No one entity can protect food safety on its own. In FSMA, FDA clearly stated that the role of industry is to produce safe foods. FDA’s role is oversight in their jurisdiction, to ensure that industry is doing its job. Ensuring that food is safe requires a collaborative approach; government, industry, and consumers must work together to achieve the common goal of protecting public health. The fact that multiple agencies and inspectors have regulatory oversight over food safety at U.S. retail and foodservice establishments can create some definite challenges to achieving this goal, however.

At both the state and local levels, for example, health departments are responsible for inspecting and regulating foodservice establishments within their jurisdictions. At the federal level, FDA regulates food safety, including food processing, distribution, and labeling.

Furthermore, FDA’s 2022 Food Code (10th edition) and the Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards are a framework for safeguarding public health and ensuring that consumers’ food is unadulterated. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspects and regulates meat, poultry, and some egg products and plays a vital role in federal regulation. The CDC promotes food safety in retail environments.

Launched in 2000 by leading consumer goods companies, the Global Food Safety Initiative is a non-governmental global group organized after a number of food safety crises occurred. With the goal of reducing food safety risks and increasing consumer confidence in the delivery of safe food, these companies began requiring that manufacturers do more than the legal minimum required by the individual country of origin or destination, so they adapted an accredited certification model and a series of best practice standards applicable to their suppliers. “When retail and food establishments are required to follow different food safety regulations depending on their location, it can cause confusion, frustration, and loss of trust for operators and staff, which can ultimately result in unsafe food safety practices,” says Melissa Vaccaro, a senior food safety program specialist at the National Environmental Health Association.

According to Donald W. Schaffner, PhD, professor, extension specialist, and chair of the department of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., challenges are especially significant for national and regional retail and foodservice chains. “These organizations often have stellar food safety programs which they try to implement uniformly across all of their operations. But, challenges can occur when inspectors on either side of a state line enforce different regulations, or when different jurisdictions interpret state food codes differently within a state.”

Every four years, FDA publishes a new version of the Food Code to ensure it’s updated consistently to help jurisdictions adopt uniform food safety standards; however, many jurisdictions continue to use older versions because the timeframe to adopt a newer version can be long. In some cases it can take years, says Ashley Eisenbeiser, MS, senior director of food and product safety programs at FMI–The Food Industry Association, headquartered in Arlington, Va. In fact, one state, South Dakota, is still using the Food Code from 1995.

The variability and patchwork of Food Code adoption across the United States creates a significant challenge for retailers that have to know and comply with each jurisdiction’s requirements in which they operate, Eisenbeiser adds. California is the only state that hasn’t adopted any version of the Food Code, which is voluntary.

Although FSMA rules don’t apply to retail food establishments, they do apply to most suppliers and manufacturers of food sold in stores, including the suppliers of ingredients and products used to prepare food in retail delis and fresh prepared departments in stores, Eisenbeiser says. Supplier programs play an important role in assuring food safety and that food is purchased from approved sources. FSMA includes a new Traceability Rule in section 204 that establishes additional traceability recordkeeping requirements which will become effective January 20, 2026.

Best Practices to Overcome Challenges

Retail and foodservice establishments face ongoing challenges related to regulatory compliance with the Food Code. They include failure to have a strong hazard analysis (including identifying biological, chemical, and physical hazards); maintaining the highest standards of personal and facility hygiene, including strict handwashing practices; proper handling and labeling of allergens and avoiding allergen cross-contact; and proper temperature control of food items and monitoring temperatures during receiving, storage, preparation, cooking, and holding, says Tracy Fink, PCQI, director of scientific programs and science and policy initiatives at the Institute of Food Technologists in Chicago.

Fink advises maintaining a robust Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system with a mindset toward preventive controls, even though they aren’t universally mandated for all retail and foodservice establishments. “This system has been proven to be an effective approach to food safety and demonstrates a commitment to providing safe and high-quality food products to consumers,” she says.

Fink also recommends conducting internal audits and working with external retail and foodservice auditing companies to conduct second-party audits to best protect consumers and public health.

Regarding hygiene, Vaccaro says poor personal hygiene is the root cause of norovirus, which is responsible for 58% of foodborne illnesses in the United States, according to CDC. Active managerial control, training, and accountability are key to ensuring that good hygiene is practiced within a food establishment’s culture.

New allergens also pose challenges. On January 1, 2023, FDA named sesame as the ninth major food allergen recognized in the U.S. “Retail and food service establishments should now be aware of any ingredients that carry a potential risk of including this allergen,” Dr. Schaffner says. “They should provide this information to customers by stating it on a product’s label, including a notification on a menu, or through other means.”

Temperature monitoring and holding time controls fall under the Food Code, and include but aren’t limited to facilities and equipment. FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practices for temperature control, and thermometer calibration programs are also applicable best practices, Fink says.  Vaccaro adds, “The primary challenge is to ensure that food managers and employees use calibrated thermometers to take food temperatures after cooking, cooling, storage, or any other situations in which foods need temperature control. This should be a part of an establishment’s food safety culture.” Equally important is to develop and maintain Standard Operating Procedures for all aspects of food receiving, handling, preparation, storage, and service, including waste disposal.

Keeping Up with Regulations

To comply with the myriad regulatory requirements, Fink advises frequently checking the websites of regulatory agencies responsible for food safety in your region to obtain the latest updates on food safety regulations, recalls, and outbreak notifications. Sign up for email alerts or subscription services offered by regulatory agencies, as well as by health departments and food safety authorities. Consider joining industry associations and networks, which often provide members with information about industry best practices, regulatory changes, and emerging food safety issues. Additionally, it’s imperative to collaborate with local health authorities and establish a positive relationship with regulatory officials in addition to following regulatory agencies on social media.

Have executive or C-suite buy-in for fostering a culture of food safety within an organization is another big area to manage alone. Senior level support can really help with budget development and training resources. “Create an environment that supports collaborating with local health authorities and industry associations to gain valuable insight and guidance on navigating compliance challenges,” Fink says.

Recall notifications, market withdrawals, and safety alerts can be found at FDA’s Recalls, Market Withdrawals, and Safety Alerts webpage; USDA’s Recalls & Public Health Alerts webpage; and CDC’s Foodborne Outbreaks webpage. Additionally, many government agencies and food safety organizations offer email or RSS subscription services that provide notifications about food recalls, outbreaks, and other food safety alerts, Fink says. Government agencies and news outlets often share food recall and outbreak information on their social media platforms.

Work with suppliers to ensure the quality and safety of ingredients entering your establishment. “Verify that suppliers meet food safety standards and request relevant documentation, such as a Certificates of Analysis,” Fink adds, if that’s applicable to the type of business involved.

