The Indian meal moth is the #1 stored product pest worldwide. Its control and prevention are well known but underutilized due to varying economics. Now Trécé has developed a first ever microencapsulated sprayable mating disruption product, which is available industry wide. Herein James Miller, ACE - Market Manager, PCO with Trécé Incorporated, reviews questions regarding the application of CIDETRAK® IMM MEC™ – sprayable mating disruptant for IMM and other species.

1 What is CIDETRAK IMM MEC?

CIDETRAK IMM MEC is a highly sophisticated microencapsulated (MEC) controlled release formulation, created to control and prevent infestation of the IMM and other species. It employs a non-toxic synthetic replica of the female-produced sex pheromone to suppress, deny, or delay the mating of IMM adults.

2 How does CIDETRAK IMM MEC work?

CIDETRAK IMM MEC slowly releases pheromone chemistry through a polymeric matrix or “microcapsule” formed around the active ingredient. It uses air current and building convection to distribute the pheromone throughout the treatment area.

3 What level of efficacy was achieved in trials with CIDETRAK IMM MEC?

Results have been exceptional! Over three years of R&D trials were conducted in some of the harshest environments available comparing CIDETRAK IMM MEC to CIDETRAK IMM MESO solid mating disruption dispensers and non-treated similar sites. CIDETRAK IMM MEC compared very favorably to CIDETRAK IMM MESO and much better than non-treated sites.

4 How does one apply CIDETRAK IMM MEC?

CIDETRAK IMM MEC may be applied as a general surface spray, fogging, spot spray, or crack and crevice treatment where targeted insect infestations are present. Use spray/application equipment capable of delivering a variable spray or coating to uniformly apply the solution such as handheld sprayers, electric sprayers, or fogging equipment. The product may also be tank mixed with an adulticide and/or insect growth regulator.

5 Why was CIDETRAK IMM MEC developed?

The evolution of mating disruption technology never stops. CIDETRAK IMM MEC provides a more economical solution for clients with IMM issues. And the added benefit of combining control and prevention products into a multi-faceted IPM program allows for more solutions for the end user and PMP.

Like most people, you probably know that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food. But did you know that it also regulates food packaging? That’s because chemicals in packaging could migrate into our food under certain conditions. FDA defines a “food contact substance” at Code of Federal Regulations, 21, 170.3(e)(3) as “any substance that is intended for use as a component of materials used in manufacturing, packing, packaging, transporting or holding food if such use is not intended to have any technical effect in such food.” This definition includes substances used in food packaging.

Generally speaking, regardless of the type of packaging involved or the specific component of that packaging, manufacturers are presumed to be following current good manufacturing practices. And, if no limit is specified, the quantity of any substance used in the packaging must not exceed the amount absolutely necessary to achieve the desired result. Provided the manufacturer adheres to those basic requirements, then it has a few different options for the types of materials it may use.

One option the manufacturer has is to use a material or component that is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in food packaging under CFR, 21, 186, or that is used in accordance with a prior sanction or approval. Examples of GRAS substances include clay and Japan wax.

Or the manufacturer may use specific materials already approved by FDA. In CFR, 21, 175, 176 and 177, the FDA has authorized the use of different types of adhesives/coatings, paper, paperboard and polymers, respectively. Each of those types of products must be used in accordance with the strict conditions set forth in those parts. For example, synthetic paraffin is approved for use as a coating, but under CFR, 21, 175.250, there are strict technical requirements for the congealing point, oil content and absorptivity of the substance.

Alternatively, a manufacturer may submit a premarket notification for a food contact substance under CFR, 21, 170.100-106, known more colloquially as an FCN. Unlike substances approved for use by all under the sections mentioned earlier, a substance approved via an FCN is only approved for use by the manufacturer that submitted the FCN, and only under the precise conditions of use set forth in the FCN. If another manufacturer wants to use the exact same substance in the exact same manner, it must nevertheless submit its own FCN.

Finally, under CFR, 21, 170.39, manufacturers may seek an exemption for a particular substance that migrates from the food-packaging material into the food at minimal levels if they can show that the substance has not been shown to be a carcinogen, and there is no reason to suspect it may be carcinogenic; that it presents no other health and safety concerns; that it has no technical effect on the food; and that it has no significant adverse impact on the environment.

A word about per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, more commonly referred to as PFAS. PFAS are used in certain types of disposable dishware and in non-stick cookware. It is PFAS that allow you to enjoy that greasy piece of fried chicken on a paper plate without the grease soaking through the plate onto your clothes. But in recent years, PFAS have come under attack. That’s because the evidence suggests that these substances build up in the human body and in our water and soil and may be harmful to human health and to the environment. Certain PFAS are currently approved for use by FDA, but with mounting pressure from various stakeholders, that may well change in the coming years.

In 2013, a produce recall that resulted in no fatalities, no illnesses and involved fewer than 250,000 units cost a medium-sized fresh-cut firm more than $2 million. The entire recall was pretty much over within less than 10 days, and yet it still cost millions of dollars.

