Social media has changed the landscape of communication. Bloggers, Tweeters, and YouTubers post about food, where it comes from, how it is produced, what is safe and unsafe, what should and should not be eaten. These posts may be fact or fiction, truth or opinion, but they are being voraciously consumed by the public because there is a hunger for this knowledge.

According to the 2014 Sullivan Higdon & Sink FoodThink report, “Emerging Faith in Food Production”:

• 67% of consumers think it is important to understand how their food is produced.
• 65% want to know more about where their food comes from.
• 66% would like to see the food industry take more action in educating people on how food is produced.
   

Additionally, 76% of the respondents rated their knowledge of food production as less than “good.” But probably the most telling statistics are those rating the trustworthiness of sources of information. Friends and family were rated highest at 57%, with food companies/manufacturers (31%) and mass media/news organizations (30%) almost neck and neck, and bloggers/social media (25%) only slightly below that. Millennials were more likely than the overall population to trust bloggers and social media.

According to the report, food manufacturers are not considered to be highly trustworthy sources of information, but is this because the information provided is not trusted ... or because there is simply little to no information generated by manufacturers? With only 30% of respondents feeling that food companies are transparent about production practices, it seems likely that a lack of information is a primary reason.

The good news of the report is that “Americans are open to efforts by the food industry aimed at building trust.” In fact, 81% of Americans were open to the food industry using one or more of the following to build trust:

1. Better labeling of key production and nutritional information.
2. Public tours of farms and/or food production facilities.
3. Honest website answers to food production questions.
4. Company leaders appearing on a news program to explain how food is produced.

But how exactly do you do this? QA spoke with industry stakeholders to find out what is being done:
 

Egg Board:

Make it Fun & Educational

Now in its third year, the American Egg Board’s (AEB) Good Egg Project provides consumer information relative to all four methods. In a partnership with Discover Education, AEB hosts an Egg Farm-to-Table Virtual Field Trip presented live to schools around the country. This year’s field trip to Pearl Valley Farms in Illinois, was aired in almost 8,200 classrooms, resulting in viewing by more than 204,900 students and teachers. According to Discovery Education, it was the most attended field trip to date, exceeding attendance numbers of field trips such as those hosted by The Mythbusters, NASA astronauts, and Google.

In the virtual field trip, Pearl Valley Farms’ Dave and Ben Thompson and four production managers showed an egg’s journey from pullet house to egg processing to composting, talked about how they take care of the hens and the environment, and participated in a live Q&A session, answering student and teacher questions that were submitted online—for which more than 4,000 questions were received.

“Our goal is to try to humanize these people,” said AEB Vice President of Strategic Operations Mia Roberts, “to show that eggs come from real people, real farms, real animals.” The project, along with other AEB initiatives, also serves to navigate through the vast array of information and misinformation on how food gets to the table, she said. As with many meat producers, much of the misinformation that AEB attempts to counter is that of animal welfare and humane handling. Not only does opening the doors of the egg facility make production transparent, but the virtual tour also included discussion of animal welfare, explaining that a hen that is under duress will not lay eggs.

Noting this project as “the highlight of our educational year,” Roberts said the field trip was developed to address all the aspects of the new education core curriculum for grades K-5, so it fits with the teachers’ plans. At the same time, however, it provides an entertaining and intriguing way for children to learn, making the lesson fun while conveying information.

The Egg Board has plans to expand the program to the middle school and high school levels, which Roberts sees as a critical piece of the puzzle. “We have a wonderful story to tell that is steeped in science and research,” Roberts said.
 

Starbucks:

Align with a Celebrity

Taking a bit of a different approach to getting the word out, Starbucks focuses one of its key initiatives on the future of food science. Starbucks is a founding partner of Food4Thought/Feeding Tomorrow, an IFT foundation focused on encouraging student pursuit of careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), particularly that of food science.

Food science is critical to the future development of many aspects of food production, sustainability, and ensuring and improving global health and wellness. STEM helps to create the future talent for such development, said Starbucks Senior Vice President of R&D, Quality, Food Safety, and Regulatory Mary Wagner. “I think it is really important that, as industry leaders, we step up and have our own internal initiatives to ensure we are leaders in food safety.”

Feeding Tomorrow has also aligned with Girls Inc., to encourage female pursuit of STEM careers. To help spread the word, Starbucks aligned with Oprah to develop and promote Teavana Oprah Chai tea, the sales of which will benefit Girls Inc.
 

Tyson, Cargill, Kroger:

Be a BAC Fighter.

Whether you are a large or small manufacturer, you can fight bac(teria) through partnership with and/or accessing publications of the Partnership for Food Safety Education. As the “first evidence-based consumer education campaign,” the Partnership originated as a USDA program and then was incorporated as a non-profit in 2001, said Executive Director Shelley Feist.

