When developing food and beverages for astronauts who will be in space for months at a time, microgravity conditions, extended shelf-life, and nutritional requirements must all be primary considerations. But, even with all such aspects met, if the taste or texture of the food is unappealing, the astronauts will not eat enough. And that will result in weight and bone density loss, which can impact both their health and their performance.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) five decades of providing food for astronauts has taught its Space Food Systems Laboratory (SFSL) at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston that the acceptability and desirability of space food also has to be a primary consideration, and it may be the most important. If the food isn’t eaten, all other aspects of it are moot. This is particularly true in the development of food for crew members who have extended tours of living and working on the International Space Station (ISS) and in preparation for Orion—the first spacecraft in history capable of taking humans to multiple destinations within deep space—and its projected trip to Mars in the 2020s.

It is extremely critical that the astronauts maintain their weight, explained NASA Advanced Food Technology Scientist Grace Douglas. If they don’t take in adequate calories, it will likely result in nutritional deficiencies and loss of body mass and bone mass—affecting both health and performance; and if the food is not appealing, the crew won’t eat enough. It is for this reason that NASA has increased the food choices over the years, and added options for individual bonus food containers.

Additionally, the importance of the appeal of foods became more significant with the longer duration of ISS missions over shuttle flights.

“You start to realize how important it is to give the crew food they really want to eat,” Douglas said.
 

Importance of Food.

Up to six crew members may work on ISS at any one time, with a full crew made up of three Russian cosmonauts, two U.S. astronauts, and one international astronaut (from Japan, Canada, or Europe). The U.S. provides the food for the three astronauts, while Russia sends the food for its cosmonauts—although all can, and do, share food on ISS.

The core U.S. menu for the ISS is standard and packed in eight categories (breakfasts, desserts and snacks, meats and fish, rehydratable meats, side dishes, vegetables and soups, and beverages and straws) from which the crew members assemble their meals. The usage rate of each set of the eight containers is determined by the combined caloric requirements of the three astronauts. Astronauts can have only one set of containers open at a time and cannot exceed the usage rate (typically seven to eight days) unless they consult with the ground crew.

Each astronaut also receives nine “bonus containers” for a six-month stay in space. For these, the crew members can choose their favorite foods from NASA’s more than 200 standard items or identify commercial products that they would like to have. These preferences can generally be accommodated as long as the requested foods meet the shelf-life and microbiological requirements. The U.S. also will provide up to four bonus containers for cosmonauts who desire them, and U.S. astronauts can request Russian bonus food to substitute for U.S. bonus containers, although astronauts rarely request more than one or two, said SFSL Manager Vickie Kloeris.

On the first missions to the space station, crew members were allowed to select all their own food, just as the space shuttle crews had always done. However the differences between the shuttle and ISS soon made this untenable. Not only does the longer duration have significant impact, but on shuttle missions, the crew and food were on the same ship. On ISS, the crew launches on the Soyuz while the food is sent on an unmanned cargo flight. Because of the limitations in the number and timing of the flights, it was soon found that the food selected by a specific crew member was not always arriving during his/her mission. NASA also learned that crew members have to be encouraged to drink fluids even when they are not thirsty. In microgravity, fluids shift to the upper body, so the body assumes it is hydrated, overriding one’s natural thirst mechanism; so astronauts returning to Earth tended to be dehydrated.

“So much of this is psychological,” said Kloeris, who has been with NASA’s food lab since 1985. “When I started with NASA, food had very low priority since shuttle missions were short.” Even the crew felt it to be unimportant, saying, “It’s like being on a camping trip—I’ll find something I like.” But as the missions got longer, food became more important. “It’s one of the few creature comforts they have on orbit,” she said.

In fact, many astronauts returning from six-month stays on orbit now have said that food is the most important psychological aspect of the ISS missions, she said, adding, “If it’s that important for six months, just think how important it will be for a three-year mission [e.g., to Mars].”

To ensure the appeal of food, the food lab has a sensory booth area and system that would feel at home in any food-processing plant. The food is rated by space-center personnel on a nine-point scale. “Every time a new food is developed, it is tested,” Kloeris said. “If it doesn’t average greater than six over time, it is reformulated or a different product is used.”