Many organizations provide training programs, tools, and other resources to help retail and foodservice establishments stay compliant with regulations. Fink recommends that these establishments invest in comprehensive food safety training for both new and long-term staff and management. For example, the National Restaurant Association administers ServSafe, a food and beverage safety training and certification program that covers critical aspects of food safety and handling in the foodservice industry. It’s accredited by the American National Standards Institute and the Conference for Food Protection, and has widespread recognition by the industry.

Stop Foodborne Illness has developed resources to help food establishments educate employees and advance their internal food safety culture. The organization’s Alliance to Stop Foodborne Illness provides a free Food Safety Culture Toolkit with insights and resources for assessment, communication, and gamified learnings, says Vanessa Coffman, PhD, the program’s director at Stop Foodborne Illness in Chicago.

Current FDA Initiatives

FDA is embarking on some new programs to ensure food safety. In the third core element of its New Era of Smarter Food Safety initiative, New Business Models and Retail Modernization, FDA is working to address how to protect foods from contamination as new business models emerge and change to meet modern consumers’ needs, according to an FDA spokesperson.

“The evolution of how food gets from farm to table continues with the emergence of e-commerce and new delivery models,” an FDA spokesperson tells Food Quality & Safety. “Changes in how food is produced continue to occur as new business models advance innovations in novel ingredients, new foods, and new food production systems.”

Regarding food sold at retail establishments directly to consumers, FDA is working with the Retail Food Safety Regulatory Association Collaborative to create tools and interventions to help regulators and industry implement science-based food safety laws and regulations, i.e., a Food Code adoption tool kit, and tools for industry to control risk factors for foodborne illness, i.e., use of Active Managerial Control and Food Safety Management Systems.

In October 2022, FDA and CDC entered a memorandum of understanding (MOU) designed to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness in retail and foodservice. According to an FDA spokesperson, the MOU outlines three primary goals:

1. Increase uniformity, consistency, and capacity of state, local, territorial, and tribal (SLTT) retail food protection programs;
2. Promote the retail food store and restaurant industry’s Active Managerial Control of foodborne illness risk factors and promote a culture of food safety; and
3. Maintain a strong FDA National Retail Food Team and CDC National Center for Environmental Health workforce to assist SLTT retail food protection programs.

Since entering the MOU, FDA and CDC have established a steering committee with a dedicated charter to develop a strategic action plan by September 2023 and implement it by October 2023 that includes both short- and long-term initiatives. Some of the focus areas within the plan include:

• Increasing focus on employee health practices and policies; SLTT regulators can provide training and tools to operators to help them create well developed and implemented employee health programs.
• Increasing SLTT retail food protection programs use of risk-based inspection methods and implementing environmental assessments during foodborne illness investigations.
• Achieving closer alignment to the national standard’s criteria for Foodborne Illness and Food Defense Preparedness and Response documents; and
• Increasing the use of effective intervention strategies to reduce occurrences of out-of-compliance foodborne illness risk factors.

Food safety practices in the retail and foodservice space are of vital importance to protecting public health, and regulations and food safety culture at that level can reduce risks. “With many different regulatory requirements nationwide, it’s important for retail food service facilities to know and understand the regulations that apply at each specific location,” Vaccaro says. “The best rule of thumb is to always apply the strictest regulation to all establishments.”

The post Food Safety Challenges and Regulations in Retail and Foodservice appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

A new report published this week by the CDC found that more than 40% of foodborne illness outbreaks at retail food establishments were linked to ill or infectious food workers.

The report, published in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, identified 800 outbreaks among 875 restaurants that occurred between 2017 and 2019 and were reported to the National Environmental Assessment Reporting System (NEARS) by state and local health departments. Norovirus and Salmonella were the most common pathogens associated with the outbreaks.

Although most managers interviewed said that their establishment had a policy requiring food workers to notify their supervisors when they were ill, these policies were often missing components intended to reduce the risk of foodborne illness. The investigators called for better enforcement of food safety policies such as handwashing and keeping sick staff from working.

The report authors said that food workers report numerous reasons for working when ill, such as loss of pay and perceived social pressure to not leave establishments under-staffed. NEARS data demonstrated that only approximately 44% of restaurants provided paid sick leave to their workers, which means that many staff were showing up ill or infectious.

Only 16% of restaurants assessed had policies that included the four recommendations of the FDA Food Code, including policies that require food workers to inform a manager when they are ill, specify all five symptoms workers need to tell a manager about, and restrict or exclude ill or infectious workers from work.

The post More than 40% of Foodborne Illness Outbreaks at Restaurants Related to Sick Workers, CDC Says appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

The COVID-19 pandemic was the start of an influx of challenges for food retail and restaurant establishments, with lingering effects leading to labor shortages, supply chain disruptions, and inflationary pressures. This operational shift has forced these establishments to reassess current food safety standards and procedures and adjust where needed.

According to the World Health Organization, nearly 600 million people fall ill after consuming contaminated food every year. A single outbreak can cost a restaurant business upwards of two million dollars according to a 2018 study published in Public Health Reports and, with at least 31 different types of foodborne pathogens to worry about, food safety protocols should be at the top of every priority list for restaurant establishments.

To better protect customers, employees and restaurant owners and operators need to have confidence in their food safety programs. A proper food safety program doesn’t just “pass the test.” A solid food safety program ensures proper food safety practices happen every day, focuses on high-risk issues, and has buy-in from all employee levels, including from senior leadership.

To achieve this, restaurant owners and managers should be able to answer “yes” to the following three questions:

1. Is Food Safety Practiced Consistently?

According to Steritech assessment data, restaurant brands consistently experience a higher number of food safety issues on particular days of the week. The specific days of the week vary by brand, but virtually all brands have at least one day of the week when their issue count is consistently and significantly higher.

The data revealed that the location’s worst day often corresponded with the days when more personnel were present. This indicates that the issue is not always caused by a labor gap, but a leadership gap. The common factor seems to be that leadership is focused on something other than food prep on certain days: delivery days, inventory shifts, manager meetings or other tasks. It also correlates to the experience level of the leadership present; for example, issue counts often rise on the general manager’s regular day off.

The difference between a restaurant’s best day of the week and their worst day is typically between 12% and 18%, but for some brands, that variance is more than 30%. Restaurant owners and managers need to recognize and pay close attention to those “opportunity days” to ensure that proper and consistent food safety practices are being executed at every shift.

2. Is There a Plan in Place to Handle High-Risk Activities?

High-risk activities will be different for every establishment, but it’s likely that every brand has a few. Being able to identify which activities have the strongest links to foodborne illness for a particular restaurant is the first step toward handling those concerns. Some common high-risk activities include, but are not limited to:

• Cooling, reheating, and hot and cold handling;
• Cross-contamination during storage and handling practices;
• Cleaning, sanitizing, and handwashing; and
• Date marking and timely disposal of expired products.

Once a restaurant’s specific high-risk activities have been identified, the next step should be to implement documented food safety management systems for each critical process. A documented food safety management system should cover three parts: the procedures for each critical risk, the training to implement those procedures, and defined monitoring of the implemented procedures.