“Communicating the value of food safety for your company from farm to fork is important because consumer perception of your company is based on the transparency of that,” Feist said. However, she understands that manufacturers are not in the business of education. That is where PFSE comes in. “A very important thing about the Partnership is that our information is based on science,” she said, adding, “Food safety isn’t used as a competitive edge or advantage. Our organization is a place where companies can come together—we are a resource that is available and free.”

Anyone can use the materials on the Partnership’s website (www.fightbac.org/). In fact, Feist encourages companies to use the materials or link to the Partnership’s site rather than spending the time to develop other materials. Companies can also get more involved in the organization, joining the “partners” of the “Partnership,” such as Tyson, Cargill, and Kroger, that contribute to its mission to improve public health and reduce foodborne illness.

As a practical aspect, Feist encourages companies to begin food safety education with their own people. “Let’s start with those in your workforce, to raise awareness and help them understand how it affects their families.” Regularly focusing on and discussing food safety topics such as handwashing, thermometer use, etc., not only increases the safety of your product but creates a spillover effect, impacting the families of your workers, and, based on the statistics cited at the beginning of this article, friends as well. “If you are really making food safety a value in your company, make every employee feel as though they’re an educator as well,” she said.

“My call to the industry would be for any company that cares about food safety to be a BAC Fighter,” Feist said. “I would love to see everyone involved in food be a part of the communication.”
 

Develop Ambassadors:

Align with Bloggers

In addition to Good Egg Project, the American Egg Board increases consumer awareness and education by working with social media to:

• Meet consumers where they are. For better or worse, social media is a prominent communication vehicle. As such, manufacturers need to use it for their own consumer education efforts. To do so, develop material that is short, sharp, and to the point.
• Develop ambassadors. There is an enormous blogger sphere out there. Do a bit of web surfing of your own, and align with those who focus on your industry segment, or the food industry as a whole. Give correct info to these people to create media; provide a constant stream of accurate news. AEB began with those who were pro-egg, or “friends of eggs,” and continues to expand its relationships each year. “Advocates and influencers are a huge way to get your message out,” Roberts said.
• Be transparent and authentic. Whether you are developing your own blogs, tweets, and/or videos or aligning with advocates and influencers, keep it honest and real.
  
   

Keep It Real.

An IFT Wellness 2014 presentation by Trevor Butterworth, editor-at-large of Stats.org, backs up AEB’s call for authenticity. Butterworth encourages companies to use the knowledge of technical and scientific experts and let them say it their way, rather than developing a public relations campaign on food safety topics. “You have to find people who can talk about them. You have to give them media training. You have to find these people, then you have to step back.

“If you don’t talk about the science of what you’re doing—or find a scientist to do it—in an informed, engaging, witty, knowledgeable way, someone else is going to take it and either use it or abuse it or ignore it,” he said. “If you don’t do anything, you only guarantee more of the same.”

The author is Editor of QA magazine. She can be reached at llupo@gie.net.

At Danone, the parent company of Dannon, the answer is the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI): Walking the talk and talking the walk.

Not only are all Danone facilities certified to the GFSI-benchmarked FSSC 22000, all Danone suppliers are required to be certified to a GFSI scheme, and Corporate Quality General Manager Yves Rey introduced the food manufacturing industry to GFSI in 2005, then held the position of GFSI chairman from 2012 through early 2014. At the February 2014 Global Food Safety Conference, where Rey turned over the two-year chairmanship to Cenk Gürol of Japan (See New GFSI Leaders, sidebar below), Rey spoke on “One World ... One Safe Food Supply” and granted an exclusive interview to QA magazine.
 

Trend Setting.

Rey sees it as a corporate responsibility for large businesses to lead the industry in food safety and innovation. “As a leader, we must be a trend setter,” Rey said. Rey was the first food manufacturing representative to join GFSI, which was begun as a retail initiative. He had heard about GFSI and its harmonizing standards, and realized that it was an initiative that would be beneficial to the entire supply chain. So in 2005, he joined the GFSI board. However, he said, “We didn’t want to be certified to a retailer scheme. Instead, I said, let’s set up a manufacturer scheme, then benchmark it to the GFSI guidance document.” In this way, another link in the supply chain would be held to the same standards, but the application would be customized to fit its differing processes.

“If you want to be in harmony, you have to speak the same language, then follow the same standards,” he said. It wasn’t easy at first to convince manufacturers to come on board, and increasing awareness and expansion are still key drivers, but with geographic and supply chain expansion as key goals of Rey’s chairmanship, GFSI has made major strides in the food manufacturing world—with Danone leading by example.

At Danone, all facilities are certified to FSSC 22000. Additionally, Rey said, “Suppliers can be certified to any GFSI scheme—but they have to be certified to one.” For high-risk suppliers, the company also may mandate additional requirements based on its testing. For example, because food fraud can’t be anticipated, the company may require that some products considered to be high risk undergo vulnerability assessments to help detect and prevent potential economic adulteration.