It is also to provide the comforts of home and ensure good health that the bonus-pack system was instituted, and that the Food Lab requires that the astronauts be able to eat hot food on all missions longer than two days—despite engineering’s preference to reduce mass and energy usage.

Fresh Foods in Space.

Certain foods, such a fresh fruits and vegetables and breads can be extremely difficult to provide in space. Tortillas have proven to be a very popular and shelf-stable option for bread—and are, in fact, one of the astronauts’ favorite foods. However, fresh fruits are only available when a new cargo ship arrives, and even then, the fruit must be eaten within a day or two. But it can be a very welcome change from the packaged foods.

In addition to fresh fruit, foods sent to space fall into seven categories:

• Freeze Dried/Rehydratable. This is the standard food most associated with space, and the vast majority of the foods are, indeed, freeze-dried. The dehydrated foods are processed at NASA’s Food Systems Lab. In space, water is added in the packaging through a septum-adapter assembly at the rehydration station. Once all the water is absorbed, the crew member cuts open the package and eats the food directly from the container. “We count on the wetness of the food to hold it together in microgravity,” Kloeris said.
  Examples: soup, macaroni and cheese, shrimp cocktail, scrambled eggs, cereal with dry milk.
• Thermostabilized. These foods are heat processed to destroy hazardous microorganisms and enzymes. The food is reheated in its package, then eaten directly from the container with conventional eating utensils.
  Examples: tuna, ravioli, chocolate pudding cake, tomatoes, eggplant.
• Intermediate Moisture. These ready-to-eat foods feature 15% to 30% moisture content chemically bound with sugar or salt. They are preserved by restricting the amount of water available for microbial growth, while retaining sufficient water to give the food a soft texture and enable consumption without further preparation.
  Examples: Dried peaches, dried beef.
• Natural Form. As off-the-shelf commercial products, these ready-to-eat foods require no further processing by NASA for consumption in flight. Because care must be taken to prevent the rise of crumbs in the microgravity atmosphere, they are repackaged in clear, flexible, single-serve pouches. “Bulk products that are dry are very difficult to deal with in microgravity,” Kloeris said. Additionally, all natural-form products must have at least a two-year shelf life and be certified by NASA prior to being accepted for use.
  Examples: nuts, cookies, tortillas.
• Irradiated. NASA received an FDA dispensation to use irradiation on meat, thus it produces nine meat items that are irradiated. The cooked, packaged meat is sterilized by exposure to ionizing radiation, making it stable at ambient temperature.
  Examples: Beef steak, smoked turkey.
• Beverages. All beverages are commercial, off-the-shelf powdered products, which are rehydrated at the rehydration station through a septum-adapter assembly, similar to freeze-dried foods. Once filled, the package is shaken or manipulated to mix the powder, and a specialized straw with a rigid tip holds the septum open for drinking. A commercial off-the-shelf IV clamp holds the straw shut between sips to prevent liquid from flowing freely from the package.
  Examples: coffee, tea, lemonade, orange juice.
• Condiments. Condiments are provided in commercially packaged, individual pouches or bulk plastic squeeze bottles; salt and pepper are in liquid form in polyethylene dropper bottles. Pepper is suspended in oil; salt is dissolved in water.
  Examples: catsup, mustard, mayonnaise, taco sauce, hot pepper sauce.

Although foods can be heated in space, there are currently no options for refrigeration or freezing, primarily because of the energy required to maintain these. However, research is being conducted in both areas, Kloeris said, adding, “If we don’t have it, we may not be able to go to Mars.” NASA’s food lab also continually works to reduce the mass of foods, without reducing acceptability. One product currently under development is that of a high-caloric, meal-replacement bar. While there are numerous protein bars on Earth, a meal-replacement bar for space must include all the nutritional requirements of a full meal—and taste good.
 

Nutritional Variation in Space.

