Contaminants Archives - Food Quality & Safety https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/category/analysis-and-testing/contaminants/ Farm to Fork Safety Thu, 11 Apr 2024 18:16:32 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.1 180523520 Consumer Reports Finds High Levels of Heavy Metals in Certain Lunchables Provided to Schools https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/consumer-reports-finds-high-levels-of-heavy-metals-in-certain-lunchables-provided-to-schools/ https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/consumer-reports-finds-high-levels-of-heavy-metals-in-certain-lunchables-provided-to-schools/#respond Thu, 11 Apr 2024 18:16:32 +0000 https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/?post_type=article&p=38506 The organization found that the food kits specifically manufactured for the national school lunch program contain relatively high levels of lead, cadmium, and sodium

The post Consumer Reports Finds High Levels of Heavy Metals in Certain Lunchables Provided to Schools appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>

Consumer Reports (CR) has called on USDA to remove certain Lunchables food kits from the National School Lunch Program due to high levels of sodium and heavy metals found in the products.

USDA currently allows two Lunchables kits—Turkey & Cheddar Cracker Stackers and Extra Cheesy Pizza—to be served to nearly 30 million children through the National School Lunch Program. To meet the program’s requirements, Kraft Heinz added more whole grains to the crackers and more protein to the Lunchable kits designed for schools, compared to store-bought versions.

CR recently compared the nutritional profiles of two Lunchable kits served in schools and found they have even higher levels of sodium than the kits consumers can buy in the store. CR also tested 12 store-bought versions of Lunchables and similar kits and found several contained relatively high levels of lead and cadmium. All but one also tested positive for phthalates, chemicals found in plastic that have been linked to reproductive problems, diabetes, and certain cancers.

CR tested store-bought Lunchables and similar kits from Armour LunchMakers, Good & Gather, Greenfield Natural Meat Co., and Oscar Mayer and found lead, cadmium, or both in all. Lead and cadmium can cause developmental problems in children over time, even in small amounts. While none of the kits exceeded any federal limit, five of the 12 tested products would expose someone to 50 percent or more of California’s maximum allowable level for lead or cadmium – currently the most protective standard.

The sodium levels in the store-bought lunch and snack kits CR tested ranged from 460 to 740 milligrams per serving, which is nearly a quarter to half of a child’s daily recommended limit for sodium. CR found that the sodium levels of the Lunchables made for schools, which had a larger portion of meat, are higher than in the store-bought versions. The school version of the Turkey and Cheddar Lunchable for schools contained 930 mg of sodium compared to 740 mg in the store-bought version. Similarly, the Lunchable pizza kit for schools had 700 mg of sodium compared to 510 mg in the store version.

The post Consumer Reports Finds High Levels of Heavy Metals in Certain Lunchables Provided to Schools appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>
https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/consumer-reports-finds-high-levels-of-heavy-metals-in-certain-lunchables-provided-to-schools/feed/ 0 38506
EPA Sets Limits on PFAS in Drinking Water https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/epa-sets-limits-on-pfas-in-drinking-water/ https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/epa-sets-limits-on-pfas-in-drinking-water/#respond Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:51:45 +0000 https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/?post_type=article&p=38501 Public water systems will have five years to comply with the new regulation.

The post EPA Sets Limits on PFAS in Drinking Water appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>

On April 10, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented first-ever restrictions on the perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances in drinking water, a pivotal move in shielding public well-being from waterborne hazards.

EPA’s cap target six PFAS compounds, including two of the oldest and most widespread PFAS—PFOA and PFOS—at 4 parts per trillion. The rule also sets limits of 10 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA (also known as GenX), thereby establishing a benchmark for the most stringent health thresholds concerning these impurities in potable water.

Under the new rule, public water systems are required to monitor these PFAS compounds, with an initial monitoring period of three years, concluding by 2027, followed by ongoing compliance checks. Additionally, these systems must disclose information regarding the levels of these PFAS in drinking water, commencing in 2027. Further, public water systems are allotted five years—until 2029—to implement remedies aimed at decreasing PFAS levels if monitoring reveals that these levels exceed the designated maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).

Nicknamed “forever chemicals” because of their resistance to be degraded or destroyed, PFAS have been associated with several health issues, including high cholesterol, cancer, and thyroid disease. “There’s no doubt that these chemicals have been important for certain industries and consumer uses, but there’s also no doubt that many of these chemicals can be harmful to our health and our environment,” Michael Regan, EPA Administrator, said on a call to media this week.

Starting in 2029, public water systems found to have PFAS concentrations in drinking water surpassing the MCLs must take measures to reduce these levels and notify the public of the violation.

In an effort to help with enforcement, EPA announced it would make $1 billion in funding available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to help states implement PFAS testing and treatment at public water systems and to help owners of private wells address PFAS contamination.

The post EPA Sets Limits on PFAS in Drinking Water appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>
https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/epa-sets-limits-on-pfas-in-drinking-water/feed/ 0 38501
FDA Issues Import Alert for Food Products with Chemical Contaminants, Including PFAS https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/fda-issues-import-alert-for-food-products-with-chemical-contaminants-including-pfas/ https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/fda-issues-import-alert-for-food-products-with-chemical-contaminants-including-pfas/#respond Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:08:03 +0000 https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/?post_type=article&p=38482 The agency says the alert would help prevent entry of human food containing a broad range of chemicals into the U.S.