Food fraud is also gaining attention with GFSI, with a Food Fraud Think Tank developed in 2012 and the current plan to incorporate it as a key element into GFSI standards. However, the GFSI position is that it doesn’t want to add another audit system, rather new key elements are to be incorporated into the Guidance Document (version 7), due in 2015. Additionally, he said, there is an “urgency to start implementing food fraud vulnerability assessments and associated vulnerability control plans in collaboration with SSAFE [Safe Supply of Affordable Food Everywhere] by the end of 2014.”

Food fraud, and its potential food safety issues (such as that of melamine), is just one aspect of emerging risk that is of global concern. “Food safety knows no borders,” Rey said. “In order to start mitigating risk, we, as a leader in the food industry, should anticipate emerging risk.” As such, Danone’s food safety research includes an Advanced Food Safety initiative, focused on such areas as emerging pathogens, food additives, and endocrine disrupters for which it applies advanced methodology in new ways. For example, Rey said, Danone knows the fingerprint necessary for milk to meet its requirements. So when a supply came in that not only didn’t meet the fingerprint, but also had an unidentifiable component, the product and tests were held, then subjected to Danone’s advanced methodology for identification and determination of its safety. Although Danone considers food safety to be non-competitive, during such testing, the research is maintained as a proprietary initiative. But once the result is attained and verified, it is then shared and made non-competitive, Rey said. Such advance research is important to Danone, whose mission is to “bring health through food to as many people as possible.” As Rey said, “How could we bring health through food without providing food safety?”
 

Public/Private Partnership.

“Food safety is a shared risk and a shared responsibility,” Rey said. To truly create global harmonization in food safety, it is necessary for all stakeholders—the public and private sectors as well as academia and consumers—to join in one collaborative food safety effort, not only for public health, country economies, and social stability, but also for business profitability and sustainability. “Private/public partnerships can help bridge the gap between regulatory enforcement and business initiatives,” Rey said.

Additionally, as discussed in the QA May/June 2013 cover story (Walmart Drives Food Safety Standards), the GFSI-based supplier requirements of Walmart and other major retailers are mandating manufacturer use of the benchmarked schemes—reinforcing Rey’s principle of big companies as trend setters. Because GFSI itself is simply a certification body with no enforcement authority, such buy-in is critical for its expansion, as is its public/private partnership focus.

The implementation of harmonized standards that provide for continuous improvement in global trade and food safety also is becoming more critical for consumer confidence in safe food delivery. Such confidence and safe global delivery will only become more important as the consumer picture continues to change. “What will make the difference in the future is increasing consumer income and the growth of the middle class,” Rey said. Consumers increasingly are desiring diversity in their foods, and have the income to afford it. At the same time, the size of the global consumer base is increasing, with estimates that the world population will reach nine billion by 2050.

Thus, he said, the future of the food industry is being shaped by “more” coming from all segments: consumers, with increasing demand; government, with ever more stringent regulations; and business, with the continually growing needs for food production, quality, and profitability. Because we already have limited farmland and fresh water, managing that, as well as food safety, will be critical, he said.
 

GFSI Key Initiatives.

To address these, and other global food issues, the current key GFSI initiatives are:

• Capacity building. This initiative is focused on raising the food safety competence of small and/or less-developed businesses (SLDBs). Because of their size, lack of technical expertise, economic resources, or nature of work, these businesses often find it difficult to meet the standards within formal supply chains where entry requirements are high. In 2008, GFSI stakeholders identified the need for technical assistance and support in SLDBs for the development of food safety management systems. So the GFSI Global Markets Technical Working Group was formed and a program developed.
  
  The program provides a tiered approach to certification enabling these businesses to put into place a systematic action plan that can be implemented over a realistic period of time. The objective is to facilitate market access locally, create mutual acceptance along the supply chain, and provide a framework for mentoring SLDBs.
  
  “The program can help the small player by at least being assured that CODEX requirements are in place,” Rey said. “It’s a really good program because it is our duty to have products meet specifications, but it is our role to help the small suppliers do so. This will help open doors for them. It is really a win win.”
  
  Danone has a personal understanding of the need for programs, because it works with local dairy farms in most of the 140 countries in which it operates. Utilizing this program to help the small dairies meet requirements helps to ensure the food safety and quality of the whole supply chain.
   
• Auditor competence. “The food industry is evolving so quickly, and many food safety crises are not due to lack of regulation but to lack of enforcement,” Rey said. “Setting regulation is easy, ensuring enforcement of that is not.
  
  “By implementing standards that are state of the art, we ensure the integrity of the program; but to enforce anything, you need the right expertise.” As such, GFSI is working with independent professional organizations to develop an online testing program to develop credentials for auditor registration to ensure the integrity of the auditing system. To integrate local requirements, strategies will need to be somewhat customized, however all will be held to a minimum level of competencies needed to pass operation audits.
   