It may seem that the astronauts could simply utilize the same foods as are in the military’s “MREs” (Meals-Ready-to-Eat). However, just as duties and operations of soldiers and astronauts are completely different, so too are their nutritional needs. The military needs higher sodium and fat to perform at optimum levels, while astronauts perform better with lower levels of both, Douglas said. This does not mean their diets are low-sodium or low-fat, though, because both are needed in space. Sodium exacerbates bone loss and inner cranial pressure issues, she said, and it is needed for flavor and preservation.

However, based on nutritional needs studies, the diets of the astronauts were recently lowered from 4,500 mg sodium per day to 3,100. One reason NASA is able to do this and still maintain flavor is because, Kloeris said, “The quantities we produce are so small that we can use more expensive herbs for flavor.”

Another area of concern for the ISS crew is that of sufficient Omega3 fatty acids in the foods. These are not required on Earth-food labels, nor are they being tested for stability over the shelf-life durations that will be required for long-duration missions (up to five years). But with studies finding that these fatty acids can play a role in mitigating bone loss in space flight, they are an important nutritional component. Unfortunately they also can degrade rapidly over time, thus it is an area NASA is continuing to research.

Long-term nutritional testing can be difficult and, obviously, requires extended time. Although accelerated shelf-life testing can provide some information, it cannot exactly duplicate space effects, Kloeris said. “It can often tell us what will change first, such as color or texture; and it often reveals the weak point in acceptability of the food. So you can get an idea, but it is not exact,” she said.

Because of all this, Douglas said, “we produce most of the food ourselves because of the specific nutritional requirements.” Nutritional needs are continually being assessed but, she added, “To change nutritional requirements, there has to be a lot of data behind it.”

Growing Veggies.

Another area of research is that of growing vegetables in space. While it may seem a simple matter of grounding it in the microgravity, there are questions of limited availability of water, produce washing, and nutritional aspects. In collaboration with Gioia Massa’s space biology team at the Kennedy Space Center, nutritional and sensory attribute tests are being conducted on ISS in growing lettuce in a plant-growth facility called Veggie and its plant “pillows.” The pillows within the chamber are filled with slow-release fertilizer and seeds and watered through a wick system. The system uses a flat-panel light bank that includes red, blue, and green LEDs for plant growth and crew observation and expands up to a foot and a half as plants grow inside. Even if tests show sufficient growth, further research must be conducted on effects space may have on the nutritional and safety aspects of the resulting produce. While some effects can be simulated on Earth, the solar radiation and other space anomalies cannot be reproduced. But research is continuing with the goal to eventually create a pick-and-eat system that can be used in space.
 

Continuing Research.

The impacts of microgravity and other space factors are key points of research. While general food requirements are based on those needed on Earth, with some provisions for microgravity, all the impacts of space are not known—such as: Do caloric requirements change in microgravity? One would intuitively think that astronauts would not need as many calories in space because they are not fighting gravity, but as far as research on the shuttle has detected, all indices are that microgravity does not change the caloric need. But, since shuttle flights were short, the question still remains: Will caloric needs change on longer missions? An experiment by the European Space Agency (ESA) called “Energy” is currently underway on ISS to try to answer that question for six-month stays in microgravity.

While providing sustenance for the ISS crews, the food, its intake, and effects also provide data for development of foods for future space treks, and enable preparation for the trip to Mars. Additionally, many aspects of the research and development in foods can benefit food for Earthly consumption as well. For example, its research on growing vegetables in space in the Veggie system has implications for improving growth and biomass production on Earth.

Missions also are being simulated on Earth at the JSC Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA). (See photo, above) At HERA, volunteers who have “demonstrated motivation and work ethic similar to the ‘astronaut stereotype’” (including demonstrated technical skills, an advanced degree or equivalent years of experience, and passing of NASA’s long-duration space flight physical), undergo tests designed to simulate that which will be encountered in space, including food and dietary testing.

NASA also partners with the military on research in food and packaging technology, such as that conducted at Natick Labs, and is involved in a number of consortiums, such as the National Science Foundation-initiated public/private partnership of Center for Advanced Processing and Packaging Studies (CAPPS) and the applied food research Institute for Food Safety and Health (IFSH). “There is a lot being done in academia funded by the industry, the military, and NASA,” Kloeris said. Additionally, NASA provides external research funding, such as academic grant programs through the NASA Research Announcements, and Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programs.
 

