DARIN DETWILER, Dean of Graduate Academic and Faculty Affairs, Northeastern University
Most companies put into place detailed plans, protocols, audits, and training to make their products safe. They hire the best leadership and take a very proactive role in driving food safety. The growth and momentum of a food safety culture is a healthy sign of what many industry stakeholders now hold as a high priority.
How futile is it for food companies to put so much work into the safety of their products only to have it undone by failures at the restaurant or retail level? Unfortunately, this is not a hypothetical concern.
This year already, I have visited multiple restaurants, witnessing the food workers behind the counter break several food safety and/or public health rules, including scooping ice with the cup instead of the ice scooper, handling raw beef patties then cooked food, sweeping the floor then immediately handling food without washing hands, and eating while preparing food.
Perhaps nobody should be surprised by these observations, as we have seen discussion and even predictions of failures in food safety for well over 100 years. After the publishing of Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel, The Jungle, the London Times Sunday Supplement of June 1, 1906, included a literary review of his influential book. In the review, the journalist wrote that “The things described by Mr. Sinclair happened yesterday, are happening today, and will happen tomorrow and the next day until some Hercules comes to cleanse the filthy stable.”
Hercules is far from any one single person or entity. Hercules can be found in the voices and in the actions of consumers and those who work in the food industry.
The reality is that food safety requires a herculean effort of all participants along the way from farm to the fork. Herculean effort is best defined as something requiring an enormous amount of work, strength, and courage.
A recent conversation put food safety into a different light for me. I asked someone in Dubai who works in food safety about how his focus impacts his personal life. What he told me is something that we need to consider in how we communicate with the many people needed as part of this herculean effort. He said, “When someone really loves music, I don’t think they would just stop singing. They would not think that they only sing when they are at music school…that they stop singing when they are at home. That would never happen. Food safety is like music for me — I don’t realize that I am doing things related to food safety…it just comes to me when I am doing many related tasks and even cooking at home. So, it is part of my life.”
Food safety experts talk about culture, about mission, about prioritizing it and investing in it. Consumers talk about food safety after incidents and crises have already harmed people. The news and social media broadcast information of industry failures and victims as if this coverage is an inevitable part of their job.
Imagine if food safety efforts were treated like music — something that can be woven into the fabric of industry like an art…like something that drives and is driven by passion. Imagine if solo food safety workers were to collaborate and band together with large groups to orchestrate herculean efforts.
There will never be an end to foodborne illness. When it comes to the herculean efforts behind food safety, however, I hope the music never ends.
The Pest Management Sanitation Inspection: What to Expect
Landscaping can add to the aesthetics of a facility, but shrubbery and other plants located too close to the building can provide harborage and access for pests.Brittany Campbell, Ph.D., Staff Entomologist, National Pest Management Association
For food processing and packaging facility managers, pest control is inevitably top-of-mind. You’ve probably heard horror stories from peers in the industry and have decided your facility will not, and cannot, fall victim to an infestation of any kind. But, how do you safeguard against a pest invasion?
To help prevent infestations before they have a chance to materialize, facility managers should bring in a pest control professional to help implement an integrated pest management (IPM) plan. Comprised of inspection, identification, and treatment, this holistic approach leverages the partnership between the facility manager and pest control professional (PMP), allowing treatments to be tailored to each facility’s needs. To determine those needs, however, inspection is paramount.
A thorough inspection led by a PMP is essential to curbing and solving potential pest issues past, present, and future. This process includes thorough evaluations with building managers, as well as an examination of the premises — both inside and out — to determine potential vulnerabilities and conditions that may attract pests. Because this step is so crucial in ensuring a pest-free facility, following is a checklist of areas PMPs focus on during inspections to help prepare your facility for future success.
Building Exterior. The inspection will likely begin on the exterior of the building to ensure no pest harborage or breeding sites can be found, noting any overgrown grass or shrubbery that should be trimmed back away from the building. To avoid moisture buildup that can attract pests, recommendations may be made to ensure proper drainage at the foundation, including the installation of gutters or diverts which will channel water away from the building. Lighting also plays a key role in attracting pests to a facility, and the inspection will determine whether or not you have non-attracting lights, such as sodium vapor bulbs, around the facility.