The post FDA Issues Import Alert for Food Products with Chemical Contaminants, Including PFAS appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>

This week, FDA issued an import alert for human food products with detectable levels of chemical contaminants that may present a safety concern to human health. The Import Alert 99-48, Detention without Physical Examination of Foods Due to Chemical Contamination, gives the agency the ability to help prevent entry of human food products into the U.S. if they are found to be contaminated with a broad range of human-made chemicals including benzene, dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), among others.

PFAS are a diverse group of thousands of chemicals used in many different types of products. PFAS in the environment can enter the food supply through plants and animals grown, raised, or processed in contaminated areas. It is also possible for very small amounts of certain PFAS to enter foods through food packaging, processing, and cookware.

In 2022, FDA initiated a targeted survey for PFAS in 81 seafood samples collected at retail and determined that the estimated exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a type of PFAS, from certain samples of canned clams from China is likely a health concern. The 81 samples in the survey consisted of clams, cod, crab, pollock, salmon, shrimp, tuna, and tilapia, most of which were imported to the U.S. The agency plans an additional targeted survey of molluscan shellfish this year, and this new import alert could be used to refuse entry of foods such as seafood contaminated with PFAS.

Specific firms and their food products found with levels of chemical contaminants that may pose a risk to human health may be subject to detention without physical examination under the new alert.

The post FDA Issues Import Alert for Food Products with Chemical Contaminants, Including PFAS appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>
https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/fda-issues-import-alert-for-food-products-with-chemical-contaminants-including-pfas/feed/ 0 38482
Patient Count Linked to Lead Poisoning from Applesauce Increases https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/lead-poisoning-cases-linked-to-applesauce-increases/ https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/lead-poisoning-cases-linked-to-applesauce-increases/#respond Thu, 28 Dec 2023 17:31:53 +0000 https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/?post_type=article&p=38350 FDA and CDC continue the investigation into how lead was added to the product.

The post Patient Count Linked to Lead Poisoning from Applesauce Increases appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>

FDA is providing additional context about the amount of lead in testing results from cinnamon used as an ingredient in the recalled applesauce pouches and in testing results of the recalled pouches. As of December 26, the agency has received 82 confirmed complaints/reports of adverse events potentially linked to recalled product, up from 69 complaints as of December 19. Those impacted are between zero and 53 years of age.

In an interview published on December 14 in Politico, Jim Jones, FDA’s deputy commissioner for human foods, said the agency is still investigating the lead-tainted cinnamon applesauce pouches, but adds that, “so far all of the signals we’re getting lead to an intentional act on the part of someone in the supply chain and we’re trying to sort of figure that out.” The agency’s investigation into how the lead was added is ongoing, and it has not given a conclusion as of December 28.

FDA tested samples of the cinnamon collected from the Austrofoods manufacturing facility in Ecuador and used in the recalled applesauce pouches. The highest result was 5,110 parts per million (ppm), which was more than 2,000 times the level of 2.5 ppm being considered for bark spices.

In addition, the testing results previously reported for the sample of recalled WanaBana cinnamon apple puree pouch collected from Dollar Tree had a lead concentration of 2.18 ppm which, for context, is more than 200 times greater than the action level of 0.01 ppm that the FDA has proposed in draft guidance for fruit purees and similar products intended for babies and young children.

FDA and state partners have tested at least 136 samples of non-cinnamon containing products and all have been negative for elevated lead levels. Of those, 11 are the Smoothie Mango Passionfruit Banana flavor of WanaBana purees, three of these samples are of the same lot that ARCSA originally reported as positive for lead, and FDA results were negative for elevated lead for all samples. In addition, FDA collected a sample of WanaBana Organic Mango Puree at import and sample results are negative for elevated levels of lead.

The CDC is working in collaboration with state and local health department to investigate the situation as well. CDC’s case definition for state partners includes a blood lead level of 3.5 µg/dL or higher measured within 3 months after consuming a recalled WanaBana, Schnucks, or Weis brand fruit puree product after November 2022.  As of December 22, CDC has received reports of 73 confirmed cases, 157 probable cases, and 21 suspected cases for a total of 251 cases from 34 different states through their reporting structure. CDC and FDA have different data sources, so the counts reported by each agency will not directly correspond.

 

The post Patient Count Linked to Lead Poisoning from Applesauce Increases appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>
https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/lead-poisoning-cases-linked-to-applesauce-increases/feed/ 0 38350
Study: High Levels of Heavy Metals Found in Select Chocolate Products https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/study-high-levels-of-heavy-metals-found-in-select-chocolate-products/ https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/study-high-levels-of-heavy-metals-found-in-select-chocolate-products/#respond Thu, 02 Nov 2023 19:26:18 +0000 https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/?post_type=article&p=38271 Consumer Reports finds high levels of cadmium, lead in some dark chocolates

The post Study: High Levels of Heavy Metals Found in Select Chocolate Products appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>

An October 2023 report released by Consumer Reports found high levels of cadmium and lead in select dark chocolate products, included those from Hershey’s, Trader Joe’s, and other popular brands. The group’s scientists tested 28 dark chocolate bars for heavy metals, and detected cadmium and lead in all of them.

The findings revealed that eating just one ounce from any of the 23 bars tested would put an adult over the limit for both heavy metals that public health experts deem acceptable.

Considering that cadmium and lead are linked to a host of health problems in both children and adults, the study results are worrisome to many. “The metals can cause developmental problems, affect brain development, and lead to lower IQ,” says Tunde Akinleye, a food safety researcher with Consumer Reports who led the study. “Frequent exposure to lead in adults, for example, can lead to nervous system problems, hypertension, immune system suppression, kidney damage, and reproductive issues.”