Defying (MICRO)Gravity.

Although appeal is a primary factor of the food for astronauts, the microgravity of space has to be factored into every item and every package. If the food or beverage were to float away upon opening, it would not only be difficult to eat, it would be a physical hazard as it could get into crew members’ eyes or nostrils or damage equipment. For this reason, all foods and beverages are packaged as single servings, beverages are in valved containers, and special precautions must be taken with any items that could crumb.

It may seem that contracting to produce these foods for NASA could provide profitable business for a food manufacturer, but that route has been tried and terminated. Not only are there unique developmental needs for space food, but the quantity of food required is too small for automated runs and, thus, is cost prohibitive for commercial manufacturers.

Because of this, all the food eaten in space is manually produced in NASA’s in-house pilot processing plant on one-of-a-kind equipment—developed specifically to produce and package space food, or it is further processed or repackaged at NASA from off-the-shelf commercial items. For example, NASA may purchase boxes of cereal, divide it into individual portions, add dry milk, then repackage it into rehydratable containers. Or an astronaut may request a specific cracker or cookie for his/her bonus pack. If the item passes NASA’s shelf-life and safety checks, it will be purchased commercially, then portioned out into single-serving packets.

Sometimes, commercial packets can even be sent as is, such as the individual pouches of seafood found in many grocery stores, which were being packed into the food containers during QA’s NASA visit. NASA also has partnered with Texas A &M University to establish a retort facility where thermostabilized pouched foods for ISS are produced per formulations developed by the food scientists in the Space Food Research Facility in Houston.

Although the requirements for space food are distinctly different from those of the military, the technology of space food is based on that of MREs. Thus, in the past, NASA periodically rented a military MRE facility to produce its thermostabilized pouched food. Then as the war in Iraq went on, the military could no longer give up the time at its facilities and keep all its soldiers fed. So, in 2007, NASA established its own facility via the partnership with Texas A&M. Bringing production in-house has actually been beneficial, Kloeris said, because NASA can now produce its own food on a continuing basis. This means that shelf-life dates can be staggered, rather than having everything expire at the same time because it was all produced at the same time.

With a staff of about 20 in NASA’s Space Food Systems, including scientists, researchers, dieticians, logistics personnel, and production technicians, the team maintains an inventory of each of the standard foods and beverages at all times. Generally, bite-sized commercial foods are packaged quarterly; freeze-dried foods produced semi-annually; and thermostabilized products annually or bi-annually.
 

Space Food Safety.

NASA has about 200 foods and beverages in its standard inventory, for which the ingredients or commercial items of each underwent specific safety steps prior to being used. “When we buy commercial food products,” Kloeris said, “we buy it all from the same lot, and there are specifications for each food on tests to run, such as microbial, moisture, sensory, etc.”

For the thermostabilized items processed at Texas A&M, data is gathered from the retort runs and sent to a commercial processing authority. If results are accepted, a Letter of Commercial Sterility is issued for the run. But the product is still not deemed to be flight ready until the outside of each pouch is cleaned at NASA and a label and Velcro are attached to the pouch. Although NASA has microbiological specifications for each food it sends to space, it recently had a panel of food microbiology experts review all its micro testing and make recommendations for improvement.

To ensure traceability, every item in every pack has a bar-coded serial number traceable back to its originating lot. If there were to be a recall on any commercial product—or ingredient—NASA would know immediately and be able to tell the astronauts which foods not to eat. A control set of each food also is kept in the SFSL, so if a crew member reports an issue, the lot can be checked.

To ensure proper preparation by the astronauts, each item is labeled with specific preparation instructions, such as, “Add 100 ml of hot water, then heat for 10 to 15 minutes.” But once the food is prepared, Kloeris said, “Crew members develop their own method of opening the packages on orbit.” Some cut an X in the top of the packaging to use it like a bowl, others will snip off an end and dip into the package with a utensil. “They do their own thing,” she said.

