“Food safety is not a competitive advantage.” This mantra is known far and wide to even the newest of food safety professionals. Food safety professionals are active on work groups and executive committees where we collaboratively (and genuinely) interface with competing companies and organizations, usually for causes dedicated to the prevention of foodborne illness and betterment of public health. But how often are we truly laying it all out on the table, and opening ourselves up for constructive criticism from adversaries and regulators alike?

Shortly after the June 2019 Salmonella Uganda outbreak in papaya of Mexican origin (the eighth of its type since 2011), a statement issued by FDA put the papaya industry on high alert. The statement delivered a stern call for the outbreak trend to stop, and for the industry to “make all necessary changes to strengthen public health safeguards.” The resulting industry partnership can serve as a model for all food safety professionals and industry members for years to come.

This summer, the Texas International Produce Association convened some papaya importers to discuss the current state of the industry and brainstorm a path forward. After presenting these ideas to FDA in September, a broader stakeholder group (40 individuals representing growers, packers, exporters, importers, customs brokers, distributors, retailers, academics, associations, government representatives, and service providers) came together to focus on identifying the known and presumed risk factors associated with the growing, handling, and packing of papaya of Mexican origin. Detailed, sometimes invasive questions were asked of growers; comparisons made of produce with similar handling procedures; and challenges raised regarding the dearth of publicly available food safety research for papaya — all in an effort to understand the unique aspects of the papaya industry, and to elucidate potential causes resulting in a pattern of outbreaks faced by the industry.

The industry, academia, and government working group deliberated best practices and alternative practices to develop a minimum set of food safety expectations for buyers of imported papayas. In a show of further collaboration, the working group managed to overcome language barriers, with partners in the FDA Latin America office serving as point persons and translators to facilitate the participation of the Mexican National Service of Health, Safety, and Food Quality (SENASICA). Considering both the competitive and regulatory participation, you may have expected industry members to offer vague and generic information and give the “right” answer. Instead, we found an industry with complete recognition and acceptance of an issue, who not only wanted to do what was right and necessary for their company to avoid future outbreaks, but to strategize on efforts that could ensure that the entire industry would move forward right alongside them.

As word of this industry undertaking spread, requests for reference research articles blossomed into additional avenues of collaboration — now extending to the USDA Agricultural Research Service, whose ability and willingness to pursue much needed research on antimicrobial use in papaya wash water, as well as on potential avenues for cross-contamination in certain post-harvest practices, is laudable.

As the best practices document becomes finalized through a lightning-fast turnaround process in anticipation of the upcoming growing season, it will have undergone technical review from volunteer university and extension collaborators on both sides of the border, practical review by the very grower and packers to eventually implement the practices, and input from buyers, with the full participation of FDA and SENASICA.

For as much effort as has been expended by the working group, this is only the beginning. By mid-April, the stakeholder group (now expanded to an invitation list of more than 100 individuals) will have met to discuss implementation and education strategies to continue moving the industry forward and break the pattern of outbreaks.

It has truly been awe-inspiring to see industry, academia, and regulators come together so candidly in matters of mutual interest of food safety and public health. On June 4, 2020, United Fresh will host a free webinar detailing more about how these groups are working together for a common cause.

As I write this, we, at QA, are in Week 2 of Ohio’s mandatory COVID-19 Shelter in Place Order. Most of QA’s staff are working from home, but with media considered to be an essential industry, we — and all of the GIE publications — are able to continue production, both digitally and in print.

All in the food and agriculture industry, from farm to market, also are considered essential — and are, in fact, a “critical infrastructure industry.” But work from home is of little application for those who are producing the country’s food. And unlike many US residents who have found themselves at home with little to do, food producers are finding themselves significantly extended as they contend with coronavirus-related absenteeism, wellness screenings, temporary workers, and other impacts of the pandemic — while still focusing on the essential business of food safety.

As stated by CDC, “If you work in a critical infrastructure industry, as defined by the Department of Homeland security, such as healthcare services and pharmaceutical and food supply, you have a special responsibility to maintain your normal work schedule.” And, by extension, a “special responsibility” to maintain your normal business practices that ensure food safety.

It is for this reason that, while we have some COVID-19-related articles (e.g., Legislative Update/Food Industry Coronavirus Impact, page 8) and have integrated COVID-19 aspects into other general articles (e.g., The Labor Market/We’re Hiring!, page 56), our primary focus is, and will continue to be, on food safety, quality, and defense. Complex at any time, a food safety issue, product contamination, and/or food or beverage recall will be even more difficult to manage while you are also dealing with the impacts of the coronavirus.

The COVID-19 picture evolves day to day, and we will all evolve with it. In fact, by the time you are reading this, things will have changed, and we will be in a new stage of the pandemic. But we will still be dealing with food safety, quality, and defense as we did pre-pandemic and will do post-pandemic. And QA will continue to provide best practices, expert guidance, and practical applications for optimizing your food facility operations, and keeping your food safe and of the quality your customers expect.

Click the image below to read the report.

You are under risk of infestation from Indian meal moth (IMM), Plodia interpunctella, when storing or processing natural commodities. What does an IMM Mating Disruption (MD) program offer an IMM IPM Program? Herein James Miller, ACE - Market Manager, PCO with Trécé Incorporated, reviews the important aspects of IMM MD in a Food Safety IPM Program.

1 What is IMM MD?

Mating disruption (MD) is the use of a non-toxic synthetic replica of the female-produced sex pheromone to suppress, deny, or delay the mating cycle of IMM adults.

2 How does IMM MD work?

There are three principle modes of action for IMM MD including sensory overload, false-trail following, and delayed mating. False-trail following is often considered the most important mode of action.

3 How do we use IMM MD?

There are three critical steps for a proper MD program: (1) Calculate the volume of the facility; (2) select the application rate according to label directions, considering abundance of insects; and (3) distribute the dispensers in a grid-like pattern throughout the treatment site.

4 What is the most important part of an IMM MD program?

Managing expectations. IMM mating disruption does not kill or eliminate IMM like traditional insecticides. As part of an IPM program, it is important to discuss the specifics of your program with your provider and understand the merits and usage of mating disruptants, so you know what to expect, and when and if, other IPM methods may be needed for en-hanced efficacy.

5 What about the cost associated with an IMM MD program?

Mating disruption provides three to 12 months of coverage per application depending on the product chosen. While the initial cost may seem high, the value can be shown through a comparison with your current control or management program. How many ULV insecticide treatments, IGR treatments, fumigations, discarded products, plant shutdowns, and other costs can be replaced with a successful mating disruption program?