sample taken from the lettuce contained Salmonella spp and the action plan was activated. The supply chain was informed and the field was immediately blocked. Further samples were taken according to the control plan (lettuce, soil, and water from five subareas) and all five samples were positive for Salmonella spp: therefore, a nonpoint source contamination existed. The irrigation water from a river nearby was identified as the source of contamination: the river was highly contaminated with waste water and dead animals from neighboring farms.

In 2014, a microbiological risk was found in a Moroccan parsley field. A cow-farming unit existed near the field without an enclosure (QMRA question No 2). The original parsley sample contained STEC (E. coli 0103) but only one sample from the tests and one soil sample was positive. Both positive samples were from the same subarea nearest to the cow-farming unit. The irrigation water sample was negative and a partial contamination was found in the subarea due to animal feces.

In 2015, Listeria monocytogenes was found for Batavia in Italy when an undocumented (date of application, microbiological sampling) use of organic fertilizer had been observed (QMRA Question No 4). After blocking the field, all control samples were negative and a point source contamination of the field was acknowledged. The harvest could be continued.

Conclusions
The microbiological condition of food is one of the most critical elements of food safety, especially for fresh fruits and vegetables. The entire supply chain of fresh fruits and vegetables is highly time sensitive yet microbiological controls take some time for analysis. Unfounded actions could endanger human health and/or the supply chain. This new risk-based evaluation in the field facilitates a safe and convenient risk assessment of the microbiological condition of fresh crops at an early stage in the supply chain. Examples have demonstrated the reliability of the system, which comprises risk evaluation, action and a control plan. The QMRA saves time and cost but should be administered only by well-trained technicians. Sampling must be performed according to standardized and accredited methods.

________________________________________________________________

Lampe is a geo-ecologist at Analytica Alimentaria GmbH. Reach him at udo.lampe@analytica.international. Hidalgo Palanco is a biologist at the company. Reach him at Isaac.hidalgo@analytica.international. Fernandez Caro is agricultural engineer at Analytics Alimentaria. Reach him at fernando.fernandez@analytica.international. Dr. Krause is a physicist at the company. Reach him at peter.krause@analytica.international.

The post Technical Look on Microbiological Risk Factors in Pre-Harvest Crops appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.