According to CDC, there are 48 million cases of foodborne illness annually in the U.S. — that’s roughly one in six Americans affected every year. An estimated 128,000 of those are hospitalized, and 3,000 die. Because food can become contaminated at any point during production, packaging, and shipping, food processors have an enormous responsibility as the public’s first line of defense against foodborne illnesses spread by vector pests. To better understand how these illnesses are spread, we’ll explore the most common vector-borne types of food poisoning and the pests notorious for carrying them.

Scientists have identified more than 2,000 strains of Salmonella bacteria, but the two most commonly associated with food poisoning are S. typhimurium and S. enteritidis. CDC estimates there are approximately 1.2 million cases of Salmonella a year in the U.S., with food being the source of about one million — 83% — of the illnesses. Salmonella is a classic cause of water- and foodborne gastroenteritis. While most people recover without treatment, some may require hospitalization because of diarrhea that leads to severe dehydration or life-threatening bacteremia and Salmonella sepsis, including typhoid fever.

There are various strains ofE. coli, and each vary in their presentation. One strain is the infamous traveler’s diarrhea (or “Montezuma’s Revenge”) which typically presents as an acute, watery diarrhea. Though uncommon, some strains produce toxins and can cause bloody diarrhea and complications such as sudden onset anemia and acute renal failure. The incubation period for pathogenic E. coli is one to 10 days, making it difficult to identify the source.

Recognized as a cause of febrile gastroenteritis, symptoms of Listeria are usually self-limited. In pregnant women, however, the infection can lead to miscarriage, stillbirth, premature delivery, or life-threatening infections for the newborn child from neonatal sepsis. It also can cause post-partum bacteremia, threatening the mother’s life. Those who aren’t pregnant may experience headaches, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance, convulsions, fever, and muscle aches. In rare cases, Listeria can cause meningitis. Symptoms generally present one to four weeks after eating contaminated food.

PEST VECTORS. While many pests serve as vectors of foodborne illness, the most common carriers that plague food plants are rodents, cockroaches, flies, and ants.

By understanding the threats associated with vector pests, as well as their habits and preferred habitats, facility managers can better protect their food processing plants from biologic threats. To prevent infestations before they have a chance to materialize, managers should partner with a licensed pest control professional to help implement a holistic integrated pest management (IPM) approach. Comprised of inspection, identification, and treatment, this approach leverages the partnership, allowing treatments to be tailored to each facility’s needs. This proactive pest prevention protects both the facility and the public from the diseases and dangers associated with vector pests.

By Lisa Lupo

It’s 2011: FDA has been directed by FSMA to establish a program for laboratory accreditation to ensure that U.S. food-testing laboratories meet high-quality standards (due two years after enactment). Forward three years to 2014: Although the development of laboratory accreditation for the analyses of foods is a key component of FSMA, FDA has not yet proposed a rule. Fast forward another three years to 2017: The establishment of a program for accrediting laboratories remains the missing piece of the FSMA puzzle.

It’s now 2019. Even while the industry continues to await a FSMA-mandated program, other testing requirements, and general developments in lab tests and technologies, have advanced significantly in the near-decade since the enactment of FSMA.

“When the PC (preventive controls) rules were released, we saw an incredibly large spike in environmental monitoring programs, and the industry amassed a large amount of data, often with no reference to what the data meant or how to apply it,” said bioMérieux Scientific Marketing Manager Joy Dell’Aringa. “Over the last several years we’ve seen some really smart applications of data analytics to ensure environmental monitoring samples are being taken at the right frequency, in the right places, and tested for the right microorganisms.” This is continually evolving, but questions such as “How much is enough? What does my data mean?” need to be addressed, she said.

Some of the areas in which Dell’Aringa sees the evolution are the increase in testing volume, which drives the need for efficiencies, reliability, and cost-competitive solutions; industry awareness of the impact of environmental sanitation on final product; and novel sanitizing practices that can impact the effectiveness of microbial recovery in the laboratory, increasing the need for validation and verification and communication between production and the laboratory.

Citing Aristotle’s theory that “nature abhors a vacuum,” Hygiena Chief Scientific Officer and General Manager Martin Easter said, “Microbes do not stand still.” Bacteria are opportunistic, he explained, so pathogens are being seen as causing food poisoning in unexpected foods (such as flour, cantaloupe, peanut butter).