Earlier this year, the National Confectioners Association released results of a three-year study of the sources of lead and cadmium in cocoa and chocolate and how levels may be reduced in the future, though they believe the current levels aren’t dangerous. “Chocolate and cocoa are safe to eat and can be enjoyed as treats as they have been for centuries,” Christopher Gindlesperger, senior vice president of public affairs and communications at NCA, tells Food Quality & Safety. “Food safety and product quality remain our highest priorities and we remain dedicated to being transparent and socially responsible.”

Consumer Reports identified and prioritized a list of recommended cadmium and lead reduction measures for the industry to consider implementing, including sourcing cocoa beans from areas with lower levels of the metals.

The post Study: High Levels of Heavy Metals Found in Select Chocolate Products appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>
https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/study-high-levels-of-heavy-metals-found-in-select-chocolate-products/feed/ 0 38271
Smoke from Wildfires Can Damage Crops, Impact Food Quality https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/smoke-from-wildfires-can-damage-crops-impact-food-quality/ https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/smoke-from-wildfires-can-damage-crops-impact-food-quality/#respond Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:02:35 +0000 https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/?post_type=article&p=38242 Wildfires and their smoke can impact agricultural production for years—and even decades—after a major burn.

The post Smoke from Wildfires Can Damage Crops, Impact Food Quality appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>

Eastern Oregon isn’t known as an agricultural capital, but the area contains plenty of wheat farms and farmers looking to keep their crops and families supported while producing export-quality wheat. It may not be the verdant west of the state, across the Cascade Mountains, but eastern Oregon has farmers who are just as serious about their work as anywhere else.

In 2018, an especially aggressive wildfire season hit eastern Oregon, beginning in midsummer. “It burned up a lot of range lands in areas that were in crop production, primarily dryland wheat,” says Jacob E. Powell, a professor of crop and soil science in the college of agricultural sciences at Oregon State University in Corvallis. “They had one really bad fire that was 80,000 acres, and then they had some additional fires; about 120,000 acres burned in the region.” He adds that much of that was dryland planted in wheat that was fully matured, and farmers were preparing to start harvesting when these wildfires occurred.

Even for a smaller farming region such as eastern Oregon, the fires started a cascade of consequences. The 2018 fires, Powell says, resulted in “a lot less wheat being shipped down the river.” This had a chain of secondary effects. He says that grain elevators in his area of Oregon saw a 50% to 60% reduction in the number of wheat bushels they received following the fires. “Obviously the producers lost income,” he adds. “A lot of them had crop insurance, which helped cover that. But suddenly there was less work for the local wheat co-op, and all the people who are involved with getting the grain into the elevators. Then there’s the transportation chain of people—in my area, a lot of it is trucked to local elevators, and then it’s put on the Columbia River and barged to Portland. From there, it’s sent primarily to exporters overseas. So [the fire damage] had major implications for everybody involved in that whole supply chain. Suddenly there was less work for them to do.”

The wave of wildfires across the western United States has been impossible to ignore for several years, and scholars have warned that even as the annual fires may burn through and limit their own potential fuel, climate-driven factors may still create circumstances favorable to major fires in the future.

Beyond the inarguable human tragedy of these fires, there is a second crisis these events bring—that of the farmers, and the damage done to their farms. Eastern Oregon was far from the epicenter of recent wildfires. Carlos F. Gaitan Ospina is CEO of San Francisco’s Benchmark Labs, which uses AI technology to predict and prepare for severe weather events, among other disasters. He calls California’s wildfires “catastrophic for the agricultural sector and the West Coast. [And] while California’s Central Valley has seen limited impact, vineyards, specialty crops, and grazing lands from the Sierras to San Diego have been severely impacted.”

The potential damage from wildfires varies widely, say Gus Plamann and Joy Youwakim, agronomists at Biome Makers, a Sacramento, Calif.-based agricultural technology company. “Wildfires can inflict indirect damage to crops and the environment and direct destruction to structures and maintenance expenditures,” Plamann and Youwakim wrote in an email to Food Quality & Safety. “The long-term consequences of these damages can vary depending on the severity of the fire and the resilience of the impacted crops and ecosystems. For example, areas of high-severity fire can impact water quality and soil erosion.”

The Smoke Factor

Wildfires can damage crops the most direct way—by burning them up, or by reshaping the soil of the region. Another troubling factor about wildfires, however, is how smoke and pollutants can easily travel hundreds of miles from their sources.

Smoke from wildfires is a significantly damaging factor for a variety of reasons: It deposits potentially toxic ash into crops, it can block the sun to prevent healthy growing, and—perhaps, most expensively—smoke can pollute or otherwise damage crops grown for their flavor. This problem is most acute for wine-grape and cannabis growers, say Plamann and Youwakim, because those two products are sold for the complexity and subtlety of their taste profiles. Cannabis is also an especially difficult crop to protect from smoke because its resin is very sticky, making it a magnet for airborne ash and particulate.

Smoke is also a problem for hops growers, some of which Powell encounters in eastern Oregon. “The damage to flavor seems potentially extremely expensive if you get a whole crop of hops that sudden suddenly no longer tastes like hops, but tastes like smoke,” he says. “Nobody is going to want to buy or brew with that.” And the worst factor for smoke, Powell says, is how far it travels, how easily it moves, and how completely unpredictable its outcomes are. “You’re going to have a fire several hundred miles away—within a 200-mile radius, basically—and it can still mess up your harvest.”