At first, creating a food safety management plan for each critical issue may appear to be a daunting task, but it’s a task that will better protect employees, customers, and the restaurant. When creating this food safety plan, take it one step at a time. Start with a task that will generate immediate success to get the ball rolling, and then use that positive momentum to further expand the plan.

3. Do Leadership and Management Understand Food Safety Protocols?

Building an effective restaurant food safety program requires engagement and buy-in from all stakeholders. Recent FDA studies found approximately 60% fewer critical issues cited when the person in charge could knowledgeably discuss their food safety management systems.

When food safety programs focus exclusively on location-level employees, the senior leadership team is left out of a crucial part of business operations. In successful organizations, senior company leaders drive processes and programs that keep the entire organization continuously improving.

Food retail and restaurant operators should train leadership and management teams to support food safety programs by practicing “S.A.F.E.” measures.

• Say: What managers say can provide vital reminders to keep food safety in everyone’s awareness every day. Managers and leaders can take simple food safety reminders a step further by also communicating the “why” behind each job. This will help to reinforce the importance of each task to front-line staff.
• Act: The way managers act is also a critical component of effective food safety programs. What leaders do—or fail to do—sends a message to everyone who sees them about the establishment’s food safety values. Simple actions such as hand washing when an employee enters the kitchen, wearing hair restraints, checking temperature logs, or reviewing recent inspection reports will illustrate the importance of those daily tasks to front-line staff.
• Feedback: Leaders are also responsible for being receptive to feedback from those they lead, but this is often overlooked. When leaders and managers can both provide feedback and be open to receiving feedback from their team members, it opens the door to positive two-way communication, which also helps foster a self-sustaining culture of food safety.
• Encourage: There is great power in encouraging positive behaviors. Traditional food safety programs typically focus on the bad findings. Instead, use positive recognition to reinforce good behaviors and send the message that excellent food safety will be rewarded. Positive recognition boosts morale and creates pride, which ultimately embeds itself into the culture. It also creates a platform for employees to receive constructive feedback when it becomes necessary.

Whether managing a single, family-owned restaurant, or a multi-location franchise establishment, creating a positive food safety culture is essential. In this new era of limited staff, high turnover rates, consistent supply chain demands and various other challenges impeding the restaurant industry, owners and operators certainly have a tough job ahead.

A system of strong procedures, training, and monitoring can ensure consistent food safety every day. Pair this with S.A.F.E. food safety practices by leadership at all levels to help build a solid food safety culture for everyone involved.

Boyles is vice president of food safety at Steritech.

The post Food Safety for Restaurants appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

It’s been more than 100 years since Upton Sinclair’s book The Jungle hit shelves. Since then, most consumers feel relatively comfortable and safe with current food standards; however, as consumer habits continue to evolve, with more food being purchased online and distributed through a network of unknown entities, the bad news is that we are not out of the jungle yet. About 48 million people in the U.S. (one in six) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die each year from foodborne diseases, according to recent data from CDC.

The last mile of food delivery could prove to be one of the most dangerous unless some real changes are made. Currently, around 60% of Americans order takeout or delivery at least once a week. There is no sign of a slowdown in online ordering; it’s growing 300% faster than in-house dining. And they want it fast, faster, fastest: 33% of consumers say they would pay a higher fee for faster delivery.

When you combine this online growth with a high demand for speed, a thick jungle of food consumption dangers lies ahead.

Innovation without Regulation

The COVID-19 pandemic demanded innovation and rapid acceleration from last mile food delivery options. Consumers prioritized safety over all else and looked for options that allowed them to avoid crowded grocery stores and restaurants. Distanced drop-offs and fast home delivery options became the norm for many consumers.

This rapid innovation existed in a vacuum, however, without government regulations. A gap was created between social distancing safety and food consumption safety. While cooked food models are relatively safe, groceries and meal kits face large risks around refrigeration and contamination. Food shipped directly to consumer homes needs to stay at a safe temperature to prevent the growth of germs that could cause serious illness. This includes mail-order food and subscription meal kits, according to the CDC.

Risk Factors

Currently, there are many factors that could lead to food safety failures. The most basic of these are human error, limited professional equipment, and a gap in training programs. While intentions may be good, a lack of knowledge around contamination and cold-chain management could put individuals who rely on last mile delivery at risk.

The reliance of many local last mile programs on gig workers increases risk. Average, untrained people looking to supplement their income could unintentionally cross-contaminate groceries. For example, accidental placement of raw fish or meat alongside vulnerable raw produce items, or even simple mix-ups for those with food allergies, could be deadly.

Now, as COVID-19 cases wane and we are in a safer environment, businesses must take a moment to evaluate their last mile delivery structures and prioritize beyond distance drop-offs and fast home delivery.

Keep Ahead of the Curve

Innovation is typically driven by one of two things: consumer demand or litigation. Life during the COVID-19 pandemic saw innovation by way of consumer demand; however, the risks listed above could force demand by way of litigation if businesses are not proactive. Rather than wait for these events to happen, some companies are choosing to innovate ahead of the curve and solve problems before they arise.

A strong example of this type of problem solving comes from Japanese logistics company Yamato Holdings. The company wanted to reduce last mile delivery risks to build trust in the industry, grow the market, and expand its business globally. Yamato Holdings partnered with BSI to develop a food delivery standard, known commonly as a Publicly Available Specification (PAS), for their company to follow. The fast-track standard establishes best practice in refrigerated delivery services, bringing benefits for both businesses and consumers.

The creation of PAS 1018, which has since been adopted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), defines good practice in a fast-growing and important industry, helping to protect and reassure consumers, expand the global market, and position Yamato as a trustworthy leader in the field.

Solution: Standards

Standards provide a solid foundation for organizations to operate in great periods of change. The United States adopted The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) of 2011 to transform its food safety landscape and ensure that higher standards were met across the country. While FSMA prompted rapid change that includes cold chain controls for portions of the delivery phase, innovation across the industry has left room for error in the food industry. The rise of mobile applications, consumer ordering behaviors, and pressure on businesses for speed and delivery options have all added to the risk factors across the past 11 years.

The solution to many of these modernizations is simple: updated standards. When companies like Yamato update standards to fit the modern environment, they significantly reduce the risk of litigation and consumer complaints. Some updates from the comprehensive PAS included:

• Monitoring and improving the refrigerated delivery service, including parcel handling;
• Transportation of chilled or frozen parcels in temperature-controlled vehicles via geographical routing systems;
• Requirements for resources, equipment, operations, and communications; and
• Conditions for operation sites, work instructions, operational manuals, and staff training.

The results of adopting these standards can bring companies dividends for years to come. Having stringent standards helps build trust with consumers, partners, and investors alike, and ultimately expands businesses. Standards also push industries to increase quality and consistency to remain competitive. Finally, they are better for our consumers; consumers who enjoy safe, quality food will ultimately have a better quality of life.