New GFSI Leaders Take Office In March, Japan’s Cenk Gürol, group chief SCM officer, Aeon Co., and president, Aeon Global SCM, succeeded Yves Rey, corporate quality general manager, Danone, as GFSI Board Chairman. Elected as vice chairmen were Neil Marshall, global director, quality and food safety strategy, policy, and programs, The Coca-Cola Company; and Mike Robach, vice president, food safety, quality and regulatory affairs, Cargill. Under Rey’s chairmanship, GFSI progressed rapidly with its geographical expansion strategy, including the set-up of the first GFSI Local Groups. Rey has been a strong advocate of the importance of collaboration between the private and public sectors and has contributed to building partnerships with key stakeholders. “The Initiative has gained colossal momentum over the last few years in many countries,” Rey said. “Among other objectives, GFSI has a key role to play in supporting smaller suppliers in different parts of the world to build their capacity and ensure the development of effective food safety management systems. Given the growing importance of Asia and its role in the global supply chain, GFSI needs to grow its presence in this part of the world. I believe that Cenk will be instrumental in leading GFSI’s work both in Asia and around the world.“

• With this set of competencies developed and published, the technical working group is now drafting an RFP for creation of an exam; a skill assessment is being drawn up to establish the competence of candidates; and a credentialing model is being developed based on ISO 17024 to register audits. All of these are to be completed in 2014.
   
• Government recognition. Increasing global recognition of GFSI by governments and integration of GFSI with the administrative standards will strengthen global harmonization of food safety standards, Rey said. Currently GFSI is engaged in dialogue with FDA to contribute to the development of FSMA, including the Foreign Supplier Verification Program rule, and with USDA to analyze gaps between the AMS scheme and GFSI guidance document.
  
  With the Chinese government, GFSI is working to improve food safety processes. The Chinese government HACCP scheme is now being benchmarked against the GFSI guidance document, and a GFSI China local non-government organization (NGO) is being developed with government support. However, because no organization can operate in China unless it is an official NGO, little else can be done in the country until GFSI status as an NGO is approved by the government.
  
  To aid in the government recognition initiative, GFSI is working on an efficiency study through which it is developing mechanisms to gather and analyze data to demonstrate the efficacy of GFSI strategy, including productivity, profit, and quality, along with food safety.

Global Awareness.

As a self-policing, non-regulatory initiative, GFSI is dependent on voluntary acceptance—or customer mandating—of its standards to reach its mission of “safe food for consumers everywhere” through “one certification accepted everywhere.” But such global acceptance is dependent on attaining awareness, developed through communication and understanding.

Through the development and continuous improvement of successfully benchmarked schemes, applicable from farm to fork, GFSI has gained momentum and recognition. To continue this growth, Rey said, “Communication is of critical importance to making our role clear and understandable.” Key to that communication is reinforcing the importance and the benefits of a global standard for food safety and consumer trust. “Safety and conformity beget superiority; and if you get superiority, you get loyalty,” Rey said. “Loyalty is paramount for business profitability, and you have to have trust to get loyalty.”

As Rey passed over the chairmanship of the global initiative that he led for the past two years, what does he see as the greatest accomplishments and needs of GFSI? “We are making progress in reducing food safety risk, but what we haven’t achieved right now is reducing food safety cost,” he said. “We are pretty good with risk—zero risk doesn’t exist. But there is a gap between food safety risk and the cost to achieve it.”

One reason for this, he said, is because it is has not yet completely achieved its goal of “one certification accepted everywhere.” GFSI is being applied around the world, but there is still duplication of cost, with many manufacturers still having to undergo numerous different audits for various certifications and customer approval.

But with the “no borders” aspects of food safety, the wide acceptance and conformity GFSI has attained, and its ongoing programs and progress, Rey sees continued expansion and acceptance ahead.

“For GFSI,” Rey said, “the sky is the limit.”

The author is Editor of QA magazine. She can be reached at llupo@gie.net.

The detection of food contaminants—whether this be pesticide residue in produce, antibiotics in beef, Salmonella in poultry, gluten in baked goods, or wood slivers in grain—is a continually improving science. Not so long ago, state-of-the-art testing detected to parts per million; today testing is more likely to be in parts per billion, with levels continually lowering to nano and “mega-nano” detection.

With such evolving technology, the question is: Can elimination keep up with detection? That is, as the detection technologies serve to define zero by ever more minute traces, can (and should) the industry feasibly and cost-effectively “chase zero” to reach those same levels in eliminating residues, antibiotics, or even pathogens?

The question of chasing zero is further challenged by the variation in accepted tolerance based not only on the contaminant itself, but also on the country manufacturing or importing the food. And even among a class of contaminants, e.g., pathogens, countries will have varying levels of strictness in their regulations.