Mike Thornton, PhD, is a professor of plant sciences at the University of Idaho in Boise, where he has researched the effects of wildfire smoke on potato crops. He says that smoke’s effects on plants are very complex. “It is really hard to separate out what the smoke itself is doing to crop productivity due to the fact that the growing seasons where we have the highest smoke exposure tend to be very dry and hot,” he says. “Those are the conditions that promote forest and range fires. We know from previous research that high temperatures are not good for the productivity of some, but not all, crop plants. Potatoes are one of the crops very sensitive to high temperatures.”

Different crops are hit by wildfires in different ways. Some are burned to the ground. Powell says that in his region, there were major concerns about soil and water erosion because, in wheat field after a fire, there is nothing left. “It’s a moonscape,” he adds. In this case, Powell says farmers had to plant an emergency covering crop to maintain soil moisture throughout the winter; however, this is a separate concern from farmers facing smoke or pollution damage.

Gaitan Ospina also stresses the fact that the impact of fire varies from crop to crop. “The time from seed to harvest for lettuce or strawberries is very different than for almonds or grapes, so for many farmers, if they go back to the same crop that they had before being affected by a wildfire, it could take five, 10, or more years to go back to the pre-wildfire conditions and income.”

What Can Farmers Do?

In all cases, there are very few actions farmers can take to protect their crops from wildfires. Powell is aware of a number of products that offer a barrier film growers can spray onto their crops to protect them from smoke damage, but it’s expensive and needs to be applied early in the fire.

Beyond that, most attempts to mitigate damage are simply efforts to avoid fires. “One step agricultural producers are taking is implementing targeted grazing to reduce invasive weeds, which may exacerbate fire length and intensity during a wildfire,” say Plamann and Youwakim. “Historically, indigenous communities, like the Karuk Tribe in Northern California, have used controlled burning as a land management tool to reduce the risk of wildfires in the future. Controlled burning can reduce fuel accumulation and promote the growth of new vegetation, often native to the region. Also, the recovery of soil organic matter is essential for soil quality restoration after a wildfire.”

Unfortunately, this has placed the need to protect against fires at odds with popular farming practices. Between 2000 and 2010, says Dr. Powell, prior to the uptick in wildfires, farmers had started to switch to a no-till approach in which they would leave crop residue in the ground to help increase yields. No-till farming was a boon for crop yields, but it also left fields full of wildfire fuel. “No-till farming is doing wonders for the soil and the bottom line for most farmers,” Powell says. “But unfortunately with these fires now, the fire burns through a field that was in crop and then hits the field that was fallow—and basically has an effective fuel.”

These are problems no farmer can afford to leave unresolved, says Jessica Todd, Sioux-City, ND-based underwriting manager for Agribusiness Risk Underwriters. With each fire, it becomes harder and harder for farmers to insure their farms and crops. “What’s happening in the insurance market is that most of these farmers are insured with standard market insurance companies,” Todd says. “They’re insured for really minimal premiums and deductible structures, so it’s something in their business plan that’s affordable. [But] it’s happening right now that some of these [major national insurance] carriers are getting out of agriculture—or getting out of areas that have a potential for a wildfire exposure because of the risk, and because they’ve taken so many losses in the last few years.”

Many farmers are discovering the companies that used to insure their crops and farms simply don’t offer that coverage anymore, and they are now stuck going from company to company trying to figure out who will still insure such high-risk properties. While Agribusiness Risk Underwriters handles insurance for high-risk business and locations, Todd stresses that the price for these products has increased significantly, as much as multiple times what farmers were previously paying. Those who can get that kind of insurance are the lucky ones. The rest won’t be able to find insurance at all.

Gaitan Ospina says that after recouping damages from wildfires, facing the rising cost of insurance is a major challenge for farmers. “In many areas, premiums have jumped [fivefold] in the last few years.”

“There are definitely farmers who aren’t going to be able to find coverage,” Todd says. “Even when you look into the excess and surplus [insurance], underwriting companies like us still have to see if it’s a suitable risk—if they have a fire prevention or a fire mitigation plan in place, if they’re keeping proper distance of brush from the buildings, if they have water trucks on site. We still have to look at all of that and actually underwrite the account. And there are times where, just because they’ve had so much wildfire history in that particular area, there isn’t anything that can be done to make it a suitable risk.”

In California, for example, farmers have the California FAIR Plan, a last-resort option created in 1968 to provide insurance to those who cannot find coverage anywhere else; however, Todd notes that the coverage is basic and limited to specific perils—so one can specifically buy wildfire insurance, or flood insurance, but not an expanded package of insurance for the full property. FAIR insurance itself was intended to offer temporary stopgap solutions; it is the opposite of the stable and dependable insurance plans farmers have relied upon so far.

The problem of uninsurable properties is one of many created by the emergence of the modern wildfire threat. For many, that means that the priority remains preventing and fighting the fires themselves. Powell has seen producers building strategic fuel-breaks into their landscapes to prevent fires from travelling, while also investing in firefighting equipment. “They don’t necessarily have huge fire trucks, but they at least have a 100-gallon tank on their truck with a pump that they know how to use,” he says. “If a small fire starts, they can at least put it out fairly quickly.”