While food companies work tirelessly to prevent recalls, there is no such thing as zero risk. Sometimes recalls happen as an extension of another company’s recall, other times because there is a breakdown in our company protocols, and still other times because the bacterium or viruses outsmart us despite every possible intervention. That is why every food company needs to be prepared to carry out a recall, and part of that preparation (in addition to having an executable recall plan, but that is another topic) is estimating the potential impact and securing necessary resources.

How much a food recall really costs becomes the million-dollar question. (Or maybe it’s less than that. More than that?) Risk managers, owners, operators and others want to know. Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot of current and reliable information on this topic.

In a 2011 publication, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (now the Consumer Brands Association), Covington & Burling LLP and Ernst & Young put an average price tag for a recall at $10 million. Still, the report is 10 years old, and it was researched before the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was implemented. So, at best, it probably sets the floor for consumer brand recalls.

In 2016, MEIRxRS, the training and auditing firm, reported, “Almost one-third of recalls conducted in 2014 are from small companies under five employees. Using data from the FDA and [Department of Agriculture], we worked on calculating the cost of a recall. The average market value of products recalled in 2014 was $1,563,551, with a median of $33,598. Small businesses make up the vast majority of recalled product.”

But this looks at only one variable — the market value of the recalled products — and it, too, is dated.

The bottom line is, there are so many variables that it is impossible to calculate a fixed number that applies to companies of varying sizes, operations, business models and products. Some of the variables are: the recalled product; product disposition costs; lost future sales of the recalled product; lost sales of any other company products because of weak customer/consumer confidence; public relations fees; legal fees (regulatory counsel and/or liability counsel); food safety consultant fees; costs associated with extra cleaning and sanitation; costs of implementing corrective actions; lab fees; reputational costs (intangible, but real); government fees/fines; employee overtime.

Undoubtedly, insurance companies that offer contamination policies have an algorithm that takes these variables and others into account. Anecdotally, here are some things I’ve heard from recalling companies over the years that might help put cost into context.

For starters, the sum of lost sales and fees that must be paid under certain supplier agreements can be more than the cost of the recalled product. And the cost of legal, public relations and technical services vary widely depending on the hourly rate and the time required. Even in the best cases, companies typically need these services for five or 10 days.

If a professional third-party call center answers consumer calls, the cost typically starts at about $7,000 to set up the phones and train the agents. The usage fees depend on many other factors, including hours of operations, call volume, languages, whether someone qualified to answer medical questions will be available, etc. In the case of one large produce recall, the cost of the consumer hotline was more than $150,000 for the first two weeks.

The recalling firm generally pays for the postage, envelopes, paper and copies for the written notices that chain stores mail to loyalty cardholders. In 2015, one produce company was charged 75 cents per piece for more than 500,000 written notices distributed nationally. The recalling firm was also required to pay for the automated phone calls (robocalls) to consumers.

In 2011, a lawyer for a medium-sized fresh produce company told me that the starting settlement cost for a fatality was $1 million. I’m sure it is more today, and this doesn’t include the emotional trauma for everyone involved.

In the end, don’t get too hung up on the exact number, which is a moving target. Use the available information, consider factors unique to your operation and update the assessment regularly to accommodate the changing business environment. If nothing else, this exercise in estimating the cost of a recall will reinforce the benefits of your prevention efforts.

Aptar

Aptar.com

Aptar’s InvisiShield technology is an active material science-based antimicrobial delivery system that aims to provide a final intervention step to protect consumers from foodborne illnesses transmitted through minimally processed foods. It delivers a controlled amount of chlorine dioxide gas into the headspace of a sealed package to protect against pathogen growth without impacting the product’s taste, scent or appearance. “This technology has the potential to change the way the food industry thinks about food safety,” said Angela Morgan, director of business development and food safety solutions. “We are taking a small-but-game-changing step in reshaping the food safety paradigm.”

Bell Laboratories

Belllabs.com

In an effort to continue ensuring pest management professionals have the most tools possible in the fight against disease and damage caused by rodents, despite regulatory challenges in the industry, Bell Laboratories has announced the launch of its newly registered rodenticide: Contrac California Bromethalin Soft Bait. As the name suggests, Contrac California Soft Bait is made with the single feed acute active ingredient bromethalin. Its 8-gram sachets and palatable oil-based formulation is expected to provide PMPs with the confidence and results they have been accustomed to when using Bell’s other industry leading Contrac products, the company said. Registered only for use in the state of California, Contrac California Bromethalin Soft Bait specifically meets all state regulatory requirements for structural rodenticide use, Bell said.

NSF EyeSucceed

NSF.org

NSF International has announced NSF EyeSucceed, a training modality that uses augmented reality (AR) paired with wearable smartglasses to improve both virtual and in-person training, consistency and operational efficiency, contributing to better experiences for employees and consumers. The technology can be used in foodservice and food manufacturing. “The need for smart solutions that are cost effective has been growing for years. Following the pandemic, the food industry is seeking even more ways to leverage new technologies to improve training and efficiency while maintaining quality and consistency,” said Tom Chestnut, co-founder of NSF EyeSucceed. “NSF EyeSucceed provides businesses with a customized suite of applications.”