Take Listeria and Salmonella as examples: In the U.S., the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) “zero-tolerance” policy applies to the detection of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat (RTE) products. FDA also maintains a policy of zero tolerance in RTE. The EU, however, currently allows a tolerance up to 100 cfu/g during the shelf life of non-infant and non-medical RTE products in which the growth of L. monocytogenes cannot occur throughout the stated shelf life.

Within the last month, though, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) put out a call for research and development for “closing gaps for performing a risk assessment on Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat (RTE) foods.” The requested R&D is intended to provide EFSA with a quantitative risk characterization of L. monocytogenes in various RTE food categories, starting from the retail stage.

In relation to Salmonella, there is contradiction within the U.S., with FDA maintaining zero tolerance, within the detection limit of the methodology, for human and pet foods, but USDA having permitted levels for some meats and poultry.
 

The Controversy.

With the ever-lowering detectability levels, what, exactly, is zero? What does chasing it to the nth degree really mean for the industry and to the consumer—pro and con? And with the variance among “science-based” global regulation, what level truly ensures food safety?

In this article, we present a look at the pros and cons of Chasing Zero from both the industry and consumer viewpoints. However, because of the controversy of the issue and the perception that one’s opinion could inaccurately reflect the safety processes of the associated company, we are presenting the arguments without citation. Additionally, with the number and breadth of factors involved in zero tolerance pro and con, this can be only a simplification of the sides, posed as a generator for discussion.

We’d love to hear your views in response.
 

Tolerance: Balance the Risk

“As the amount of microbial contamination gets low, the chances of accurately identifying contaminated food plummets, especially when the contamination is not uniformly distributed throughout the food. ... Furthermore, microbiological testing methods sometimes mis-identify harmless microorganisms as dangerous pathogens. ... Greater attention to preventing cross-contamination and undercooking may have more impact on the public’s health than further reductions in the already small numbers of pathogens occasionally present in certain foods.” (IFT - FAQ: Application of Science to Food Safety Management)

Tolerance. While we must do everything we can to ensure that food is safe to eat, there are a number of factors to take into consideration when discussing zero tolerance, including infective dose, industry and consumer cost, food security, sampling methods, farm-through-fork responsibility—and the source of the food itself.

In one way or another, all food is grown in nature. By its very definition, nature is not contaminant free. Produce sits on or in the ground, takes in ground waters, and is subject to droppings of birds flying overhead. In fact, studies have shown “natural” range-free or farmers-market poultry often contain higher levels of foodborne illness-causing bacteria.

It is for such reasons that Salmonella in chicken is not considered to be an adulterant, and for such reasons that the responsibility for food safety, and pathogen elimination, must rest with the entire food chain—including the consumer. There is no question that farmers, breeders, suppliers, and manufacturers must all exercise due diligence in preventing and eliminating pathogens, and other contaminants, to ensure that food is safe to eat. In most cases, elimination comes down to the application of a kill step; and, in some cases, that kill step needs to reside with the consumer.

Chicken is, again, an obvious argument here. Salmonella is a known hazard of raw chicken, but thorough cooking of the meat (to at least 165°F as measured with a thermometer) is a known kill step. Thus, in this case, the chicken is safe to eat, if consumers do their part in applying the kill step. That is not to say that the industry doesn’t have a responsibility, but that responsibility is to ensure food safety practices are followed in the plant, that research continues toward solutions, and that any necessary consumer kill steps are discernibly communicated to the consumer on the label.

It is at this point that cost, sampling, and infective dose also come into play. One standard food safety practice is that of sampling. But, by its very definition, “sampling” is random at best and provides a hit-or-miss process of determining food safety depending on where the sample was taken. Add to that the fact that technology has enabled detection to ever lower levels, below infective doses and below the ability to eliminate, then put it into the context of zero tolerance. If a nano level of a pathogen is detected in a single sample taken in a lot, the entire lot will be destroyed or recalled if already distributed—even when the detected level is below an infective dose; that is, it has no relevance to food safety.

The lower this detection goes, the higher the costs to both the industry and the consumer. It is a cost that is not simply related to dollars and cents, but also to sustainability. It has been widely reported that the world’s population is expected to double by the year 2050, and that we will not be able feed that world at our present rate of food growth, consumption, and destruction. As we go forward in time, can we afford to throw away ever larger amounts of product due to ever-lower detection when there are options for end-user elimination?

Consumers need to understand the role they play in food safety and do their part to follow label directions, ensure against cross contamination, and maintain food-safe storage and handling practices. It doesn’t seem that it is the right thing for society in general to spend a lot of money—and destroy a lot of food—to protect a few people who don’t do it right. Zero tolerance is still zero tolerance, but it is for the entire food chain; the consumer has a responsibility too, and sometimes needs to be the source of the kill step.
 