If you wonder how astronauts are able keep their food and drink containers from floating around in space without having to hold it in their hands at all times—think magnets and Velcro. Utensils are magnetic, so they will naturally adhere to the steel surfaces, and an adhesive-backed Velcro hook is adhered to all packages. Velcro pile is then adhered to the table, on horizontal and vertical surfaces around the station, and on crew members’ flight suits, with extra pieces of sticky-backed Velcro available for the crew to add where needed. (If you look closely at the photos at right and on page 10, you can see the Velcro pile pieces on the space station walls and equipment.)
 

Space Life of Food.

With standard ISS space missions lasting six months, the process through which the food must go to reach the station means that it needs to have a two- to three-year shelf life. Once processed and packaged, the individual foods are packed into standard or bonus bulk packs, stowed, then shipped to the launch site ... then stowed again to await the next cargo flight. “It could be up to a year before the food is launched, so it really needs a three-year shelf life,” Douglas said. The goal is to maintain three- to six-months’ worth of food on the space station at all times. And because certain bulk packs are designated for specific crew members, these need to arrive at the right time to be there for them. But, because space on the cargo flights is limited, food is always in competition with other supplies, Kloeris said. “It’s a constant trade.”
 

Preparing for Mars.

In preparation for the projected trip to Mars, NASA is continuing to conduct additional tests and lengthen ISS missions, and the food lab must keep pace with it. The most imminent is that of the projected spring 2015 launch of the joint one-year mission of American Scott Kelly and Russian Mikhail Konienko—twice as long as a typical space-station mission. Researchers expect the year-long mission to yield knowledge on the medical, psychological, and biomedical challenges that crews may face on future, more-distant flights.

Providing food for the one-year mission is fairly similar to that of previous ISS missions, but the extended time will help provide valuable insight to any changed dietary needs of the crew, as well as the impacts of longer space times on both the crew and variety of food. It is critical knowledge, because once the mission to Mars is undertaken, there will be no possibility for resupply. With nearly 26,500 pounds of food needed for that mission, Kloeris said, NASA has discussed pre-positioning cargo on Mars prior to the manned flight. In that case, the food must have a shelf-life of at least five years—maintaining both food safety and quality (i.e., acceptability and nutrition) throughout. There are some NASA thermostabilized pouched foods that currently have five-year shelf lives and some Earth foods that could last virtually forever from a safety aspect, but they would be survivability foods only, with texture, color, and nutrition degrading over time.

When assessing the quality of food intended to feed those of us who stay grounded on Earth, most food manufacturers consider consistency to be a key component. But in the production of food for our travelers to space, the only consistent quality that is critical is that of acceptability. “Because the crews constantly change, they don’t have an expectation that a food will taste a certain way,” Douglas said. “But it has to be acceptable.”

We all know that food and nutrition are essential to our health and well-being. But if the taste or texture of a food is unappealing, we won’t want to eat it—whether we are sitting at a table on Earth or are one of the select few chosen to float in a space station 240 miles above it.

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

Environmental monitoring is becoming increasingly important as FSMA finalization and compliance looms closer. One critical aspect of this is testing the cleanliness of the plant environment, thereby assessing the effectiveness of the facility’s cleaning processes. One of the most common tests for cleanliness is that of Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ATP is a molecule found in all living cells; thus, in and of itself, ATP is not a hazardous contaminant, rather detection of its presence after equipment has been cleaned is an indicator that food, bacteria, or other organisms have been left behind and the cleaning process was not sufficient.

As such, ATP hygiene monitoring systems have become a standard used for measuring the effectiveness of cleaning efforts in the food production industry, said Neogen Market Development Manager Jim Topper. Testing for its presence after a cleaning program has been conducted provides an ideal indicator of the amount of cellular-based, organic residue left on a surface which could potentially contaminate the next run.
 

An Indicator Test.

ATP testing is not new, it has been around for more than 20 years. It also is important to note that it is simply an indicator test; it does not specify the type of organism detected, nor does it mean that a pathogen or allergen is present. You could have a positive ATP test and negative micro test on the same surface, said Hygiena Marketing Manager Lauren Roady. However, she added, “Any food residue is a breeding ground for bacteria; what you’re looking for is absence of food residue, protein, etc.”