Little tools like this work better in conjunction with others: Powell is enthusiastic about programs in Oregon and Idaho called Rangeland Fire Protection Associations (RFPAs), which help train farmers to fight fires. “They go through an abbreviated firefighting training, like professional wildland firefighters go through. They get the same radios that the local Oregon department of forestry uses, and so they’re able to communicate better with other firefighting agencies. It also allows them to purchase surplus fire equipment at a reduced rate.”

Powell notes that the logo of Rangeland Fire Prevention in Oregon includes the motto “Neighbors Helping Neighbors Fight Fires,” and he thinks this unified approach helps farming communities defend themselves far more effectively than if each farmer had to protect their farm alone. “If your neighbors are trained up to help you,” he says, “it can go a long way. When there’s a wildfire burning on your property, your neighbors are going to be the first ones there to help you, well before anybody else arrives.”

The post Smoke from Wildfires Can Damage Crops, Impact Food Quality appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>
https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/smoke-from-wildfires-can-damage-crops-impact-food-quality/feed/ 0 38242
How to Develop Safe Alternative Proteins https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/how-to-develop-safe-alternative-proteins/ https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/how-to-develop-safe-alternative-proteins/#respond Mon, 16 Oct 2023 16:03:38 +0000 https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/?post_type=article&p=38232 Novel food products can face food safety issues such as contaminants and food fraud.

The post How to Develop Safe Alternative Proteins appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>

In recent years, concerns about the sustainability of certain farming methods, especially those involved in meat production, have caused some topics in food manufacturing to rise the political agenda. This has triggered a range of research projects, including the development of plant-derived and lab-grown meat alternatives, that have the potential to help deliver sustainable, secure, and reliable sources of protein for human consumption. As a result, the global market for alternative proteins is projected to reach $36.6 billion by 2029, according to a 2023 report published by Meticulous Research. To maximize this potential, alternative protein producers will need to rigorously test their products to provide proof of their integrity.

The Need for Testing

Novel products of all types can face various challenges, including food safety issues. For alternative proteins, for example, the demand in some markets has soared while supply has fallen short, which has led to food fraud in some cases. This is potentially dangerous, as wheat or soya, which are allergens, can be used as substitutes for more expensive plant-based proteins. Other types of common food fraud include concealment, counterfeiting, and mislabeling. All have the potential to weaken customer acceptance, which could constrain market growth and hamper the development of sustainable food sources.

Chris Elliott, PhD, a professor in the School of Biological Sciences and founder of the Institute for Global Food Security at Queens University in Belfast, Northern Ireland, says that testing isn’t just needed to spot deliberate substitution. “There could be a lot of things that shouldn’t be there, things that have been added by accident. Therefore, we need to be testing to look at the overall integrity of the global food supply chain,” he says.

“Safety scientists like me need access to reliable analytical methods to confirm our work to the regulators,” adds Ben Smith, PhD, director of the Future Ready Food Safety Hub at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. “Also, all things have their thresholds for effect, and we need to understand whether these materials could be problematic. Most of them are endogenous (found in the body), but there is still a need for testing.”

Building Acceptance

Devin Peterson, PhD, distinguished professor of food, agricultural, and environmental sciences and director of the Flavor Research and Education Center at The Ohio State University in Columbus, believes there must be a fundamental understanding of what’s required to meet consumer expectations; it’s not all about safety and compliance. “We often think about consumers in terms of how much they like something, but behaviors towards food go beyond simple ‘liking.’ We also need to consider what people want, which can drive motivation,” he says. “A whole new set of ingredients are involved when looking at plant-based products, which need to be explained.”

He adds that plant proteins can generate aroma and flavor compounds, which all need to be understood. This is especially important, as taste remains a key barrier to the widespread uptake of alternative proteins. In recent years, food manufacturers have significantly improved the taste, texture, and affordability of meat alternatives, but many consumers believe there is still a distinguishable deficit.

Some people are increasingly concerned about veterinary drugs, hormones, and other potential contaminants in meat-based products, however, so they may be more inclined to purchase alternative protein-based options. Proving this, and ensuring a good eating experience, are key to unlocking the alternative meat sector’s growth.

The Future of Food Safety for Alternative Proteins

Testing for contaminants in food products isn’t easy, says Dr. Elliott. “It is quite complicated, because the people who conduct the fraud are generally pretty smart, and they know the testing methods people use, so they try to find ways to get around them.”

Dr. Smith sees a clear need for more sophisticated test methods. “We’ve tried to break things down into individual materials and look at things from a component perspective. Many of the tests and systems we have in place aren’t designed to test complex materials,” he says.

“I think there are a lot of opportunities for many types of new technologies,” he adds. “One of the important things we must realize, particularly in this innovation space, is that not one technology necessarily outbids another. There are pluses and minuses for different types of reasons.”

Targeted analysis for food authenticity testing is often used for detecting substitution, dilution, and mislabeling; however, quantifying compounds in food matrices requires sensitive, reliable, and repeatable analytical approaches.

Ensuring Quality and Safety

The testing of alternative proteins has two clear goals: to enhance product quality during development and to ensure consumer safety during production. Each plays a central role in the commercialization and eventual acceptance of alternative protein-based foods, and both need to be carefully regulated. “In the past, we’ve typically seen regulation lagging behind innovation; however, we’re seeing rapid innovation in the cultivated meat sector, with methodologies changing monthly,” says Dr. Smith. “Labs are doing a lot of different things to bring a product to market, but from a regulatory perspective, that’s always a challenge because we want to know what’s being put on the table.”