Zero Tolerance: Go as Low as We Can

Raw Pet Food Diets Can Be Dangerous to You and Your Pet

If you choose to feed raw pet food to your pet, be aware that you can infect yourself with Salmonella or L. monocytogenes by spreading the bacteria from the contaminated food to your mouth. ... If you get Salmonella or L. monocytogenes on your hands or clothing, you can also spread the bacteria to other people, objects, and surfaces. (The Food & Drug Administration)

Zero Tolerance. In determining the need for zero tolerance, there are a number of factors to consider, but it really all comes down to consideration for the consumer. We are all consumers. As such, do you want to buy food that is contaminated with Salmonella, Listeria, E. coli, or any other bacteria? Do you want to take the chance of serving a food to your family that may have levels of these pathogens because it is tolerated? If a pathogen can be detected, shouldn’t it be eliminated—or kept out of the marketplace?

This is already true with some pathogens, such as E. coli for which there is zero tolerance and a ban on selling any food product in which any level of the bacteria has been detected. But that is not enough. We need to continue to work to get better control of all pathogens, such as Salmonella.

Technology is enabling lower and lower detection, and there is no question that this is providing a challenge for the industry in controlling to those levels. However, zero is achievable in control as well as detection.

If you look at where we were ten years ago and where we are now, you see significant improvement in the effectiveness of technology. We need to continue moving in that direction—for both detection and control. We need to strive for zero. And the industry should have the desire to do so, to continually improve; not simply take on responsibility in response to regulation.

Yes, the consumer has a responsibility to properly prepare and cook food, but consumers should be able to expect that the industry is doing everything it can to place safe food on their tables. And manufacturing safe food is not just about eliminating pathogens and contaminants, it’s about preventing their incursion and ensuring the entire supply chain is applying comprehensive food safety practices—from Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) at the farm to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) in the plant, and the preventive and food safety controls of the pending rules of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) across the food chain.

The ability of CDC to track outbreaks to their sources has helped to drive industry toward constantly improving practices of food safety, and we can expect that FSMA’s final rules will lead to further improvement. However, regulation will not carry us to zero unless industry has the desire to get there. The cost of chasing zero is a challenging question, but we have to look at all the different ways we can work toward elimination. There will likely be some investment needed, but you have to look at the big picture—the overall cost of recalls, liability, closures, etc. And look at the human costs associated with foodborne outbreaks caused by pathogens that go undetected and uncontrolled: the “costs” of illness, hospitalizations, and even deaths. Although this may or may not come back to bear on a specific company, it is a cost—and responsibility—that industry must bear.

It is also understood that industry’s investment in striving to zero—to whatever level detection takes “zero,” will likely cause food costs to rise for consumers. While consumers may be willing to pay a higher price for safer food, there should be a balance in which the industry accounts for a lowered risk, and associated costs, of outbreaks and recalls, before passing along the full investment cost to the consumer.

GAPs, GMPs, FSMA, supply chain management, evolving technologies … all play a part in “chasing zero” and all need to be applied to their utmost potential to catch zero as low as we can go.

The author is Editor of QA magazine. She can be reached at llupo@gie.net.

In January, a poultry producer was ordered to suspend operations because of cockroaches in the plant. Whether or not the plant knew it had cockroaches is not known, but because of cockroach habits and behavior, it can be very easy for an infestation to build before you even know they are in your facility.

To assist food manufacturers in detecting and eliminating cockroaches—before they become an issue, we asked some cockroach control experts to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about cockroaches and their control in and around food and beverage processing plants.

The following answers were provided by BASF Pest Control Solutions Market Development Specialist Bob Hickman, Bayer Environmental Science Technical Service Lead Joe Barile, In-Quiz-It Software Technical Director Bruce Achterman, McCloud Services Technical Director Patricia Hottel, Rentokil North America Entomologist Nancy Troyano, Rockwell Labs CEO Cisse Spragins, and Syngenta Professional Pest Management Senior Technical Representative ElRay Roper.
 

About Cockroaches

1.I’ve never seen a cockroach in my plant. Does that mean I don’t have them?

Just because you haven’t seen cockroaches doesn’t mean you don’t have them. Cockroaches are cryptic and primarily nocturnal insects. They prefer to be in the dark, so when they do come out of hiding, it is often when no one is present and there is little to no light. They generally only come out into the light if they have to, for example, to get food or due to overpopulation. Thus, cockroach sightings that occur when people are present, during the day, or under lit conditions may indicate the presence of a severe infestation. A thorough inspection by a pest management professional using proper inspection tools can help determine if you have a cockroach infestation, and identify conditions that may contribute to an infestation’s development.
 

2. How do cockroaches get in?

There are several ways that cockroaches can gain access to a building. Most commonly, they are brought into buildings on product and/or supply shipments. German cockroaches are effective “hitchhikers” and may hide in the incoming supplies, packing materials, cardboard boxes, pallets, etc. All incoming materials should be routinely inspected for a potential pest infestation. Employees also may carry cockroaches to work with them on their personal belongings.