Building Interior. The interior inspection will encompass storage areas, equipment centers, processing areas, locker rooms, and more for any signs of an infestation. As part of the IPM approach, the PMP may suggest sealing any cracks or crevices in the structure, including entry points for utilities and pipes, with an appropriate sealant. Improper ventilation is also a concern in food processing plants, so PMPs will check to ensure there is no condensation buildup that could accumulate moisture and attract pests.
Food Storage Areas. As the inspection moves to food storage areas, professionals will be on the lookout for any signs of damage to boxes and bags, improper storage of empty containers which can provide harborage sites for pests, and overall good housekeeping practices to ensure the food supply is not, and will not be, contaminated. They also will be looking to ensure that both sellable goods and damaged goods are stored properly to minimize the risk of infestation. This includes separating and repackaging damaged goods to prevent contaminating the rest of the food supply, and ensuring any returned goods are handled properly upon receipt to avoid cross contamination. Refrigerators are also a point of concern, and PMPs will ensure these devices are clean and absent of condensation or signs of pest activity.
Food Processing Areas. In areas where food is processed, professionals will look first and foremost at the equipment itself to determine how easy it is to clean. Enclosed areas of the machine should be easy to access and open for quick cleaning. Areas under and behind equipment should be clean and void of any signs of pest activity. They also will check to ensure that no permanent food storage is in the processing area, as this can lead to cross contamination of either supply.
Garbage and Trash Areas. You will need to ensure the facility has an adequate waste management system in place. Garbage should be stored in sealed containers at all times and disposed of on a regular basis. If there is a dumpster on the property, it should have a closable lid, not be located near entry points, be emptied frequently, and show evidence of regular cleaning to pass inspection. Indoor trash receptacles also should be emptied regularly and always covered to prevent any pests from getting in, or out, in search of food and nesting items.
Common Areas and Bathrooms. High-volume areas, such as break rooms and kitchenettes, where crumbs and trash are likely to build up, should be cleaned daily. Bathrooms also will be inspected to ensure all plumbing is functioning properly, and that there are no signs of moisture buildup or an infestation of any kind.
The only surefire way to prevent pest problems in food processing facilities is to take proactive steps to ensure one never has a chance to materialize. Implementing an IPM program is the key to that endeavor, as it allows PMPs to identify potential harborage sites while offering ways to remedy them. To implement a tailored IPM program, be sure to hire a professional pest control company that specializes in commercial properties, specifically food processing and packaging facilities, to conduct a thorough inspection of both the interior and exterior of the building to ensure compliance with national food safety standards. By doing so, you will not only safeguard your facility against future infestations, you will be armed with a trusted partner who has extensive knowledge of your facility, should an infestation occur.
Open or poorly screened doors have been a problem in the food industry for many years leading to food contamination and failed inspections. OLE DOSLAND, QA & Food Safety Consultant, Certified Instructional Designer/Professional Instructor
Many food storage facilities, including distribution centers, do not have adequate air flow and ventilation causing discomfort for workers in hot weather. Letting in clean fresh air is necessary and should be done in a manner that protects workers, food, and property. Poorly screened doors are a food safety and pest exclusion problem in food storage facilities.
For example: One bird dropping creates unimaginable consequences. Most stored product insects are good fliers. A rodent urinates as it travels and produces 50 to 100 fecal droppings daily. Airborne foreign material on food products is an indication of other contaminates. A rat can enter a building with an opening of one inch, a mouse ¼ inch and an insect 3/100 inch.