The Right Balance

Balancing innovation with integrity in the alternative protein space is key. While advancements in this field hold immense potential, it is crucial to prioritize food safety, authenticity, customer acceptance, and nutrition to build a sustainable and trustworthy food system. As the world navigates the complexities of the future of food, embracing innovation with a keen eye on integrity will pave the way for a healthier and more sustainable future for generations to come.

Also, faced with an increased demand for—and heightened regulatory scrutiny of—alternative protein-based foods, labs need trusted analytical methods to help them further improve product quality, consistency, palatability, safety, and nutritional value.


Dr. De Leoz is global food segment director at Agilent Technologies and has nearly 20 years of experience in the food industry as a bench chemist, graduate researcher, and mass spectrometry specialist. Reach her at lorna.deleoz@agilent.com.

The post How to Develop Safe Alternative Proteins appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>
https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/how-to-develop-safe-alternative-proteins/feed/ 0 38232
Rapid Testing for Contaminants in Raw Food Materials https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/rapid-testing-for-contaminants-in-raw-food-materials/ https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/rapid-testing-for-contaminants-in-raw-food-materials/#respond Fri, 08 Sep 2023 14:56:37 +0000 https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/?post_type=article&p=38170 On-site testing technologies can produce precise results in minutes.

The post Rapid Testing for Contaminants in Raw Food Materials appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>

To ensure that only the best and safest food products reach consumers, processors constantly test and monitor contaminants in their inbound raw materials, which is not an easy feat. That’s where high-sensitivity analysis and accurate data comes in, allowing decision makers at the quality management level to effectively screen raw materials to determine their suitability for use, and to ensure product value, safety, and compliance.

Proper screening ensures that contaminants don’t exceed the maximum residue levels (MRLs) in the food product. Compliance risk aside, food processors want to put their brand name on only the highest quality food products. Brand reputation suffers when a product’s quality does not line up with the brand promise stamped on its packaging. For example, “all natural” or “100% organic” claims may invite further scrutiny if it’s revealed the food contains higher levels of contaminants. The impact can be far reaching, leading to media attention, a loss of consumer trust, recalls, and costly litigation.

A New Way to Test for Residue

Processors know that early detection of contaminants, such as glyphosate and mycotoxins, within inbound products saves time and money; however, such testing historically requires sending samples to a qualified lab for analysis by liquid chromatography (LC), sometimes coupled with advanced detection using mass spectrometry (MS). It can take days or even weeks for the test results to come back from the lab.

Imagine this all-too-common experience for food and agricultural facilities: A supplier pulls up with a truckload of grain. You collect and send a sample of the grain off to a lab to be screened for mycotoxin or pesticide residue. In the meantime, the grain sits in storage, risking cross-contamination with other raw materials. While waiting for laboratory results to arrive, you are left wondering how much time—and money—you could save if you could screen the raw materials for contaminants before the supplier unloads or leaves the premises?

The good news is that on-site testing technologies are available that can produce precise results in minutes, not days or weeks. The aim of both a laboratory-based analytical technique, such as high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and a rapid test is the same: to measure whether a sample contains certain compounds. That’s where the similarities end. LC requires an accomplished laboratory technician to extract the target analyte from the sample and perform the analysis with an organic solvent according to a well-documented standard operating protocol (SOP).

Everyone is familiar with lateral test strips, the same format used with COVID-19 diagnostic test kits. Quantitative lateral flow strip tests can, in a matter of minutes, alert test users to the presence or absence of a specific target, whether it is SARS-CoV-2, mycotoxins, or glyphosate. Further, unlike LC, rapid test strips employ a water-based extraction method that any company owner, quality control professional, USDA or FDA licensed inspectors, or factory worker can perform on site. Administering on-site testing with lateral test strips is less costly and increasingly more sustainable given that samples never leave the site, which eliminates the packaging, shipping costs, and transportation emissions necessary to send samples to a lab for analysis.

The benefits of rapid on-site testing are that data-informed decisions can be made in the moment, allowing time for action and remediation. Processors can decide sooner whether to use a particular batch of raw materials or to source a substitute or replacement ingredient instead. Quality control managers can make specific plans for each raw material based on its quality. Operational efficiency improves and quality teams can have greater confidence in the quality of the inbound materials faster, eliminating the worry and uncertainty that attends untested inbound raw materials until they are confirmed clean. All of these are reasons to turn to rapid test methods at the food manufacturing facility.

Out of the Lab

Still, as with any new form of technology, some will remain hesitant or skeptical about implementing a new, unfamiliar way of testing. After all, results so important to their business and human safety cannot be left to chance.

Continuous learning is a proactive way to ensure ongoing success with any monitoring tool. Implementing rapid test methods outside of the lab is no exception. Annual retraining and simple procedure posters hung around the facility with QR codes that lead straight to full guides or step-by-step videos online help to improve the confidence of test operators and help to ensure consistent, accurate data collection. Scientist or not, the user’s confidence in their ability to perform the test will make all the difference in day-to-day work satisfaction, as well as obtaining sensitive, and accurate results.

On-site testing is a first line of defense in keeping low quality raw materials out of the facility and out of the global food chain. Access to rapid strip test screening kits has the potential to change the way raw materials are cultivated, harvested, and processed. Being able to customize a cultivation plan or harvest crops in a way that minimizes worker exposure to contaminants or microfungal toxins enables producers to make data-informed decisions that impact how they perform their jobs. Ultimately, the highest value is to protect consumers by ensuring food is free of contamination. Rapid test technologies mitigate risk much earlier in the value chain, which bolster preventive strategies and offers a more holistic approach to food safety.