Some cockroaches will travel between and enter buildings through drain/sewer pipes, underground utility lines, and steam tunnels. The sewers and floor drains can provide a never-ending route for cockroaches to enter the building unless the sewer connection is addressed.

Additionally, large cockroaches, such as American, Oriental, brown and Turkestan species, can survive outdoors in southern regions. Conducive conditions around plants need to be evaluated and monitored to eliminate or reduce potential harborage. Physical exclusion is a key management process to keep these species out of the facility.
 

3. Where do cockroaches generally live within the plant?

Once inside a building, cockroaches tend to live in cracks and crevices where they can feel the floor, ceiling, or walls with their antennae. They require habitats that are warm (generally 70+° F), humid, and dark with little air movement. Populations tend to imbed themselves in voids and spaces that have these conditions but are close to food and water sources. Cockroaches can be adaptive to plant operation schedules and are usually active when the site is offline and quiet. Any environment in the facility that offers cockroach survival resources (food, water, shelter) are susceptible to infestation.

Food can be in the form of residues on processing equipment or floors, or even light organic build-up around equipment legs and in cracks—it doesn’t take much. Moisture can be in the form of humidity. For example, the inside of equipment chassis, areas near the compressors of refrigerators, and around sinks can provide warmth and harborage. In addition to the actual plant/factory space, cockroaches will harbor in employee areas such as locker rooms, break rooms, lounges, cafeterias, and office space. Surinam cockroaches have even been found in lobby planters.
 

4. So if cockroaches tend to stay in hiding, what risk do they pose to my plant/product?

Although cockroaches may be found in floor drains, sewers, and cracks and crevices, that does not mean they stay in those hiding places. They will exit to forage and seek other harborage sites.

Cockroaches are public health pests. Associated with foodborne illnesses, they have been documented as physically carrying food contaminants and organisms of disease on their bodies and contaminating product and preparation surfaces. They are known carriers of many food contamination bacteria such as Salmonella, Listeria and Campylobacter.

Cockroaches often harbor in spaces and voids where normal cleaning and sanitizing methods do not reach. In these spaces, they live in accumulating fecal material, mold, and decaying organic debris, and feed on rodent and bird droppings and animal carcasses, from which they will pick up the bacteria on their legs and bodies, and spread these disease-causing agents to food and other surfaces.

Cockroaches also defecate along their travel paths and frequently expel saliva on surfaces to “taste” their environment. In addition to bacterial contamination, their droppings and bodily secretions can stain and leave a foul odor that can permeate packaging. Cast skins and egg cases also are potential product contaminants.

Additionally, cockroach droppings and shed skins contain allergens, and heavy cockroach populations can trigger asthma attacks in susceptible individuals. These also can be carried on air currents into sensitive areas. While the food industry needs to be especially aware of the risk from cockroaches to stored food products, it is also important to know that cockroaches can damage all types of materials including leather, books, and pictures. A cockroach infestation can damage a business’ reputation and goods, and the financial loss can be considerable.
 

5. What signs should I look for to know if I have cockroaches?

Some signs of cockroaches may include:

• Sightings of cockroach adults and smaller nymphal forms.
• Body parts such as legs, antennae, etc.
• Egg casings and cast skins from cockroach molting.
• Small, dark fecal spots on surfaces which may indicate areas of activity or entrances to hidden harborages. The sputum and droppings may be more concentrated in some areas than others, since roaches tend to congregate.
  
   

6. What species are most likely to infest my facility? What is the difference?

The cockroach species that infest a food processing facility can vary by geographic location, but the most common are:

• The German cockroach (Blatella germanica) is the most common and serious food facility roach. The adult is about ½ inch long and is light brown in color with two dark brown stripes behind its head. This cockroach favors warm, moist areas that are close to food and water. Populations can build rapidly, and the cockroaches can spread through the plant. German cockroaches can infest the production floor, production equipment, storage areas, transport, employee areas and office/administrative spaces. This cockroach has the shortest life cycle—growing from egg to full sexual maturity in 123 days, so it can quickly infest a facility if not dealt with swiftly. Additionally, the egg capsule that a female lays contains about 40 eggs, and she can produce up to eight capsules in her lifetime, which can lead to a population explosion in a short period of time.
• The American cockroach (Periplaneta americana) is the next most common food plant-infesting cockroach. At about two inches long, it is the largest cockroach encountered indoors. It is reddish-brown with pale yellow bands around the shield behind its head. American cockroaches require very warm, humid environments (80+°F and greater than 90% humidity). They are most commonly found in service areas of the plant including basements/sub-basements, steam tunnels, sewer and wastewater lines, drains, and boiler rooms. American cockroaches generally don’t infest the production floor unless conditions in a specific area or equipment will support them.
• The Oriental cockroach (Blatta orientalis), often referred to as a water bug, is intermediate in size between the German and American cockroach. The adult is about 1 ¼ inches long with a glossy, dark brown or black body. The Oriental cockroach is more cold-tolerant, preferring cool, dark, and damp places to live.
• Invading outdoor species include: the brown, smokybrown, Turkestan, and native wood cockroaches. Each species has specific pest impact/potential, behaviors and biology. The plant’s pest management professional will be able to identify the species of cockroach causing the problem(s).
   