“You cannot test quality and safety into a product, but you can test quality and safety into an environment,” Roady said. “You can completely control the cleanliness of the environment to ensure a safe product.” Thus, the purpose of ATP testing is to verify that the plant environment and food-contact surfaces are cleaned to remove all residues and potential bacteria breeding grounds.

Such verification is exactly what facilities will need to comply with new FSMA rules. Roady does not expect FSMA to bring a lot of change in environmental monitoring for facilities that have implemented HACCP. But the greatest difference will be the need for verification and validation of preventive controls, including cleaning and sanitation. “It will be more of a formalization,” she said. “That’s where ATP testing and environmental monitoring come in.”

Topper also expects that compliance with FSMA will impact plants’ validation and documentation of their practices. “The implications that I am seeing are about documentation,” he said. Facilities will have to do a better job of documenting and rationalizing their processes and validating their systems.
 

A Preventive Action.

FSMA’s focus on prevention also is increasing the importance of ATP testing as it provides plant personnel with an indication that corrective action is needed to prevent potential contamination. “ATP provides an indication of cleanliness. It is directly an indicator of the ability of the process used to remove bacteria,” Topper said.

A micro test, on the other hand, would show that a pathogen or allergen is present, thus reactive action would need to be taken, such as stopping production, recalling food, etc. A thorough environmental monitoring program would, thus, consist of both ATP and micro testing, with ATP testing to verify the effectiveness of cleaning and micro testing to validate the absence of adulterants.

ATP testing is also beneficial as an indicator test because of time to results and cost-effectiveness. ATP tests can provide results in less than a minute, while micro tests generally require hours or days for enrichment and results. ATP tests can be conducted by plant personnel on the line costing a few dollars per test; micro tests are typcially more and must be conducted in a secure laboratory, with many plants opting to send out this testing to third-party labs, further increasing costs.
 

Trend Analysis.

Both Topper and Roady noted that the real key to—and benefit of—ATP indicator testing is trend analysis. There is no absolute number that indicates a “good” test result, Topper said. “A score is not necessarily good or bad, it is better or worse.” Thus, each facility needs to use the testing to set a benchmark, then gauge progress or relapse from that. When a facility first begins ATP testing and/or its analysis, it is likely to see high numbers with a lot of variation, but as analysis continues and corrections are made, the numbers should come down, and there should be less variation. “This means that you are cleaning better and with more consistency,” he said.

At that point, Topper added, you may set a lower threshold because you are getting better, and you now have a “new normal.” And that is as it should be. “You should be continually evolving and your processes getting better.”

The ability to analyze trends and make improvements also has become simpler with the continuing evolution of ATP systems. Tests are available that are more sensitive, but no more expensive, and the software through which results can be analyzed is becoming more robust, Roady said. Test data can be compiled and trended by specific statistics, such as time, location, and personnel, to show where improvements or training may be needed. “It provides more power to be more proactive,” she said.

However, a specific ATP standard will come down to the individual plant and the product being produced, Roady said. For example, if you are producing a ready-to-eat food, your standards should be fairly strict; if your product is low risk, they may be less stringent.

Either way, though, if you start to notice an upward trend in the numbers, it means that something is changing for the worse, she said. It could be that equipment is wearing down, the sanitation program has changed, different cleaning tools are being used, etc. The cause needs to be investigated and corrected until numbers come back in alignment with an acceptable standard. Additionally, she said, “A positive ATP test usually incites corrective action, such as re-cleaning the equipment, then retesting for a negative before production can restart.”

Topper voiced similar sentiments, stating, “The implication from a fail is that you need to re-clean. That’s the standard reaction.” However, he added, “If I see numbers creeping up, it may also mean that the equipment is becoming harder to clean.” At that point, you should either take the equipment out of service or make a change to fix the issue. “Ideally, you always want to see your numbers coming down,” he said.

While ATP indicator testing is a significant part of an environmental monitoring program, both Roady and Topper cautioned that it is just one part of the program. “Sanitation monitoring is just one leg of a three-legged stool,” Topper said. Robust monitoring also includes allergen testing and pathogen screening. “You may have a low ATP number, but if some of those are pathogenic, you have an issue.”