As birds, insects, and rodents are known to carry foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella, their prevention is an essential prerequisite for a successful food safety program.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) enables FDA to focus on preventing food safety problems rather than reacting to them after occurrence. And the agency is doing so: A large food distribution center was visited by FDA to investigate a problem that had come to its attention. The distribution center held damaged food in a designated area for rework. The FDA investigator observed open food packages, rodent droppings, and filth in the rework area near a trash compactor and a poorly screened dock door. Openings were observed on each side of the screen with a dead rat found inside a nearby rodent catch device. The screen was partially open with airborne foreign material drifting into the building and rework area.
At the conclusion of the inspection, FDA issued a Form 483 to the facility’s management noting that these conditions constitute violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act. A lawyer prepared an action response, but the distribution center’s file was now blemished.
Any food storage facility should realize that one bird, one insect, or one rodent is one too many, dead or alive. Letting pests enter for capture inside is not acceptable and letting airborne foreign material inside is an indication of a bigger problem. Why is screening doors so difficult? What does it take to do it right? What is a practical solution?
In many food warehouses and distribution centers a screen door is utilized as an air intake filtration device helping to improve overall air flow. The optimal screen opening is of a size that allows a majority of air in, but keeps the highest majority of pests and foreign material out without creating an impractical cleaning activity. Regular cleaning of a screen door is expected and should be done from the outside. The screen material must be durable to withstand this cleaning activity as well as the day-to-day activity.
Why are screens positioned inside a door? Stopping nature inside allows parts of nature inside. Why do screens not seal all the way around? Small openings will be found by birds, insects, and rodents. Why are screens susceptible to puncture/tear? Tiny openings will be found by tiny insects, and rodents are excellent climbers and will find their way through small openings. Why don’t screens rapidly go up and down? Many screens are not closed because of inconvenience to workers. Why don’t screens last over time? Poorly designed screens and framework are susceptible to damage.
A practical solution is to let air in and keep nature out with an automated exterior mesh screen door with a 100% seal, including brush weather seals on tops, sides, and bottoms, with a tear-resistant material mounted on a rigid dock frame.
One bag of infested food can ruin tons of safe and wholesome food. Numerous foodborne diseases are caused by pest activity in food processing and storage facilities. Denial of pest entry is an essential prerequisite for food safety and IPM programs.
Open or poorly screened doors have been a problem in the food industry for many years leading to food contamination and failed inspections. It is imperative that storage facilities in the food, pet food, and feed industries keep doors closed or screened properly.
It is only a matter of time before all food storage facilities in the food, pet food, and feed industries, including food plant warehouses and distribution centers, are visited by FDA. Many facilities are not ready and might face consequences of open or poorly screened doors. It should not be this way.
MONIKA JUNG-MOUNIB, Agricultural and Food-Industry Writer Düsseldorf, Germany
Salmon, once a rare treat, has become popular in many households, even those far from any seashore. Thanks to mass-production aquaculture spreading in our oceans, salmon is not only available in any supermarket’s freezer today, it is also affordable. As salmon ensures the intake of omega-3 fatty acids, its significance as a provider of protein for our growing world population is likely to increase — and our oceans may soon be deemed the “blue field.”
One area where aquaculture is booming is Norway, which is the world’s leading salmon supplier. The country contributes more than 50% of the global salmon production. In 2016, it produced 1.3 million tons of salmon, accounting for about 8.0% of the country’s exports. Despite a low volume growth forecast, it is expected to maintain its market-leading position, acording to the Norwegian Aquaculture Analysis 2017.
The second largest salmon producer is Chile. Its salmon is sold all over the world. Top export destinations include the United States, Japan, Russia, and Brazil. The U.S., in fact, imports more than 90% of Chile’s seafood and was the principal receiver of its seafood products in 2017. Additionally, between 2016 and 2017, the Chilean Atlantic salmon harvest increased 15% to more than 640,000 tons, and in 2017, 80% of the value and 55% of the volume of Chile’s seafood exports came from aquaculture.