Bushwhacking Barriers

While we are not out of the jungle yet, we have been given strong tools to help us forge a path forward. By adopting rigorous standards and holding last service deliverers accountable, it is possible for us to better regulate the innovations that came about during the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be up to businesses to proactively monitor for food safety issues and try to become leaders in safety before pressures from governments and consumers make it a mandate. Those organizations that choose to use globally recognized standards, like ISO 23412, an international standard that aims to set guidelines for refrigerated delivery service providers, to prove their promise of safe food distribution will have a competitive advantage in a highly competitive industry.

Coole is director of food and retail supply chain at BSI, a standards and regulations organization based in the U.K. Reach him at neil.coole@bsigroup.com.

The post The Importance of Regulation in Food Delivery appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

For grocers and their food distribution divisions, food shrink is a continuing issue that cuts into profits and contributes to food waste. “Food shrinkage” refers to spoiled or wasted products from distribution to a grocery store. Consumers today are also concerned about sustainability efforts, placing additional pressure on grocers and distributors to make improvements in their overall operational strategies.

In the U.S., food spoilage and waste are estimated to be between 30% and 40% of the overall food supply, according to USDA. For their part, grocers have traditionally relied primarily on inventory management solutions to reduce fresh food waste; however, new solutions are needed because, in addition to a greater focus on sustainability by consumers, the continued problem of food shrink is costing food retailers more than $52 billion annually.

Industry players are having a difficult time reducing this cost. Reducing shrink can lower operating costs by 15% to 20%, or more, Martin Gooch, PhD, chief executive officer of Value Chain Management International, told Produce Business. In retail, a 1% reduction in shrink helps improve the financial bottom line equivalent to a 4% or higher increase in revenue, simply because organizations reduce the subsidies of ineffective operations.

Food shrink also adds financial pressure as grocers must restock their shelves. More than 60% of grocers say they have had to significantly increase fresh inventory to keep up with demand, according to a whitepaper by Shelf Engine, a ­Seattle-based technology firm focused on food waste.

Improving On-Time Deliveries to Reduce Spoilage

There may be other ways to reduce food shrink, and a closer focus on improving on-time deliveries among food distributors may help. Many grocers leverage private trucking fleets for their grocery delivery and, according to the 2021 National Private Truck Council’s Benchmarking Survey Report, 68% of fleets measured on-time performance for 2021, versus 82% in the prior year.

Improving on-time delivery rates alone could have a profound impact on saving food from spoilage. In many cases, trucks arrive late to a store due to weather or traffic delays; however, when older trucks remain in a distributor’s fleet, maintenance and repair (M&R) problems, and other mechanical breakdowns can cause more serious delays, further damaging delicate produce that needs to arrive at the store on time.

When isolated down to an aging truck fleet, organizations aren’t just losing billions because of food shrink. These older trucks can further erode a grocer’s or food distributor’s bottom line when M&R costs and lease structures are factored in.

Older Truck Fleet Means More Spoilage and Additional Expenses

Distributors and transportation fleets have had their eye on improving truck M&R in their operations for years, especially since operational expenditures can significantly add up over time on aging and older trucks. These companies believe it’s such a big problem that M&R was the largest reason why fleets renewed, replaced, or upgraded their trucks according to the most recent industry benchmark report from Fleet Advantage.

M&R costs on a 2016 sleeper model-year for grocer distributors total $25,392, compared with $2,244 on a 2023 model-year truck, which provides a savings of $23,148. Across a fleet of 100 tractors, this amounts to $2.3 million.

These cost savings become even more significant when you look beyond the typical M&R expenses, including tires, tubes, liners, and valves, and include preventive maintenance measures, brakes, expendable items, exhaust systems, fuel systems, and more. The older the truck, the costlier the repairs become. What’s more, technician time becomes more expensive, too, because fleets end up requiring more technician time for service.

Lease Agreements for Your Truck Fleet

Aside from the specific costs involved with M&R on older trucks, distributors are also paying closer attention to the type of lease agreement they have (full service versus unbundled lease [UBL]), which can also dramatically impact the expenses involved with maintaining their fleet of trucks.

Distributors must realize that in long-term lease or ownership of the vehicles, they are locked into a higher “fixed” cost for M&R. In contrast, a shorter lease life cycle of two trucks using a UBL agreement equates to a sliding scale of M&R costs. At about 48 months, the costs reset to newer truck cents per mile (CPM). This means M&R costs are much lower over time and can help improve margins toward the bottom line.

Furthermore, M&R is “front loaded” in a full-service lease agreement. As an example, companies will pay a minimum of .07 CPM in year one versus .02 CPM when unbundling (national average for year one). All trucks come with a bumper-to-bumper two-year warranty that can be extended to four years. Expenses for year one include wearable items (tires, brakes) plus preventive maintenance. A shorter truck life cycle produces long-term savings beyond the first year. In a UBL, the CPM average equals 5.675 cents over five years. However, in a full-service lease agreement, fleets pay up to 9 CPM.

Innovative Programs Deliver Cash Infusions

Strategic fleet partners today can help offset financial losses from food shrink in other ways. Innovative programs are now available to help distributors with an infusion of cash while also upgrading trucks for future growth. These “sale-leaseback programs” allow distributors to select the assets from their fleet that are older models so that flexible lease partners can purchase those assets and lease them back to the distributor for an interim period until they place an order and transition to new equipment when available. Using a sale-leaseback program can help provide a cash infusion to offset food shrink losses and position a company for future growth.

Food shrink is an industry issue that has been around for years and will continue to be a challenge going forward; however, grocers and food distributors should expand solutions beyond inventory control and rethink their truck fleet life cycle strategies to improve on-time deliveries and reduce other operating expenses that can add up in costs.

Antonellis is senior vice president of fleet operations at Fleet Advantage.

The post Manage Your Truck Fleet to Reduce Food Waste appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

During 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, American consumers retained their pre-pandemic eating occasions at approximately the same frequency: early morning snack, breakfast, morning snack, lunch, afternoon snack, dinner, after-dinner snack, and late-night meal/snack, according to 2022 research from The Hartman Group. Because most countries isolated from each other and residents were primarily mandated to follow isolation and quarantining practices, those venues with high close-contact activities remained closed or went out of business through most of 2020. Direct person-to-person contacts were severely minimized, almost eliminated. As eat-at-home occasions surged during the pandemic, the number of consumers eating anywhere away from home decreased by about 50% from before the pandemic.