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

For food safety professionals, the first order of the job is to think about the safety and quality of the product. But, said US Foods Senior Vice President of Food Safety and Quality Jorge Hernandez, “Food safety, and the systems that provide for an infrastructure of safe food products, is often seen more as a cost of doing business rather than a source of positive impact to the business.”

It was for this reason that US Foods decided to research the potential positives that a food safety certification process would provide to a company. “We wanted to prove our long-held belief that food safety can have a positive impact on business, an impact that goes beyond food safety,” Hernandez said. “If we could debunk the myth that food safety certification is a burdensome cost, we could focus on implementing safe programs that solve real problems,” he said, adding, “There are very few studies that focus on this.”
 

The Business Impact Study.

Eight years ago, US Foods (then U.S. Foodservice) began requiring that all of its private label products be grown, processed, or manufactured at facilities with food safety and quality systems certified against a GFSI-recognized standard. Three years ago, US Foods extended the requirement to its distribution centers and pledged to standardize all of its centers by the end of 2014, which it has completed. The food distributor chose to be certified to the IFS scheme because it was developed for distribution and logistics, the key elements of US Foods’ operations; it focuses on the adequacy of overall food safety systems; and it has a customer focus that aligns well with US Foods’ principles, Hernandez said.

For the certification, each distribution center was certified separately after a series of three audits. There is an initial “practice audit” for which the purpose is to familiarize everyone with the standards and expectations of the process. That is followed by an internal audit, and then ultimately by a formal certification audit. Only after the distribution center has passed the third and final audit can it be said to be certified.

As the company systematically brought its centers online, it realized that a good point to study the before and after effects of certification would be when it had a number of centers certified and a number not yet certified.

“We saw that certification improved performance, but the challenge was in how to measure those improvements,” said Director of Distribution, Food Safety and Quality Assurance Frank Ferko.

So US Foods contracted with faculty members at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business to get an objective, external perspective through a study involving US Foods data analysis and business performance impact evaluation.

The analysis examined monthly performance at each of the company’s distribution center from January 2011 through June 2014. It controlled for total sales at each division, improvements over time in sales and customer satisfaction, and predictable seasonal changes in performance. Benefits were computed by comparing the performance of certified distribution centers before and after certification, while controlling for these factors.
 

The results?

“The results of the study showed a strong correlation of certification and performance,” Ferko said. Certification to the IFS standard appears to have been a strong business success for US Foods. Three quantifiable business benefits of certification stand out:

1. Certification improves quality of service as measured by a reduction in complaints from customers by 23% on average.
2. Because responding to complaints consumes roughly 1.53% of employee time, the reduction in complaints due to certification also reduces company labor costs significantly. Hypothetically, for a company with 25,000 employees who work 2,000 hours/year at $20/hour, the labor cost savings due to certification’s reduction in complaints would come to roughly $3.5 million/year.
3. Certification is estimated to increase sales revenue by approximately 2.0%, presumably because it increases consumer confidence in the safety and quality of the food they purchase.
    

Other potential unrealized benefits include improvement in the reduction of food safety incidents and complaints, as well as better tracking, documentation, and assessment of issues that did surface.

“This research contains very compelling statistics for not only US Foods’ divisions, but for any food company,” said Denver Division President David Patterson. “And we think time will show that there are even more unrealized business benefits to certification. In Denver, for example, we saw the reduction in complaints, but we also saw an increase in productivity.”

Additionally, Ferko said, “the results of the study led to a series of improvements in management commitment to food safety from the ‘before’ to the ‘after’ of the process.”

“We have seen similar improvements in the retailers, processors, and growers who are certified to a GFSI standard,” Hernandez said. “We are hoping that these results incite and inspire others across the food industry to pursue the same concept; to conduct their own studies measuring the results of food safety programs.”

US Foods intends to continue its own studies, exploring other aspect of business impacts of food safety programs. “We want to continue proving that food safety is a win-win,” Ferko said.

“It’s difficult to find anyone who says food safety is not important, but people don’t always realize that when you do good for food safety, you do good for the business,” Hernandez said.

“Food safety certification definitely impacts the business positively,” he said. “A strong food safety program and discipline provide benefits that go well beyond food safety.”