However, despite aquaculture booming, wild salmon has long been perceived as being of higher quality than farmed salmon due to better food and greater movement. Wild salmon from Norway, for instance, belongs to an ancient species, which early in its life cycle heads downriver and swims through Norwegian fjords out to saltwalter-feeding grounds before it returns to its native rivers to spawn. But farmed salmon is sometimes associated with intensive livestock farming in large pens containing antibiotics and other environmental pollutants such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and pesticides — barred in Norway and not found in its farmed salmon. Interestingly though, farmed salmon has been found to have more fat and omega-3 fatty acids than wild salmon, because it gets fed more regularly and moves less than wild salmon, which swims thousands of miles and may eat whatever it finds.
It also has been wrongly assumed that wild salmon comes directly from the sea and is fresher. In fact, wild salmon, being deep-frozen, has often travelled long distances from the North Pacific near Alaska and Russia with a stop-over in Asia, where it gets slightly defrosted to be filleted and then refrozen. Farmed salmon from Norway, however, is filleted and shock-frozen in the Baltic countries and then travels to its destination within six months of capture.
Other factors favoring farmed salmon are that, due to the spread of sea lice, the population of wild salmon has halved dramatically in recent years. According to a Norwegian study by Vitenskapelig Rad for Lakseforvaltning, the wild salmon population has fallen to 478,000 from more than a million in the 1980s. Sea lice multiply in large numbers to kill farmed fish and pose a risk to young wild salmon passing the holding pens on their way to the open sea. This led the Norwegian government to introduce a system in October 2017 under which farms in regions that are judged to severely threaten wild salmon numbers will have their production frozen and even cut to protect the country’s stock of wild salmon.
Hence, Marine Harvest, Norway’s largest producer, maintains a high standard to ensure the quality of its farmed salmon: Its enclosures have a radius of 820 feet and a depth of 164 feet; its salmon is vaccinated against illnesses, which is documented to European requirements; it uses satellite-based technology for navigation and communications, supervises the feeding with underwater cameras, and uses a material for net pens that can be cleaned without chemicals.
Additionally, to address the risk of escaped farmed salmon breeding with wild salmon to produce offspring that are ill-equipped to survive and endanger the genetic diversity of wild salmon stocks, Marine Harvest is investing in a solid, egg- shaped pen (yet to be constructed) to prevent salmon from escaping and make it harder for sea lice to enter.
While the Norwegian salmon farming industry has improved its standards significantly and is considering environmental factors, such as the right current to ensure a steady exchange of high-quality water, government controls in Chile are much lighter. Salmon is not native to Chile, and it competes with local fish for space and food. Moreover, in Chilean farms, one cage holds 200,000 salmon, whereas in Norway it is only 100,000.
Despite the challenges, aquaculture remains a growing industry with a growth rate of 8% to 10% per year. Additionally, the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) and Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) product seals can be helpful as an indication of responsible fish farming.
USDA-ARS Study Aims to Provide Baseline And Tool for Sustainable Beef Production
An Agricultural Research Service (ARS)-led team has completed a comprehensive life-cycle analysis quantifying the resource use and environmental emissions of beef cattle production in the U.S. The aim is to establish baseline measures that the beef industry can use to explore ways of reducing its environmental footprint and improve sustainability.
“The environmental footprint of producing beef has long been debated. One challenge is that the impacts extend beyond just those associated with growing the animals and include the impact of producing feed and other inputs. This is further complicated by the diversity of ways that beef cattle are managed and fed,” said Marlen Eve, ARS deputy administrator for natural resources and sustainable agricultural systems. “It is important to have an accurate quantification of these impacts to provide a baseline against which production system sustainability can be assessed and improved.”
Led by ARS Agricultural Engineer Alan Rotz, the team’s analysis encompassed different types of cattle operations, spanned five years and seven cattle-producing regions, and used data from 2,270 nationwide survey responses and site visits. The team, which began its beef life-cycle analysis in 2013, also includes Senorpe Asem-Hiablie, a former ARS research associate; Greg Thoma of the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville; and Sara Place with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which is partially funding the study. Among the results to emerge thus far:
The seven regions’ combined beef cattle production accounted for 3.3% of all U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. By comparison, transportation and electricity generation together made up 56% of the total in 2016 and 9% of agriculture in general.