Further, because consumers mostly worked from home, they ate more with others (i.e., family, significant others) during those eating occasions when they would have eaten alone (i.e., for early morning snack, breakfast, morning snack, and lunch) prior to 2020. Consumers also learned to shop more efficiently, especially for dinners, snacks, and meals that they had purchased from food service pre-pandemic. Online shopping and delivery significantly grew in 2020 among all generations except for Gen Z who had often already used digital shopping. But the habit of same-day sourcing stayed. Because of shelter-at-home mandates, about 40% of U.S. consumers cooked at home more often than before the pandemic. They also focused on more expensive foods and ingredients with health and wellness qualities. The trade-up was justified by reduced spending on food and beverages outside the home, fewer options in recreational activities, and travel restrictions. Consumers also had more disposable income, and about 45% also declared that they would continue cooking at home after the pandemic.

But the cooking fun fizzled out quickly in the second half of 2020 as cooking fatigue set in. Consumers shifted their attention to new cooking methods, culinary skills, and authentic exotic flavors. They ate certain foods on other occasions not traditionally meant for those foods, similar to a “breakfast all day” situation.

Where Are We Now?

Consumer behavior toward COVID-19 around the world seemed to occur in common stages. In the beginning, consumers tried to strengthen their health and immunity through products. They then prepared for periods of quarantining, including hoarding supplies to help them manage those restrictions and any others that might be instituted.

More than two years after the pandemic started, about 48% of consumers remained extremely or very concerned about COVID-19 virus variants, declining from 52% in October 2021, according to research on grocery trends by FMI. By this time, however, other important sources of concern began to surface, such as food prices that were up 4% from early 2021 and supply chain issues that have not adequately addressed out-of-stock items. The consumer price index for all items rose to 8.5% for the year ending March 2022, with the food index rising to 8.8%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The number of employees (45%) who continued to work from home full- or part-time remained high, resulting in higher than pre-pandemic levels for at-home eating of mid-morning snack, lunch, and afternoon snack. But the food-at-home index rose 10% for the year ending March 2022, levying economic pressure on work-at-home employees.

In 2019, before the pandemic, eating away from home was highest among Millennials (34%), followed by Gen Z (27%), Gen X (26%), and Boomers (14%). During the first year of the pandemic in 2020, all generations showed a decline in their away-from-home eating occasions. But in late 2021, all generations showed a resurgence, almost to pre-pandemic levels, in away-from-home eating. Gen Z didn’t show much change in their away-from-home eating habits during the pandemic, likely because they are the first generation to grow up in a totally digital world and, for them, shopping and ordering online is a normal process.

Before the pandemic, consumers also were more likely to eat alone (48%) during early morning snack, breakfast, morning snack, and lunch times as they hurriedly prepared to go to work or were already at work. But in late 2021, all generations experienced a decrease in time eating alone except for the Boomers, whose eating-alone experiences remained unchanged at 52%. The Millennials and Gen Z experienced significant drops in time eating alone from pre-pandemic and pandemic levels, and Gen X during pandemic times, perhaps due to a rise in eating as a couple and as a family. Many in these generations also moved back in with family due to financial hardships, causing a decline in time eating alone.

Restaurant Dining

In 2021, approximately 24% of eating occasions took place in or were ordered from a restaurant (including takeout and delivery), surpassing even the 2019 levels. Millennials, Gen X, and parents significantly looked to restaurants to address their need for convenient and healthful meals, often enjoying those meals with others. It was also their way of demonstrating their support for restaurants that were struggling to remain open. In addition, although cooking fatigue quickly set in toward the latter part of 2020, consumers, when they chose to cook, seemed to use higher levels of preparation in 2021 than in 2019. On the other hand, consumption of ready-to-eat foods remained relatively stable during these times, while consumers engaging in little or moderate preparation of food (e.g., stove-top cooking or microwaving) declined. But the food-away-from-home index rose 6.9% over the year ending March 2022, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, causing a concern that eating away-from-home eating rates might stall or even decline.

When consumers sourced their food partially or totally from restaurants, it seemed that they intentionally planned to have leftovers. In 2021, about 66% of eating occasions involved all or some leftovers sourced from a restaurant, a number significantly higher than those in 2019 and 2020. For all generations except the Boomers, the number of eating occasions that involved leftovers significantly increased from 2019. From 2019 to 2021, there was a significant decline, from 51% to 34%, in the total number of leftover occasions that did not involve food sourced from a restaurant. It could be that, for consumers, having leftover food sourced from a restaurant (takeout or delivery) has developed into a norm. Besides, consumption of leftovers was a way for them to save and to reduce food waste.

Spending

Due to limited spending opportunities during the pandemic, Millennials, parents, and higher-income households were willing to pay more for food and beverages with higher quality products, more unique flavor, higher integrity in sourcing and processing, and other authentic characteristics that elevated their eating experiences. During those times, many declared that “money is no object” when choosing healthful foods to sustain them during the pandemic.

By mid-2021, food spending was almost equally split between retail and food service, just as it was pre-pandemic. Consumers increased food and beverage consumption more for late night meals/snacks and early morning snacks, perhaps due to their resumption of evening social activities. Although consumers reduced their participation in the other eating occasions, there was a significant increase in the average number of categories of food and beverages consumed in late 2021 as compared with 2019. At-home eating significantly declined and eating at work and at restaurants significantly increased, although not to pre-pandemic levels.

After two years of drastically altering their daily lives to survive the pandemic, consumers began to show signs of an eager return to pre-pandemic living conditions in 2022. But the consumer price indices of all items, especially at-home and away-from-home foods started to increase in 2020. To transition back sensibly to the lives they had led before the pandemic, approximately 86% of consumers began to change the behaviors they had developed during the pandemic, according to the FMI survey. They searched for grocery deals (59%), bought store brands (35%), substituted or changed their products of choice (58%), and changed where and how they bought groceries (48%).

According to the Expert Panel of the Forbes Business Council, consumers today are or will be better informed and more participatory, make purchase decisions “on-the-go,” use text messages via social media, demand consistent quality and volume of products, and prefer businesses that address ESG mandates (environmental, social and governance practices). They will also require businesses to be more customer-centric providing personalized and high-quality customer service. These characteristics will allow them to wade comfortably through the pandemic.

Food Habits in Other Countries

There do not seem to be studies on the eating behavior of consumers in other countries that report the same categories as those included by The Hartman Group and FMI, but there is a systematic review of longitudinal studies conducted by Gonzalez-Monroy and colleagues and published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health to compare eating behavior changes pre- and post-pandemic. Of the 826 studies these researchers initially gathered, 23 longitudinal studies passed their planned screening process. There were five studies from Italy, four from China, two each from Australia, Spain, United Kingdom, and Japan, and one each from the United States, India, Brazil, France, Poland, and Canada. Only adults older than 18 with no comorbidities were chosen, but they found specific subgroups of people with diabetes mellitus, young obese people, and others in vulnerable situations. The group was relatively young, with a mean age of 24.2 years.