This means that methods must be validated for different applications. Because genomic studies continue to redefine microbial taxonomy and relatedness of risk, some tests also need to be made more inclusive, e.g., infant formula testing should detect the Cronobacter genus rather than Enterobacter sakazakii. FSMA also requires more preventive due diligence throughout the supply chain based on risk assessment, in both product and environmental hygiene, to manage cross-contamination hazards, Easter said. “Simple screening methods and specific detection methods together provide a portfolio of technology to manage quality and safety hazards.”

ALLERGEN TESTING. As focused on allergens, Bia Diagnostics Laboratory Manager Luke Emerson Mason said, “It is a global market, so we are seeing more harmonization of allergens — and the number of samples — that need to be tested.” For example, the U.S. has the Big 8 allergens, but Canada has 10, Australia 12, and the EU 14. Thus, he said, “In the U.S., we will need to start looking at testing more, as some need to be labeled now for these markets, and therefore there is a need to harmonize allergens.” Along the same lines, he said, companies often struggle with how low testing needs to go. No government regulations specify exactly what peanut-free means. But since there is no such thing as zero, we can go only as low as can be reasonably detected. Since different allergens have different dose-response rates, today’s methods try to meet the needs of the manufacturer and the consumer through a dose-response analogue.

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING. The increase in FDA swabbing is allowing for more surveillance of higher-risk products and facilities, and it provides companies with an opportunity to work with FDA to fine tune food safety practices, Dell’Aringa said. “From a testing perspective, it is also an opportunity for companies to proactively sample internally and learn their facility’s microbiological risks and composition ahead of FDA swabbing events,” she explained. “This can show that the company has good due-diligence practices and also arms them with knowledge of harborage sites, biofilm areas, and potential risk points so meaningful and effective corrective action plans can be deployed before an issue arises.”

FDA’s use of whole genome sequencing (WGS) also has an impact. Food manufacturers are exploring how they can use it for apples-to-apples comparison and protect their company and brand, she said. But questions often arise, such as: “If I find a pathogen and apply WGS, is that sequence then discoverable?” and “Will good due diligence and good science help or hurt my business?” With the industry working collaboratively to help answer such questions, some are starting to conduct WGS more routinely on their own, she said.

CONSUMER IMPACT. “From a microbiological perspective, consumers are aware more now than ever of recalls and outbreaks,” Dell’Aringa said. “A brand image can suffer greatly from one viral post about a rancid or spoiled item.” Thus, both manufacturing and consumer demand continues to rise for faster turn times that don’t compromise results. It is a product of a highly competitive marketplace and the increasing global reach of the food supply, she said.

Traceability also plays a role, she said. It’s not only about “What’s in my food?” but also “Where did my food come from?” While this doesn’t directly impact the lab operation, labs could use blockchain concepts and tools to “attach” lab results to food as it travels through the supply chain.

Consumers also have had an impact on allergen testing, said Bia Diagnostics Owner Tom Grace. Fifteen to 20 years ago, the industry was using ATP microbiological tests for quality control, but these didn’t address allergens. Then consumers began pushing FDA for the labeling of allergens and that lead to FALCPA. FDA allergen recalls, which peaked a few years ago, have decreased significantly in percent of recalls, with most of today’s allergen recalls due to labeling problems rather than cross contact. “Companies have done a very good job in their HACCP programs and testing,” Grace said, adding, “Regulatory, auditor, and food safety professionals are becoming more educated with food safety requirements – especially allergens; this has increased in the last decade and resulting in a decrease in recalls.”

INDUSTRY TRENDS. As the exchange with the four experts proved, the list of specific changes in the last decade could go on for pages, such as Easter’s assertions that there is continued development of automation of media prep, sample prep, growth media and colony counting for traditional cultural microbiology; the development and use of specific substrates has improved diagnostic testing for bacteria; and alternative methods using novel end detection technologies to screen for microbial contamination in food continue to be develop but few see widespread adoption. “The reasons are either due to costs or limited applications or comparison to the cultural gold standard methods that are themselves highly variable,” he said.