Fossil-energy (e.g., fuel) use in cattle production accounted for less than 1% of the total consumed nationally.
Cattle only consumed 2.6 pounds of grain per pound of beef-cut weight (butchered-carcass weight), which was comparable to pork and poultry.
Beef operations in the Northwest and Southern Plains had the highest total water use (60% combined) of the seven regions analyzed. Irrigating crops to produce feed for cattle accounted for 96% of total water use across all the regions.
“We found that the greenhouse gas emissions in our analysis were not all that different from what other credible studies had shown and were not a significant contributor to long-term global warming,” Rotz said.
The purpose of the analysis was to systematically measure the use of fuel, feed, forage, electricity, water, fertilizer, and other inputs to raise beef cattle throughout the country — from birth to slaughter.
As such, two areas for potential improvement are water use and reactive nitrogen losses. Water use is increased in the West where U.S. beef cattle are concentrated. Reactive nitrogen losses (at 1.4 teragrams or 15% of the U.S. total), mainly in the form of ammonia, can lead to such issues as smog, acid rain, and algal blooms and potentially pose a public health concern.
Using the Integrated Farm System Model, the team also estimated net releases of reactive forms of nitrogen such as ammonia from manure and urine, as well as the three major greenhouse gases (methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide). This analysis will be combined with postharvest data from other sectors of the beef supply chain (i.e., processing, packing, distribution, retail, consumption, and waste handling), using the open-source life-cycle assessment program OpenLCA. Together, these data will be used to generate a national assessment of the beef industry’s resource use, economics, net losses of GHG, and other emissions, providing a tool for sustainably producing beef as a source of lean protein and nutrients.
Source: USDA ARS, Jan Suszkiw, Public Affairs Specialist
Olivier Le Moal | AdobeStock
Food and Ag Hold Critical Role in Feeding the Economy
A newly released, nationwide economic impact study, Feeding the Economy, has found that more than one-fifth of the U.S. economy is linked, directly or indirectly, to the food and agriculture sectors.
Further, it found that more than one-fourth of all American jobs are similarly connected. Commissioned by a group of 23 food and agriculture organizations, the research found that, with direct output of $2,819.79 billion, the sector has a total economic impact of $7.06 trillion.
To measure the total economic impact of the sectors, the analysis also included the indirect and induced economic activity surrounding these industries, which captures upstream and downstream activity. For example, when a farm equipment retailer hires new employees because farmers are buying more tractors, experts consider the new salaries as an indirect impact. Similarly, when a retail associate spends her paycheck, an induced economic impact occurs. Together, these impacts have a multiplier effect on the direct impact of food and agriculture.
Those direct and total impacts of the sector are shown in the table to the right.
“While more and more Americans are becoming interested in the food they eat, we must ensure they know the value of what farmers and ranchers do,” said Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts. “Everyone can benefit from knowing of the great contributions of agriculture to our economy, to our rural communities, to our security, to our culture and yes, to our natural resources.”
The report was sponsored by organizations from all sectors of the food industry: American Bakers Association (ABA), American Beverage Association (ABA), American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI), American Soybean Association (ASA), Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), Corn Refiners Association (CRA), Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), Food Marketing Institute (FMI), North American Meat Institute (NAMI), National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG), National Chicken Council (NCC), National Confectioners Association (NCA), National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), National Grocers Association (NGA), North American Millers Association (NAMA), National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA), National Restaurant Association (NRA), SNAC International, The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), The Sugar Association (TSA), United Fresh Produce Association (UFFVA), National Chicken Council (NCC), National Confectioners Association (NCA), National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), National Grocers Association (NGA), North American Millers Association (NAMA), National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA), National Restaurant Association (NRA), SNAC International, The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), The Sugar Association (TSA), United Fresh Produce Association (UFFVA).
UF Scientists Seek Vanilla Varieties For U.S. Cultivation
The U.S. leads the world in imported vanilla beans, but with about 80% of the world’s vanilla grown in Madagascar, which lies thousands of miles from the companies that buy vanilla beans and convert them to extract, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) scientists are trying to develop new vanilla varieties to grow in Florida.