Jackson is VICAM market development manager for Waters Corporation. Reach her at patricia_jackson@waters.com.

 

The post Rapid Testing for Contaminants in Raw Food Materials appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>
https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/rapid-testing-for-contaminants-in-raw-food-materials/feed/ 0 38170
The Rise of Mycotoxins in Everyday Foods https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/the-rise-of-mycotoxins-in-everyday-foods/ https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/the-rise-of-mycotoxins-in-everyday-foods/#respond Fri, 25 Aug 2023 01:31:21 +0000 https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/?post_type=article&p=38157 Climate changes and heightened demand for plant-based products are contributing to the overall increase of this toxin.

The post The Rise of Mycotoxins in Everyday Foods appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>

Mycotoxins are on the rise. These toxins can be found in everyday foods such as corn, wheat, soy, peas, and peanuts, and can cause acute and long-term health effects if ingested. Additionally, they are heat tolerant, meaning they can be present in foods that are processed and prepared under conventional temperatures (80°-121°C), affecting the finished product.

Mycotoxins impact a number of commodities including grains, produce, spices, alcohol, and coffee. They can even reach dairy products through secondary exposure from animal feed. Further, these toxins are resistant to decomposition and are not removed by traditional food safety measures such as cooking, washing, or sanitizing.

Not only do they impact humans, but they also put many pets at risk, as they affect core pet food ingredients. Testing pet food is especially important, because pets typically eat the same food every day, and their food is traditionally stored at room temperature and served at the floor level.

There are six major types of mycotoxins that are consistently detected in food and pose safety risks: aflatoxins, trichothecenes, zearalenone, fumonisins, ochratoxins, and patulin. The side effects vary from food poisoning to cancers and long-term health issues.

Why Are Mycotoxins on the Rise?

Rain creates a damp environment for mycotoxin growth. A recent study, published in late 2022 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (doi: 10.1029/2022GL099955), concludes that climate change is causing more intense rainfall across the country. In tandem, an uptick in consumer demand has trickled down to manufacturers and farmers who, in adapting to deliver more sourcing materials, are extending the growing season. Farmers cannot wait for the dry conditions to balance the consumer demand, which has exacerbated the problem. This has created a perfect storm in which mycotoxins can thrive, resulting in more food safety concerns across the supply chain.

Dietary Habits Have a Direct Impact

Food is a circular economy: Consumer demand and dietary habits drive agriculture production, and so on. Dietary shifts toward alternative meats and vegan-based meals increase demand for raw materials such as soy and pea protein. A March 2022 report from Acosta, a research firm based in Jacksonville, Fla., concluded that 40% of consumers purchased plant-based meat and/or dairy products within the prior six months.

As a result, more farmers are expanding their crop offerings to support this trend. As consumer demand increases, processors need product more rapidly and, in some cases, farmers are harvesting prematurely, before their crops dry out. As this trend expands, producers will likely try to harvest in new areas that may be susceptible to mycotoxin production.

Food Testing Poised for Growth

Food testing is critical to verify that foods that are at a higher risk of containing mycotoxins are not reaching consumers. The goal is to get more testing upstream and catch mycotoxins early on. Domestic grain elevators present a strong testing location, as it consolidates supply across various suppliers. Inspectors at the beginning of the process they can scan shipping containers and conduct sampling for analysis at the source. The key is for food inspectors to be efficient, providing quick turnaround for customers. It’s equally important that testing is accessible across all geographies, especially as farming areas expand and new crops are established.

Preventing Mycotoxins

There are things we can do today and in the future to prevent the spread of mycotoxins and ensure food safety. In the short-term, strong testing practices and procedures must be put in place in food manufacturing plants to ensure that mycotoxins don’t reach store shelves. Regulations are already in place to ensure that this occurs at manufacturing facilities. Farther up the chain, preventive measures can help reduce incidence. Certification and employee training comprise the first step, informing suitable areas to grow crops, seasonality, and best practices such as separating lots, depending on the crop. Armed with this knowledge, we can reduce the risk of mycotoxin exposure early in the process, as opposed to discovering contaminated foods at the end of the production cycle.

As the current workforce ages, it’s important to upskill existing employees and keep them abreast of the latest food safety standards and best practices. Continue to train all employees involved in the process to avoid loss of this knowledge.

Ultimately, we can all be better stewards to our planet to slow climate change, avoid extreme weather, and create stability in the food ecosystem. Sustainability has become a larger focus for individuals and corporations as people seek to reduce their environmental footprint over time.

Food safety is closely coupled with consumer demand, dietary preferences, and environmental impact. Heightened demand creates a chain reaction from fork to farm and farm to fork. The presence of mycotoxins can be expensive for food producers and an ongoing threat to public health. Preventing a toxin from entering the food chain requires consistent and reliable analytical testing. Testing and certification remain integral to overall consumer safety and the future of food production to minimize the increased impact of mycotoxins in today’s changing landscape.


Sharp is VP Commercial Operations North America at Bureau Veritas. Reach him at waylon.sharp@bureauveritas.com

 

 

The post The Rise of Mycotoxins in Everyday Foods appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>
https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/the-rise-of-mycotoxins-in-everyday-foods/feed/ 0 38157
PFAS Testing for Food Manufacturers https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/pfas-testing-for-food-manufacturers/ https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/pfas-testing-for-food-manufacturers/#respond Mon, 21 Aug 2023 15:14:58 +0000 https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/?post_type=article&p=38142 Understanding these substances and how to test for them can help manufacturers get ahead of regulations and respond proactively to increasing consumer concerns.