Easter also sees primary producers (e.g., of leafy green and ready-to-eat foods) having a sampling and detection challenge in being required to test for the absence of pathogens in increasing sample size from 25/100g to 375g. “Being able to segregate or divert raw material for different processing methods enables industry to be cost effective and demands enumeration methods for some pathogens. More complex ready meals and complex processing/filling methods demand higher standards of hygiene and prevention with the potential for more regulatory inspection.”

“Other tangential initiatives that many companies are tackling, such as sustainability, water conservation, and ethical sourcing practices, also have impacts in the food testing laboratory,” Dell’Aringa said. “New approaches to manufacturing, distribution, and supply chain can create food safety and quality gaps that must be addressed and validated in partnership with the food-testing laboratory.” Advanced analytics and predictive modeling applications also will impact the future of food labs, she said. “As we look at our data in different and creative ways, new insights about how to prevent adverse safety and quality events will continue to emerge.”

In describing a new broad-spectrum test method employing a multiplex system that can detect and quantify up to 10 protein analytes at the same time from the same sample down to one or two ppm, Grace said, “There is a need to prove and verify that any test method is fit for the purpose and that there is nothing in the matrices which might interfere with the testing method, possibly producing false negative or false positive results.”

WHAT’S NEXT? Dell’Aringa sees the use of next-generation sequencing for predictive and precise food safety as “the next frontier of our field that will see rapid growth and advancement in the next decade.” Additionally, she said, in-line testing opportunities will increase, and new pathogen markers will be identified to better protect public health while also minding the bottom line.

Noting that allergen lists could begin to include some fruits, Grace cited the case of a boy who died from an allergic reaction to strawberry residue in a fast-food vanilla milkshake. When it occurred there was no effective test, but today, he said, “We can employ PCR technology to perform DNA testing which can verify the presence of an allergen.”

Emerging foodborne pathogens and problems continue to evolve with recalls for pathogens in foods not previously known to occur. Thus, Easter said, applications need to be developed and methods validated for food types not normally associated with food poisoning. While he expects continued development of alternative microbiological methods using novel end-detection technologies to screen for microbial contamination, he said, “Comparing trends of the results from new methods without conversion back to the variable CFU (colony-forming unit) of cultural methods is an impediment to the adoption of alternative methods.” Because alternative methods offer faster, more meaningful microbial activity data, he said, “We need to move away from blind belief in the CFU; we need a new metric, e.g., Microbial Activity Unit.”

Lab operations, practices, and tests will continue to evolve as the industry works toward ever-lower detection and ever-higher food safety. But such improvements will not evolve in a vacuum. As food safety professionals and leaders continue to collaborate outside of the lab, especially with non-scientific disciplines, Dell’Aringa expects to see increased awareness and support for the critical role of the food safety lab. “We will continue to see the trend that the food lab isn’t a cost-center, but a partner in cost-avoidance,” she said.

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

In the May/June issue of QA, we sought the opinions of pest management experts on whether a food processing facility can be truly pest free. In their responses, the experts provided rationale for their views. In this issue, we delve deeper into this important topic, asking them to assess the threat posed by occasional invaders in food processing facilities. Following are the added questions, followed by the relevant sections of the experts’ prior responses, and how they see it applying to occasional invaders.

What existing or conducive conditions attract occasional invaders?

“Key stakeholders on both sides must instill a sense of value and commitment to observation, reporting, communicating, and action when existing or conducive pest conditions exist.”

For occasional invaders, these could include:

• Poor drainage/storm water management provides high moisture levels against or close to building exterior.
• Allowing natural vegetation to grow, including flowering weeds, around building perimeters will attract occasional invaders and provide shelter, food, and moisture.
• Exterior lighting that attracts insects and placement of lights around entry sites, loading dock doors, and frequently opened windows will draw night-active pests to the structure. Use low-attraction light sources and remove lights from the building, aiming them at critical areas rather than mounting on the structure.
• Heat and odor exhausts at ground level can attract many pests, especially during transition seasons.
• Neglected cracks, utility penetrations, and structural joints can offer harborage and entry sites for pests.

– Joe Barile, Technical Service Lead, Bayer Environmental Science’s Professional Pest Management Team

“It takes monitoring for pests and a knowledge of past issues and conducive conditions that lead to pest pressure.”

A number of conditions can attract occasional invaders to a food processing facility, including food odors coming from inside. Moisture is a large draw, from standing water or even small sources like the drip from an air conditioner. In warmer areas, the cool air from inside a facility also can attract the pests to open doors or warehouse bays.