Prevention and Control

7. What should I do if I see a cockroach, or any signs of them?

If you see cockroaches or their signs:

• Make a note of the location and contact a pest management professional to schedule an inspection as soon as possible. If you find cockroach body parts, egg casings, and/or cast skins, note the location and collect them in a sealed clear plastic bag as evidence for the technician conducting the inspection.
• It is critical that exclusion efforts be conducted to prevent more cockroaches from coming in. For American cockroaches, take steps to close up the sewer highway by capping drains which are not required for water management. For active drains, place baskets or inserts made of screened material to help prevent entry by the larger stages of the American cockroach. Baits and dusts also can be used in sewers and drains with an appropriately labeled product.
• Inspect, clean, and eliminate any possible harborage areas, and correct moisture leaks or damp areas. Biological cleaning products based on beneficial microbes can remove organic residues that can provide a food source.
  
   

8. What can I do to prevent cockroach infestations?

Every plant should have regular inspections by a pest management professional to identify conditions conducive to cockroaches, and to incorporate control measures if needed. Additionally, to help prevent infestations in your facility:

• Conduct thorough general sanitation practices on a regular basis.
• Clean working surfaces that are likely to have food residues (oils, starches, sweets, small particulate food debris, etc.) daily or as often as scheduling will allow.
• Empty indoor garbage containers daily, and position outdoor garbage collection containers (i.e., dumpsters) away from the facility to prevent easy access of cockroaches or other pests into the facility. Dumpsters should be emptied at least weekly and more frequently during warmer months.
• Store food and other supplies that can be food for cockroaches inside sealed containers and in designated storage areas off the floor. If possible, remove items from cardboard boxes before storage and discard the cardboard.
• Clean up product spills promptly, repair leaky hoses and pipes, fix other water leaks.
• Clean drains and drain openings regularly and use covers designed to trap debris flowing into them. Seal cracks and crevices with an approved caulk, and fill suspected cockroach harborage voids with expandable foam to help reduce or prevent infestations.
• Rotate any stacked items (plastic trays, containers, etc.) to avoid cockroaches having undisturbed, easily accessible harborages.
• Maintain clean floors and keep equipment on legs or casters for easy moving, cleaning, and inspection.
• Have a good inspection program for incoming goods—including all types of shipments. This is essential in reducing the risk of bringing in cockroaches on shipments. Consider having the supplier change packaging to less susceptible packaging such as plastic.
• Educate employees on their roles in preventing introduction of cockroaches and reporting sightings. Have a designated area for employee storage of lunches and other belongings to help reduce the impact of cockroaches being brought into the facility from homes.
• Prevent problems by minimizing food, moisture, and harborage resources; eliminating clutter; using biological cleaners; correcting moisture problems; and improving sanitation.
• Inspect equipment and building design to determine if there are places that are not easily accessed and cleaned. If so, equipment should be modified or better-designed equipment purchased. Building issues should be repaired, e.g., seal cracks in floor, determine if drain design enables thorough cleaning, etc.
• Determine how cockroaches are gaining access and eliminate these: caulk all open access points, close doors, fix screens and close windows without screens, use air doors to help stop pest activity.

9. What options do I have for cockroach elimination and control?

An integrated pest management (IPM) program by in-house personnel or a contracted pest management professional should be planned and built to the specific requirements and operations of the facility. An integrated program includes constant inspection, monitoring, and diagnostics that address conducive conditions (both physical and operational). Evaluation of operations, sanitation, and physical plant conditions and regular, recorded inspections also are part of the routine program.

Once preventive and exclusion practices (in answer #8) are in place, the IPM program for cockroaches should involve accurate identification of the cockroach species and a thorough inspection to identify all possible sites of infestation.

If chemical treatment is needed, targeted insecticide applications/bait placements into cockroach harborage sites can be made according to label directions where permitted to eliminate infestations and/or protect critical areas. Baits work well for cockroach control and there are a number of products from which to choose, including different active ingredients and formulations to attract specific pest species.

Follow up includes regular inspection and monitoring, along with continuation of all preventive and exclusion practices to protect against future infestations. Glueboard monitors, ideally placed inside protective plastic stations, should be used continuously and inspected regularly, with results documented. This pest activity data should then be used to determine activity cycles (trends), sources, and potential access points.

All stakeholders need to be part of any cockroach management program and included in all communication regarding pest activity and responses.

The author is Editor of QA magazine. She can be reached at llupo@gie.net.