The researchers confirmed the existence of changes in eating behavior during the pandemic. Because people stayed mostly at home during these times, the researchers reported that consumers cooked more and “showed a more frequent intake of food, an increased consumption of ultra-processed food and a higher caloric intake due to a more frequent alcohol consumption.” People in the specific subgroups also “appeared to increase the daily amount of food eaten” with a reported “significant increase in the amount and frequency of unhealthy food products.” Younger people showed “a lower adherence to healthy diets such as the Mediterranean Diet” “due to an increased intake of food, a preference for snacks and a lack of fruit and vegetables intake.” The researchers concluded that their systematic review showed “changes in eating behavior, which may have become less healthy during the pandemic.” They advocated the use of government-supported preventive interventions and social actions to promote healthy eating habits with a focus not only on food intake but also on alcohol consumption.

Will There Be More Changes in Food Habits?

Consumers worldwide changed their eating behavior during the pandemic. Some changed to strengthen themselves to ward off the coronavirus by eating what they considered healthful foods. Others changed the frequency of eating at different eating occasions. And others, probably due to anxiety and uncertainty, changed by overeating and increasing their alcohol consumption. Will these changes significantly and permanently alter our daily lifestyles? And, how will consumers consequently react?

Dr. Saulo is principal/owner of Food Science Interests, LLC, and is based in Hawaii. Reach her at aurora@hawaii.edu.

The post Worldwide Food Habits Under COVID-19 appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

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.

When the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the United States in early 2020, shutdowns and business curtailments hit supermarkets and other food sellers quickly, rippling back through the supply chain to food producers and packaging makers.

For Aaron Anker, who is CEO and owner of small granola company Grandy Organics in Hiram, Maine, it meant a major pivot early in the pandemic away from selling bulk foods to health food stores, including Whole Foods, and to universities, when these buyers closed their bulk granola bins. Bulk foods, which were half of his business, have since recovered, but the experience led the company to broaden its products, including selling smaller packages to retailers and subscription services such as Imperfect Foods, which sells the granola in its food boxes. “When bulk food sales shut temporarily, it forced us to diversify our businesses,” says Anker.

While the bulk business still dominates sales now, Anker continues to sell smaller packages to retailers. He also sells directly to consumers via the Grandy Organics website, and while this part of his business accounts for only a small percentage of his overall sales, it lets him test new packaging such as compostable bags, part of the consumer demand for more sustainable products and packaging that has grown during the pandemic.

Although a small company, Grandy Oats had to take on the challenges the pandemic laid onto larger companies and the food system as a whole. A large shift in demand from consumers, who early in the pandemic were stuck at home and hoarded items, including canned soup and pasta, led to shortages of some products and their packaging. Supply chains were disrupted as manufacturers scrambled to make enough products. Costs rose and international trade issues added to the pressure.

“There was a massive shift from commercial and institutional packaging to retail home use,” says Craig Robinson, global vice president of business development and innovation at PTI, a packaging and inspection company based in Holland, Ohio. “People stopped going to restaurants and large venues [during the pandemic], so the large five-gallon containers of food became unnecessary.” Demand for single-use and takeout containers flourished.

Retail Food Packaging Surges

At the same time, retail packaging surged as more consumers bought their food online instead of at grocery stores and got take-out containers from restaurants. E-commerce accelerated to 17% of grocery sales in the pandemic, compared with 3% of food purchases before it, and it could reach 20% of purchases in the next four years, according to consulting firm McKinsey & Company.

E-commerce changes the demand for packaging, which needs to be stronger, says David Feber, MBA, partner and head of McKinsey & Company’s global packaging practice in Detroit. Amazon has a 17-angle drop test, compared with five angles at retailers, he adds, and some package designs are sustainable to meet consumer demand. One example is detergent in a strong plastic bag within a box that is shipped as is, he says.

Robinson says that early in the pandemic, e-commerce websites such as Amazon Pantry sold flour wrapped in plastic and glass spaghetti bottles double bubble-wrapped and taped. He says a lot of that secondary and tertiary packaging will be replaced by more rugged packaging. “A lot of glass, because of the breakage and weight, doesn’t lend itself well to some of the e-commerce rigors,” he adds.

Efforts are underway to convert some of the heavier packaging to polyethylene terephthalate plastic, but this push is being hampered by the freeze that shut down large parts of Texas in February 2021; some PET resin producers are still not fully back online. This delay has caused resin prices to skyrocket.

Food producers and packagers also were affected by shutdowns of factories in China, which meant that glass and plastic bottles, as well as ingredients, were not coming to the United States. Efforts to produce smaller packages—for example, a half-gallon compared with a five-gallon drum, use more material and slow down production because it takes more time and packaging materials to make 10 smaller drums than it does to manufacture one large one. “There’s no buffer built into a lot of these companies because that’s just wasted resources,” Robinson says. “The production for consumers is running at capacity, and companies just can’t respond.”

The pandemic, the Texas freeze, factory shutdowns in China, supply interruptions, product shortages, and consumer demand changes all contributed at some level to a situation in the industry that ­nobody has ever seen before, Robinson says.

Innovation Delayed

With most companies focused on getting items through the supply chain to consumers, innovation in packaging, which is driven by advances in food, has hit pause to some degree, Feber says. “The focus shifted to making sure products were available for consumers,” he adds.

But packaging companies need to respond to changing consumer behaviors, especially among younger buyers who are seeking purpose, quality, and novelty, he says. This includes developing packages for e-commerce that don’t get damaged and that decrease transportation costs. In some cases, designing packages with different barrier properties, including those with gases between different layers of plastic packaging, is providing the thickness needed to preserve cheeses without adding much weight or bulk.

Feber cites three packaging trends that did accelerate during the pandemic: sustainability, e-commerce, and hygiene concerns. For packaging to be sustainable, it must reduce the carbon footprint, eliminate leakage, increase recyclability, and use recycled content. One example is a trend toward packaging food in flexible plastic pouches instead of heavier bottles. The food can be prepared using an extra retort or heating it until it is sterile.

Early in the pandemic, when little was known about how the virus was transmitted, demand for recycled packaging dropped significantly because no one wanted those packages going back into a retail environment, Robinson says. “We didn’t understand what was happening with transmission of the virus, so retail outlets didn’t want post-consumer materials,” he adds.

Smarter Food Packaging

Health concerns also led to wider use of antimicrobial coatings on paper and sulfur dioxide pads on blueberry containers, which can permeate gasses to help keep blueberries from decaying too quickly if there is a three-day delay to the retailer. Other health-related packaging turned up in single-use packets aimed at controlling the virus spread.

As supply chain issues lengthened the time from the manufacturer to the consumer, smarter packaging designed to control moisture and other factors that can spoil food also accelerated. Intelligent packaging is coming on board quickly, says Clair Sand, PhD, owner and founder of Packaging Technology and Research in Stillwater, Minn. “Consumers and retailers want to know if the product is still good because products are sitting out longer than before,” Dr. Sand says.