– Mel Whitson, Senior Field Technical Service Manager, Zoëcon Professional Products

What can food processing plants do to exclude pest entry from the exterior?

“In a commercial facility of this nature, an integrated pest management approach that pays close attention to hygiene, exclusion, and prevention is crucial for a successful control program.”

Today there are many options to prevent pest entry in a food processing plant or a commercial facility. Pay close attention to entry points starting with doors, windows, and vents in the building. Always use self-closing doors that lead directly to the outside; these are most important in high-traffic areas — by the front of the building or the loading docks in the back.

Sometimes employee breakrooms will have access to an outside patio that can provide entry points for different pests. Make sure doors and windows are fitted with weather stripping and/or screens and are in good repair. Air doors or plastic curtains are also widely used in commercial facilities to prevent the entry of flying insects.

©korionov | stock.adobe.com

The best plan should always include targeting the pests on the exterior of the building by creating rings of defense. For example, an invisible barrier can be created by using repellent products with fast knockdown and long-lasting residual activity; the idea is to get to these pests before they make it into the building.

Another example is treating and maintaining the proper hygiene around dumpsters, trash cans, and recycling bins. Also pay attention to drains and other high-moisture areas. Be aware that many of these conducive conditions might be hidden from plain view by tall grass, shrubs, and other structural elements.

Inspect all utility line entry points and make sure they are properly sealed; ensure trees and shrubs are not touching the structures — these and the utility lines can serve as highways for many crawling pests. Also remember that employees can bring pests from their homes into locker rooms and offices; and loading docks and shipping trucks are ideal transport for unwanted visitors. Lastly, do not forget that used equipment can bring pests from other facilities.

– Freder Medina, Technical Market Manager – Pest Control, BASF

With dedication and adapting integrated pest management practices like exclusion and sanitation techniques, facilities can keep insect population levels at a very low level; one that will not cause economic loss.

While integrating physical barriers to exclude pests from food processing facilities is important to the success of your integrated pest management plan, it is not the only form of exclusion that should be considered. Eliminating the risk of bringing pests into the facility on raw ingredients and packaging is just as important as excluding them from the facility with insecticides and devices, so it is important to have supply chain protocols in place.

As with all integrated pest management programs, continuous monitoring of the facility and stored materials with traps is imperative to early detection of an insect pest before economic damage occurs. Finally, communication of inspection and control protocols should be communicated to initiate a quick response to an infestation.

– Cassie Krejci, Animal Health Technical Field Specialist, MGK

How does a food processing facility prevent occasional invaders in incoming goods?

On the trojan horse concept: “The trojan horse is a real danger to any pest control program because we cannot inspect 100% of every shipment or the people visiting.”

Incoming goods is one of the risky areas in any food plant that needs to be monitored at every delivery. During offloading, the product needs to be thoroughly inspected using a good flashlight, not just given a cursory once-over. Insects, like stored product pests, will seek harborage in the dark areas of the product, so attention to detail is vital.

The condition of the delivery vehicle also should be taken into consideration, as the product is confined during the transport phase and vulnerable to infestation. Finally, consider the staging area of the product to ensure it is monitored, especially if the product is stored near return product from the trade.

– Dominique Sauvage, Senior Director of Quality, Training and Field Operations, Copesan Services and Terminix Commercial

“(Have) a prevention-minded process for incoming goods and exterior pest pressures.”

A food processing facility can help prevent adulteration by occasional invaders from incoming goods by having third-party inspections of suppliers and trailer companies, and pre-loading inspections of the containers used in the shipment process prior to loading.

Once the goods are on-site, the company can ensure trailer doors remain closed and the IPM program for the exterior grounds is in good working order.

– James Miller, Market Manager-PCO, Trécé

Why is a strong monitoring program for occasional invaders important?

“It is possible for facilities to proactively prevent pest entry from the ambient environment and create an environment within the facility wherein any pests are eradicated before they create a hazard. Both would require an integrated approach including environmental, mechanical and chemical eradication, coupled with a strong monitoring program, sanitation, and ‘pest proofing’ specific susceptible processes and areas.”