Led by Alan Chambers, assistant professor of tropical fruit breeding and genetics, and Elias Bassil, assistant professor of plant stress physiology, both of the Tropical Research and Education Center in Homestead, Fla., the team established a vanilla collection with 112 potentially unique individual plants.
These individuals create the basis from which to select the best plant for commercialization and genes needed to produce ideal vanilla varieties through conventional breeding, Chambers said. With the new findings, researchers can see which types of vanilla grow best in Florida and which might have useful genetics for plant breeding.
In their research, scientists also constructed a “draft genome” of vanilla DNA, a basic version of all of the DNA in vanilla. For vanilla, this includes functions such as how to make leaves or roots, how the plant responds to pathogens and how the plants make the aroma of the beans, Chambers said. Describing their findings and the implications in simple terms, he said, “If a genome was a car, a draft genome would be a basic vehicle with no frills — no radio, no air conditioning, no power windows. It does some things just fine, like getting you to work. The next step is to go from the basic vehicle to a luxury sports car. So, while it’s only a draft genome, it’s a great resource for the scientific community.”
Some surprises from this study included the identification of vanilla hybrids between different species, Chambers said. In the U.S. and Europe, extract from only two types of beans (vanilla planifolia and Tahitian vanilla) can be labeled as vanilla extract. This study identifies those individual plants that would fall within these labeling requirements and allow a grower to access premium markets within the current regulatory framework.
Chambers envisions specialty market opportunities for South Florida farmers who want to grow vanilla. “Alternatively, the identified hybrids could represent a unique branding opportunity if a grower wants to produce something unique in all the world,” Chambers said. “These hybrids will most likely have distinct aromas and disease resistance. Now we can focus on a handful of promising vanilla types to accelerate our objective to bring vanilla cultivation in Florida one step closer to reality.”
Source: Newsroom, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
ASA Earth Observatory, Joshua Stevens
A phytoplankton bloom off the Atlantic Coast.
Efforts To Reduce Carbon Emissions Could Sacrifice Water Quality
Strategies for limiting climate change must take into account their potential impact on water quality through nutrient overload, because some efforts at reducing carbon emissions could increase the risk of water quality impairments. This, according to a new study from Carnegie’s Eva Sinha and Anna Michalak, published by Nature Communications.
Rainfall and other precipitation wash nutrients from human activities, such as agriculture, into waterways, and when these get overloaded with nutrients, a dangerous phenomenon called eutrophication can occur. This can sometimes lead to toxin-producing algal blooms or low-oxygen dead zones (hypoxia).
For several years, Sinha and Michalak have been studying the effects of nitrogen runoff and the ways that expected changes in rainfall patterns due to climate change could lead to severe water quality impairments. In this latest work, they analyzed how an array of different societal decisions about land use, development, agriculture, and climate mitigation could affect the already complex equation of projecting future risks to water quality throughout the continental U.S. They then factored in how climate change-related differences in precipitation patterns would contribute to this overall water-quality risk.
The researchers found that climate change mitigation efforts that rely heavily on biofuels could have the unintended consequence of increasing the amount of nitrogen entering U.S. waterways, causing water-quality problems. Scenarios that required a large expansion of domestic food production would fare even worse, they said, by increasing both fossil fuel emissions and water-quality problems.
But win-win solutions are possible. “It is entirely possible to fight climate change in ways that don’t have unintended consequences for water quality,” Michalak said. “We need an approach that takes multiple benefits into account in the planning process.”
The most successful scenarios considered in the study relied on sustainable growth and conservation. Looking at regional differences within the U.S., Sinha and Michalak found that the impact of excess nitrogen due to both land-management decisions and climate change-related precipitation changes would be the strongest in the Northeast. Globally, Asia would be at the greatest risk of eutrophication due to projected increases in fertilizer use and anticipated precipitation increases.