While intelligent packaging, which can communicate shelf life with a time and temperature indicator, is being tested mostly in Europe, she expects it to become popular in the United States as well. Intelligent elements such as sensors can be stamped onto current packaging, or the packaging can be made with integrated sensors that can change color as the pH changes or communicate its shelf life so retailers can rotate the stock in their store, she says. Such packaging technology already is used when shipping vaccines in cold packages, she says.

Dr. Sand says supply chain issues remain, so such technology will be needed going forward. She also expects more investment in packaging to resume.

To meet the sustainability demand from consumers, some food and beverage businesses are moving to reusable packaging, she says. Just Salad has a reusable polypropylene bowl program for takeout that can be returned and reused. Dr. Sand says it has higher thermal resistance than PET to withstand sterilization temperatures and reuse. Consumers participating in the program get discounts. Additionally, Starbucks is pushing a program to have reusable cups in place by 2025 in an effort to reduce waste. “Reusable packaging is really of interest now because of our supply chain issues,” Dr. Sand says. “With reuse, there is a material shift driven by the supply chain.”

Going through the pandemic and having to worry about food supplies, consumers have a healthier understanding of food sources and food sustainability, Dr. Sand says. “We came out of the pandemic with a much more mature understanding of sustainability, that it’s not just ‘Is this package sustainable?’ but making sure we reduce food waste,” she says. “It’s focusing on the whole food system.”

Packaging makers still are not free of the effects of the pandemic, which in many geographies has slowed before an expected surge in the fall. Inflation and the conflict in Ukraine also will play into packaging demand from consumers and supply issues. “The strife in Europe is going to start having an effect, and oil prices will affect the cost of raw materials for packaging,” Robinson says. “It’s one thing after another for the brands, and they’re trying to figure out where they should go and what they should do.”

The post How COVID-19 Changed the Food Packaging Industry appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Like many industries, the cottage food industry is experiencing the effects of COVID-19, as more and more people turn to home-based solutions to earn money or to learn or expand on a passion for cooking and baking. The cottage foods industry refers to individuals who use their home kitchens to make food, and then sell the products either out of their homes, online, or at farmers’ markets or other events. While not legal in every state, these home-based businesses continue to grow as many states push for more ways to deregulate the industry, a trend that began before the pandemic and is now further fueled by it.

In 2021 alone, 55 new bills were introduced across the U.S. seeking to loosen restrictions on cottage food, according to Emily M. Broad Leib, JD, clinical professor of law and faculty director of the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic and deputy director of the Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation in Boston. Among the restrictions these bills hope to ease are those directed at raising the annual sales caps on what cottage food producers can earn, increasing the types of foods that can be produced, and expanding the method of permitted sales (e.g., permit selling products online, by phone, through mail, via third-party delivery services).

Other legislative trends are laws permitting microenterprise kitchens, which means those who sell fully prepared meals from home-based kitchens.

Given the growing interest in, proliferation of, and expanding legislation for home-based products, what are the safety concerns with these products? In part, this question is answered by the level of risk they pose with regard to pathogens, and the subsequent risk of foodborne illness.

Pathogen Risk in Cottage Foods

Leib, along with law students Regina Paparo and Patrick Montgomery, describes cottage food as “value-added food products” made at home and offered for sale. These products include baked goods, jams, granola, popcorn, candy, coffee, tea, and other home-based goods. When a larger variety of foods or home-based businesses that offer fully prepared meals are included, other labels such as “home kitchens” or “microenterprise home kitchens” are sometimes used, they say.

To date, all 50 states allow the sale of cottage food in some form. While states vary in terms of the foods they allow to be produced from home for sale, most limit the products to those considered low risk. “Many cottage foods that can be made without a permit are non-temperature control for safety (non-TCS) foods that are categorically very low risk,” says Leib. For states that allow a broader set of foods, additional permitting, training, and inspection for home cooks is often required.

TCS is the newer term used for perishable foods or food products that require time and temperature to control safety. Both these factors affect the rate at which pathogens grow in foods.

Explaining the difference between low and higher risk foods, Peggy Kirk Hall, JD, director of The Ohio State University Agricultural and Resource Law Program in Marysville, says that processed foods are an example of higher risk foods in terms of safety. Processing, she says, can mean different things, from simply cooking something to make it edible (e.g., rhubarb jam), to drying, chopping, or repacking something (e.g., dried fruits), to—at the far end—heating and sealing to preserve over the long-term (e.g., salsa).

Although jams and jellies are examples of processed foods, Hall says that these are on the lower end of safety risk compared to products such as canned vegetables or salsas that have a higher pH and water activity value. Foods with a higher water activity value pose a higher safety risk, as they can support bacterial, yeast, or mold growth. “In most states, jams and jellies are fine, but in other states, like Ohio, no processed foods, like acidifying foods or those with a higher water activity level, fall under cottage food,” she adds.

The safest products are those that are not processed and don’t require time and temperature control to hold them, notably baked goods such as cakes, cupcakes, and cookies. One safety concern with these products, she says, would be any time and temperature-controlled ingredient added on top or inside, such as cream cheese or egg-based fillings.

The danger to individual and public health from these higher risk foods, in the form of foodborne illness, has not been shown in the research conducted by Leib and her colleagues, however. “The risk of foodborne illness varies with the type of cottage food we’re talking about, but our research has not revealed any reported outbreaks of foodborne illness associated with any products made in home kitchens,” says Leib.

Steven Mandernach, JD, executive director of the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO), speaks with more caution about the safety risk potential of cottage food products and the decreasing regulation across states. He thinks states with more restrictions, such as those that only allow non-TCS products for sale from home-based kitchens, have the better approach to safety versus states that allow, for example, the sale of home-cooked meals. “The trend is moving to regulate cottage food less and less, and this is becoming a bigger issue over time as we see a lot of traditional restrictions go away,” he says. In such an environment, he uses the term “buyer beware” to highlight the responsibility consumers face when buying these products.

Currently, he says that the most common point of sale for these products are local farmers’ markets, where he describes the cottage food industry as “the front porch to the farmers’ market.” Products that may find a market in grocery stores or restaurants will more likely be foods with less safety risk, such as baked goods.

Know Your State Laws

For those who want to start a cottage food industry, or for larger food processors who may want to help a home-based entrepreneur scale up their food production for a broader customer base, it is critical to know the state laws regarding the production of these foods. “It is really important to stay focused on your state first, and to understand what your state requires,” Hall says. “A lot of people go to the federal level first, but [cottage food industry regulations] are largely driven by state law.”

For example, in Minnesota, each person producing cottage food needs to be registered with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, says Carrie Rigdon, operations manager for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture Food and Feed Safety Division in St. Paul, and must complete a training session on issues within the cottage food law. “All cottage food producers in Minnesota need to complete a training session that describes the cottage food law, its requirements, and its limitations, as well as instructions on food safety, allergen control, and hygienic practices,” she adds.