An inspection is a snapshot in time, monitoring is a video. Monitoring provides the information needed for early detection of potential pest problems, before they get out of hand and cause significant problems. A lot of pests spend their time in cracks, crevices, and out-of-the-way places and may become well established before they are noticed or found in a visual inspection. Monitoring is a key step in a comprehensive pest management program. The reasons for a particular pest problem can vary widely, but monitoring can detect them earlier, irrespective of the cause. Monitoring also can provide the foundation of a systems-guided approach to pest management. It involves deployment and inspection of monitoring devices at regular intervals which then should lead to follow-up actions based upon findings.

– Cisse Spragins, Founder/CEO, Rockwell Labs

“The critical factor is early detection. This can be accomplished reliably with a thorough quarantine and monitoring protocol, regular inspections and aggressive control measures when pest thresholds are breached.”

When occasional invaders are found inside processing facilities, they are often an indicator of structural exclusion deficiencies. It is important to identify the point of entry and determine if it was a one-time occurrence, like an exterior door left open, or a recurring issue, such as a malfunctioning air curtain. A comprehensive monitoring program with multiple devices can help pinpoint the recurrence and location of insect entry into the facility.

– Eric Paysen, Technical Services Manager, Professional Pest Management, Syngenta

What steps can be taken to detect occasional invaders that do gain access?

“As individuals in a pest population gain access to a facility, the inspection and maintenance practices should intercept these individuals before they can become a large reproducing population, thus keeping the facility free of pest infestation.”

Ideally catching occasional invaders before they enter the structure is the best option, but there are many options for detection of pests if they gain access. The most commonly used are mechanical devices such as monitors or sticky traps.

These small, non-toxic, inexpensive, and unobtrusive tools can be placed in many areas throughout the structure. They can provide loads of information to a pest management professional, such as the ability to identify an occasional invader, the areas of high incidence, and in some cases, which direction the pests are traveling.

Other monitoring devices such as fly lights, pheromone traps, and even game cameras can be used to monitor pest entry and activity in food processing facilities. When monitoring pests that are only occasionally gaining access, it’s often important to be flexible in your detection options. 

– Janis Reed, Technical Services Manager, PCO, Control Solutions, Inc.

Pests are going to interact with, and likely penetrate, even the most structurally sound buildings through frequently used doors, inbound ingredients, utility penetrations and so on. The key is to have detection systems in place to forewarn pest professionals when pests infiltrate the facility.

If occasional invaders do enter a structure, facilities should use insect light traps and interior rodent traps equipped with glue boards. Occasional invaders are frequently captured in interior rodent traps with glue boards. Proactive inspections should be conducted away from trap lines during routine pest services to actively seek and find hidden areas where occasional invaders may gain entrance. Inspections should focus on hard-to-reach areas such as interstitial spaces, utility rooms, and maintenance shops with special attention paid to door screens and seals, wall seals, and utility penetrations.

Annual pest management awareness training for food personnel can facilitate dialogue between the facility and the service specialists. Personnel can be instructed on how to report and log pest findings to help point service specialists in the right direction. A well-designed pest management program with emphasis on assessments, proactive inspections, and engaged clients will reduce occasional invader issues.

– Dan Collins, Regional Technical Director, McCloud Services

How does the concept of economic thresholds apply to occasional invaders?

“Inherent in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) are concepts of economic thresholds: the cost of pest control does not equal or exceed the cost of product damage. An IPM program includes action thresholds to prevent over-reactions and under-reactions to pest issues in order to not exceed economic thresholds.”

The concept of “action thresholds” can be confusing, and there is no single, simple number that can be assigned. Pests associated with food processing represent risks rather than clear-cut population levels that relate to a yield or quality loss. So, action thresholds for pests will usually be arbitrary numbers. It is logical that different pests and their respective threats in different zones of a facility could lead to a very complex matrix of action thresholds if the concept were to be developed fully. Then there is the question of “threshold for what action?” It might be a trigger for a technician to inspect carefully in an area, deploy more devices, or apply some control measure without further approval in certain areas. Invariably, however, pest levels are communicated and options discussed, or thresholds trigger communications to higher levels of management. Communication is really the key.