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

Maintaining an ethical supply chain generally results in a higher cost for supplies and labor and higher prices for the consumer. However, the increasing consumer awareness of and demand for ethical sourcing is increasing the need for manufacturers to consider ethics in sourcing. “Consumers are having increasing influence and higher demands on food producers,” said SQFI Senior Manager of Marketing and Sales Sarah Malenich. Consumers want safe, quality products, but they also want to know that every step of the supply chain is focusing on employee welfare and environmental conditions.

As such, she said, consumers are putting pressure on retailers, and retailers on manufacturers to implement ethical sourcing and be transparent about their supply chains. Whether due to consumer demand or internal ethics, a number of retailers—both grocery and foodservice—incorporate strong ethical practices into their internal programs and those of their suppliers, make these practices known, and retain a solid customer base while charging a premium price. And they hold to their ethics despite challenges to the contrary. One example is Chipotle’s recent halt in serving of pork at some of its restaurants because a supplier failed to meet its ethical standards. (See below for more on Chipotle’s standards.)

At Ben & Jerry’s local and Fair Trade sourcing of ingredients is integral to its sustainable corporate concept of linked prosperity. As featured in QA’s January/February 2014 Cover Profile, the Fairtrade Mark on the Ben & Jerry’s label not only shows evidence that the supplying farmers are following good agricultural practices, it also certifies that the farmers are paid a fair price for their harvest. 
 

Consumers Will Pay.

According to a report on the Key Priorities of Ethical Supply Chains from Software Advice, a company that analyzes and recommends SCM software, a majority of consumers are willing to pay more for such ethical sourcing practices. The surveys, with approximately 1,140 survey respondents, were conducted to determine which link in the chain consumers claim to care about most and, understanding that attitudes don’t always match behavior, where they were actually willing to put their money. Key findings of the surveys were:

• 65% would pay more for a product produced under good working conditions, carbon emissions offset, or ethically sourced materials.
• Consumers were split on whether improved working conditions, community involvement, or environmental efforts would most convince them to buy from a firm.
• Consumer environmental preferences were relatively evenly split. The efforts most likely to convince consumers to pay more were an effort to reduce water usage (28%), the use of biodegradable packing materials (26%), increased use of solar panels (22%), and an effort to minimize carbon emissions (18%).
• When focused on specific links in the supply chain, the strongest preference was shown toward the manufacturing link where products were ethically manufactured, had their carbon emissions offset, and were made with ethically sourced raw materials.
• Where labor is concerned, 45% said fair wages and overtime compensation would most convince them to pay more for a product.
• The other labor efforts receiving the greatest approval ratings were ensuring greater workplace safety, providing educational opportunities to workers, and ensuring an eight-hour work day—with each receiving 15% to 20% percent of the vote.
• When asked about community efforts, the highest number (43%) cited expanding a company’s factory operations in areas with high unemployment as the greatest incentive for willingness to pay more.
  
   

Ethical Sourcing Standard.

Ethical sourcing today is where food safety was 15 years ago, Malenich said. Consumers want assurance that their food has been grown and processed in a manner that meets their own standards of social and environmental responsibility. So, she said, “It is important to support and acknowledge when sourcing companies are taking proper steps to treat employees and the environment properly.”

It was to help support just such initiatives that SQFI developed a voluntary Ethical Sourcing Standard as an addendum to the certification program. The standard is not designed to replace other standards or regulations (such as those of OSHA, federal laws, etc.), but rather, she said, it goes beyond regulatory requirements in providing a step-by-step standard for setting up and documenting an ethical sourcing program, outlining labor practices, and providing training guidance. As an internationally accredited program to a certifying body, it provides third-party certification of compliance “to ensure responsible sourcing up and down the supply chain,” she said.

Companies like Ben & Jerry’s don’t just focus on ethical sourcing to appease consumers, and they don’t push social values to be controversial. Rather, the founders say they went into business to make an ice cream that they’d want to eat, and they voice the values in which they believe. But regardless of the reasons for doing so, today it is just such ethics that can attract consumers to one’s product—even when it drives the product to a higher price.

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