In addition, the Minnesota law requires food to be labeled to include ingredients and declare any allergens, as well as to inform customers that the product has not been subject to state inspection. Rigdon also says that her agency investigates any complaints, including foodborne illness complaints, related to cottage food products.

Although state law governs nearly all regulation in the cottage food industry, Leib and her colleagues point out that states generally base their retail food safety regulations on a model code called the FDA Food Code, published by the FDA. “While the FDA Food Code model language does not allow for food made in a home kitchen to be offered for sale, the language does suggest that states allow non-TCS foods made in a home kitchen to be sold at religious events or charity bake sales,” she says, adding that “many states have broadened this provision of the FDA Food Code to allow these products to be sold in more diverse venues.”

A comprehensive list of cottage food laws by state, as of 2018, created by Harvard’s Food Law and Policy Clinic, can be found at chlpi.org.

The post How Safe Is the Cottage Food Industry? appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Handling coolants like those used in air conditioners, food refrigeration, and other systems can be a complex challenge. Workers specifically involved in the cold food supply chain industry must understand how to safely handle and store these dangerous chemicals, including those designated as A2L refrigerants.

New international agreements related to acceptable refrigerants have emerged due to recent regulatory changes to minimize ozone depletion and global warming. As companies phase out older refrigerants, they face new challenges and hazards from the replacement chemicals. For those working in the refrigeration and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning industries, building awareness of these hazards and developing best practices for their use and storage must be a priority.

What Does an A2L Designation Mean?

Every refrigerant is rated and labeled based on the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 34 designation and classification system. The rating uses a letter to indicate toxicity and a number to rate the flammability of each gas:

• Toxicity: A—Lower toxicity; B—Higher toxicity.
• Flammability: 1— no flame propagation; 2L—lower burning velocity equal to or less than 10 centimeters per second; 2— lower flammability; 3—higher flammability.

The main difference between A1 refrigerants and A2L refrigerants is the ability to propagate a flame. A2L refrigerants will burn, but with a lower velocity than A3 refrigerants, which can burn explosively when ignited. Practically speaking, even though A2L gases are difficult to ignite, precautions are necessary when handling, storing, and transporting these chemicals.

A2L Refrigerants Regulation in the United States

Flammable refrigerants are relatively new to the cold food supply chain in the United States, but they have been used safely in other parts of the world for years. Currently, there is no federal framework for regulating the use of refrigerants. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to implement Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) rules 20 and 21, these regulations were vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because it determined that the EPA did not have congressional authority.

Flammable refrigerants are relatively new to the cold food supply chain in the United States, but they have been used safely in other parts of the world for years.

This absence of federal regulations has driven some states to implement their own policies. As a result, regulatory requirements vary from state to state. Several organizations, such as the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute, ASHRAE, and the United States Department of Energy (DOE), are collaborating to explore potential hazards and recommend standards and codes. Federal policies and regulations are anticipated, with most people only questioning when they might be implemented; it’s not a question of “if,” only “when.”

Despite the lack of official federal regulations, multiple standards have been developed. The most widely adopted is ASHRAE’s Standard 15, published in 2019. The ASHRAE 15 requirements establish safeguards for life, health, and property through the recommendations for handling A2L refrigerants. They also address building code requirements for commercial and industrial applications using A2L refrigerants.

Working Considerations for Managing A2L Refrigerants

Even though there are no federal laws mandating specific processes for working with A2L refrigerants, it’s imperative to follow all best practices and recommendations to maintain a safe working environment. Companies must:

1. Ensure that all relief and purge vent piping is routed outdoors and away from all air intakes per local, state, national, and international codes.
2. Ensure that the area is well ventilated; if auxiliary ventilation is recommended, such as blowers or fans that disperse refrigerant vapors, ensure that it is rated for A2L refrigerants.
3. Employ oxygen testing equipment and leak detection monitors to identify potentially hazardous leaks and ensure that adequate oxygen is present.
4. Review the safety data sheet (SDS) when working with refrigerants; follow any recommendations and don the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gloves and eyewear.
5. Use equipment and tools certified for use with A2L flammable refrigerants.
6. Ensure that a dry powder class B fire extinguisher is accessible.
7. Check the area for obvious sources of sparks or flames before beginning work on equipment that uses A2L refrigerants.
8. Refrain from operating appliances that use open flames or igniters or have hot surfaces while servicing these appliances.
9. Take care to prevent damage to the appliance, and especially the refrigerant lines, if moving equipment containing A2L refrigerant.
10. Immediately ventilate the room, evacuate the area, notify those in the vicinity, and wait until the device reads a safe level before returning if the gas leak detector reports the presence of a leak.
11. Purge refrigerant lines with oxygen-free dry nitrogen before and after a repair.
12. Ensure the equipment is properly grounded if the system is in operation while replacing the refrigerant.
13. Follow all manufacturer’s recommendations when replacing the refrigerant.
14. Follow these steps during transportation of A2L refrigerant:

• Ensure that a dry powder class B fire extinguisher is available on the vehicle.
• Review all local, state, and federal regulations applicable in the jurisdiction of transport.
• Do not store refrigerant cylinders near heat or a source of ignition.
• Label all refrigerant cylinders following the guidelines in US 49 CFR part 172.417.
• Secure flammable refrigerant cylinders to prevent theft, tampering, or movement during transport.

ASHRAE 15 also outlines requirements for leak detection monitors. Clause 8.11.2.1 states:

Each refrigerating machinery room shall contain a detector, located in an area where refrigerant from a leak will concentrate, that actuates an alarm and mechanical ventilation in accordance with Section 8.11.4 at a value not greater than the corresponding TLV-TWA (or toxicity measure consistent therewith). The alarm shall annunciate visual and audible alarms inside the refrigerating machinery room and outside each entrance to the refrigerating machinery room.

When identifying an optimal refrigerant leak detection sensor, there are several factors to consider, including:

• Speed. To address leaks quickly and ensure a safe workplace, you need a detector that can quickly alert you of a leak so that your response can be just as quick.
• Ease of use. A good detector should be easy to use and to understand to prevent you from fumbling with it while hazardous conditions are present.
• Accuracy. Accuracy is essential, although it can be difficult to obtain when there is low oxygen, high humidity, and/or multiple gases in an environment. Identify a multi-gas sensor that works under all potential environmental conditions that may exist in your workplace.
• Total cost of ownership. Initial cost is important, but don’t forget to consider additional calibration or replacement costs when determining the total cost of ownership.

Reviewing these factors when looking for a gas leak detector helps ensure leaks are detected quickly and the workplace remains safe when an A2L refrigerant is being used.

Christensen is senior director of business development at NevadaNano.

The post How to Manage A2L Refrigerants to Ensure Food Safety and Food Worker Protection appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.