For occasional invaders, however, economic thresholds, per se, have not been established; it’s a risk assessment. The most important threats in food processing will be risks to food safety and quality. Normally they are predictable, or can be expected to be threats, and there are monitoring and preventive tools available. No doubt there are some serious seasonal invaders (which will differ by geographic location) that are being categorized as “occasional,” but are really serious enough and predictable enough to be prevented. Monitoring records should have these pests identified and timed fairly precisely. True “occasional invaders” will be those random creatures that occasionally or accidentally get inside. Most are harmless and pose little or no risk. But, something like occasional birds indoors call for advance planning: Take immediate steps to protect food safety, cover certain materials or isolate certain sensitive areas, offer the bird a way to get out, encourage the bird to move toward an exit, try to trap the bird, analyze the event for what went wrong that allowed the bird to enter, and correct the situation.

– Jerry Heath, Entomologist, Industrial Fumigant Company

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

By Lisa Lupo

The good news is the manufacturing segment of the food industry produces the least amount of food waste across the food chain — 2%. The bad news is that even 2% of 63 million tons is still 1.25 million tons of food wasted each year, equating to $4.36 billion of uneaten food. In total, the U.S. spends over $218 billion on food that is never eaten.

While food manufacturers can pat themselves on the back for their low portion of direct food waste, there are additional areas in which manufacturers contribute to, and can take steps to significantly reduce, food waste. As identified by the Roadmap to Reduce U.S. Food Waste by 20 Percent from ReFED (https://bit.ly/2m1LAU5), there are three that will have the greatest economic value per ton: standardized date labeling, consumer education campaigns, and packaging adjustments.

Although 43% of food waste nationally is generated in the home, the food industry has a significant stake in that. Thus, of the 27 best solutions to reduce food waste identified in the Roadmap, “consumer education and standardized date labeling are our top solutions,” said ReFED Founder and CEO Chris Cochran. Founded in 2015, the multi-stakeholder nonprofit ReFED was formed to “build a different future, where food waste prevention is recognized as an untapped strategy that can save resources, create jobs, alleviate hunger, conserve water, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions — all while stimulating a new multi-billion-dollar market opportunity.”

STANDARDIZED DATE LABELING. Confusion over the meaning of date labels is estimated to account for 20% of consumer waste of safe, edible food. Thus, a key initiative Cochran recommends for food manufacturers is the adoption of the standardized date label system of FMI and GMA, which also is now supported, in part, by FDA.

In an Open Letter to the Food Industry, FDA Deputy Commissioner of Food Policy and Response Frank Yiannas promoted the benefits of a streamlined food date-labeling system. In the letter, Yiannas discussed the work of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and Food Marketing Institute (FMI) to simplify and streamline product date labels, and their 2017 recommendation that the industry use two introductory phrases for product date labels:

• Best If Used By. GMA/FMI recommend this for quality labeling, to indicate that, after a specified date, the product may not taste or perform as expected, but it is safe to be consumed. Yiannas said that FDA “strongly supports” the industry’s voluntary industry-wide efforts to use this as a standardized phrase for quality labeling. But, he added, “Labeling is not enough. FDA supports ongoing consumer education efforts by industry, government, and non-government organizations to educate consumers on what quality-based date labels mean and how to use them to further reduce food waste in the home.”
• Use By. Termed a “discard label” by ReFED, GMA/FMI recommend this for perishable products that should be consumed by the date on the package and discarded after that date. In relation to his label, however, Yiannas said, “FDA is not addressing the use of a ‘Use by’ product date label for safety reasons at this time.”

ReFED supports both labeling standards, which Cochran sees industry as rapidly adopting. Thus, to further aid manufacturers in the determination of whether a quality label or a discard label should be placed on their products, the nonprofit developed a decision tree (above). The tree is intended to “help limit the number of products that are assigned a discard label and will reduce the unnecessary waste of products that are still safe to consume.” Additionally, because the labels address the expiration date of a food before it is opened, not after, the tree includes instruction that manufacturers may put additional guidance, such as “Once opened, eat within X days.”

In addition to updating the date label, Cochran recommended that manufacturers reassess the number of days they assign to a product’s shelf life. This should be maximized through input from across the company, as dates assigned by just the food safety team are likely to be conservative. Maximizing the date is economically advantageous for the business as well as the consumer, because it can increase consumer satisfaction as the food can be kept longer and is seen as being fresher upon purchase.