The post PFAS Testing for Food Manufacturers appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>

In the U.S. and Europe, food manufacturers are preparing for a number of new regulations that target per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of “forever chemicals” that persist in the environment and can harm human health.

Testing for PFAS and tracing them through supply chains and life cycles is a daunting task, but labs are rising to the challenge. New techniques make it possible to identify more PFAS than ever before, with increasing sensitivity and confidence.

Food suppliers should take advantage of new gains in PFAS testing and take the time to understand the substances’ occurrence in supply chains. These actions can help suppliers get ahead of regulations and respond proactively to increasing consumer concerns.

A Brief History of PFAS

The first PFAS were created in the 1930s. These chemicals repel both oil and water and are used in everything from food packaging to firefighting foam, fracking liquid, and consumer products such as lipstick and electronics. Some studies have found that the chemicals can cause cancer, kidney disease, and immune problems, among other ailments, and can persist indefinitely in the environment.

The first and most studied PFAS, perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), have been mostly phased out from use, but they remain in the environment and in our food systems. In the meantime, thousands of other PFAS compounds have proliferated. For most, there is little toxicity data available and the risks are unknown.

Testing for and analyzing PFAS requires liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) capabilities, which were not available in most labs until the early 2000s. A validated method for testing for PFAS in drinking water was first set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2009. Over the past few years, the EPA also began exploring methods for identifying dozens of PFAS in groundwater, biosolids, and the air.

In January 2023, the European Union proposed the most wide-reaching PFAS regulation yet; it would ban 10,000 PFAS chemicals from use in most products. Whatever shape the final EU regulation takes, this new ban and other similar ones have created a need for more extensive PFAS testing.

In March 2023, the EPA proposed nationwide, legally enforceable limits for six PFAS chemicals in drinking water, and it is currently exploring limits for 23 other PFAS that can be identified and monitored using existing tests. These new standards are much stricter than existing recommendations. Still, drinking water is just one piece of the problem. Food is also a major source of PFAS exposure.

How PFAS Can Enter the Food Supply

A March 2023 study published in the journal Environmental Research found PFAS in freshwater fish in rivers, lakes, and streams across the country (Environ Res. 2023;220:115165). The researchers concluded that catching and eating one fish could be as toxic as drinking contaminated water for a month. Other recent studies have flagged high levels of PFAS in imported clams, dairy milk, and a variety of seafood, with lower levels in just about everything else.

A 2017 study (Enviro Sci Technol Lett. 2017;4:105-111) concluded that food can become contaminated by the chemicals when it touches wrappers or “biodegradable” forks and bowls that are made with them; the study found that people who ate out more had higher levels of PFAS in their blood. As a result, 11 U.S. states have implemented bans on PFAS in food packaging, most of which will go into effect by 2025.

But packaging is only one pathway for food contamination; PFAS are also located in soil and groundwater as a result of industrial uses, in the landfills where consumer products wind up, and even in the air.

Even our best attempts at a sustainable, circular food system can increase PFAS exposure in food. Fertilizers made from biosolids reclaimed from sewage treatment plants were once lauded as a sustainable farming solution, but most of these biosolids were never tested for PFAS, and tainted sludge can contaminate fields for decades, harming both farmers and consumers.

Best Practices in Testing

These different sources of PFAS can create food safety risks. Because food can be contaminated directly through packaging or indirectly through environmental pathways, food suppliers will increasingly need to identify and address PFAS sources to update supply chains.

Most states with PFAS packaging bans have banned specific substances, which can be identified through targeted analysis. But some states, like California, have set limits for total organic fluorine as a proxy for thousands of other PFAS, including some that may not have been added on purpose. This requires a non-targeted approach and quick and robust testing, as PFAS detection begins to impact critical business decisions and more companies request tests. Mass spectrometers allow testing labs to detect very low levels of PFAS contamination. In addition, they are very selective, increasing confidence in the lab results and ensuring that they are not detecting a false positive.

To reduce the amount of PFAS entering supply chains indirectly, the Environmental Defense Fund recommends that companies test proactively. The organization suggests prioritizing testing first for food grown near known sites of high ­contamination, then testing meat and seafood and finally testing products containing fat and oil. Forensic testing techniques can help suppliers examine which types of PFAS may have originated in their supply chains, so they can implement new practices or change suppliers accordingly. This will be especially important for producers exporting to Europe if the proposed EU ban on PFAS goes into effect.

A Foundation for the Future

Finding a capable PFAS testing partner now will prepare you to weather the quickly shifting regulatory winds. Having a strong testing partnership in place can also help you respond quickly to other emerging risks. After all, PFAS are not the only environmental contaminant of concern. The chemicals that we already know to test for are just the tip of the iceberg: If the story of PFAS teaches us anything, it should be to expect the unexpected.

The EPA estimates that there are 12,000 forever chemicals on the market today. Many are affecting our food supply and environment in ways that are not yet known. More regulation is needed, but for chemicals already in the supply chain, improvements in testing provide a starting point for defining the problem.


Dr. Butt is the manager of applied markets, global strategic technical marketing, for SCIEX.

 

The post PFAS Testing for Food Manufacturers appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

]]>
https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/pfas-testing-for-food-manufacturers/feed/ 0 38142