CONSUMER EDUCATION. “Once we have achieved label standardization, then we can do consumer education,” Cochran said. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), North American consumers lead the world in per-capita food waste. Thus, the primary goals of consumer education efforts would be to increase awareness, offer tips for extending food shelf life and properly storing perishables, and promote a culture of active waste avoidance. Messaging would be developed to appeal to a wide variety of values, including that of reducing food bills. Such increased awareness may also inspire consumers to demand that businesses operate more responsibly.

Though education could be brand specific, ideally, it would be coordinated across the industry, he said. In fact, large-scale consumer advocacy campaigns, that are focused on raising awareness of food waste and educating consumers on ways to save money and reduce wasted food, are considered by ReFED to be one of the top solutions with the largest total prevention diversion potential. As is explained in the ReFED Roadmap, “Launching a widespread training effort to change the behavior of food business employees is critical (particularly consumer-facing businesses). In addition, campaigns to raise food waste awareness among consumers need to attract additional funding and support to expand to the scale of anti-littering and anti-smoking efforts.”

Consumer education is also critical to the success of other Roadmap solutions, e.g., standardized date labeling and packaging adjustment solutions will be much more effective if consumers are aware of them.

PACKAGING ADJUSTMENTS. “Packaging is a huge opportunity,” Cochran said. “We need to fundamentally improve food packaging.” One of the greatest challenges is the decision between increased packaging of individual units to reduce food waste, or quantity packaging to reduce materials but potentially increase waste due, in part, to reduced shelf life. The manufacturers’ decision on these will affect both the downstream retailer and the consumer.

In making that decision, Cochran said, two key points should be considered:

1. Ensure the packaging fulfills the basic purpose of protecting the food product and extending shelf life.
2. Rethink material choices (e.g., reusable, recyclable, or compostable packaging) while thinking about extending shelf life.

From a climate perspective, Cochran added, the footprint of food waste is greater than the footprint of packaging. From an economic perspective, applying the 27 solutions of the Roadmap to cut food waste by 20% over the next decade would require an $18 billion investment but would yield $100 billion in societal economic value, including $2 billion in business profit per year.

FOLLOW THE HIERARCHY. Cochran recommends that manufacturers practice the following hierarchy for the greatest ecological and economic value:

1. Prevention. Prevention is applicable across the chain — from farms to homes. The Roadmap shows that prevention creates three times the societal net economic value of recovery and recycling combined. The two most cost-effective solutions, Consumer Education Campaigns and Standardized Date Labeling, both require relatively low investment and prevent large volumes of food from being wasted, leading to high relative savings.
2. Recovery. To determine recovery options, consider the secondary markets that could be using your byproducts. “A lot of startups have formed around the manufacturing sector,” Cochran said. “As we’re thinking about solutions, we need to start with manufacturing principles to maximize efficiencies and minimize waste.” Where there is excess food or byproducts, manufacturers need to find markets rather than paying to have them discarded.
3. Recycling. Are there outlets for feeding excess product to animals, using centralized anaerobic digestion processes or processors, centralized composting facilities, etc.? Anaerobic facilities particularly seek the excess food from the manufacturing sector because they are usually large quantities of a similar product.

... Landfills. Think of landfill as a last resort; as not even part of the system. Create, instead, a zero food waste system.

INTO THE FUTURE. While the 27 solutions of the Roadmap are intended cut food waste by 20% over the next decade, there’s an even greater national and global goal to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030. To be a part of this, Cochran said:

1. Commit. There are any number of efforts businesses can join, such as EPA’s Champions 2030, the Champions 12.3 coalition, and Consumer Goods Forum Resolution.
2. Take action. Use the ReFED Roadmap to reduce food waste. Keep an eye out for the 2020 update which will further identify solutions to achieving the goals.
3. Share. Manufactures can benefit from sharing information and best practices with ReFED, for which they will, in return, receive ReFED data, statistics, and cost/benefit analysis.
4. Attend. Apply for an invitation to join other thought leaders, major food businesses and investors at the 2019 Food Waste Summit in October.

Food manufacturers have a promising start — producing only 2% of the food waste across the food chain. “That is evidence that many have become LEAN,” Cochran said. “They have enabled a lot of the start-up infrastructure to be built out, many of which are based on the premise that they find a byproduct. I encourage them to continue to work their way up the hierarchy.”