There’s hardly a day that goes by that there isn’t an Internet news item about food from China, whether it’s a breaking story or opinion piece on a food safety incident or analysis of the current state of the country’s food system. But, as with much of the coverage of the U.S. food industry as well, it can be difficult to differentiate fact from hype. To get the real story, QA Editor Lisa Lupo spoke with top executives from various segments of the food industry. Together, these experts have more than 70 years of experience in conducting business in or with China.

Included in this section are insights from Yves Rey, Danone corporate quality general manager and former GFSI president; David Acheson, founder of The Acheson Group and former FDA associate commissioner for foods; Roger Lawrence, McCormick & Co. corporate vice president, global quality assurance and regulatory; and Bradd Eldridge, founder of Quality Management Partners, with previous positions with leading companies in global quality assurance. Also featured in this section are a focus on Nestle’s National Food Safety Institute in Beijing; insights from Linhai Wu, lead author of Food Safety in China: A Comprehensive Review; and perspectives from GIE Media’s Brian Taylor who has been living and working in Hong Kong for two years.

The food system of China is distinctly different than those of the Western world. These differences, and the associated challenges of both food safety and conducting business, are primarily factors of three key areas: China’s government system, the unique culture of its people, and its supply chain rooted in family farms.
 

China’s Evolving Food System.

China is not an easy place to conduct business; it has long had challenges in producing safe, quality food. However, improvements are being seen, driven by the government’s goal to be #1 in food exports, by the foreign businesses setting up facilities in the country, and by the media and the people of China themselves. Additionally, if you take the time to understand the country and its people and heed the recommendations of those who’ve been there, the opportunities of this country—the most populated in the world—are vast. Currently:

• China produces about 20% of the world’s food—in only 9% of the world’s sown area.
• It produces 18% of the world’s cereal grains, 29% of its meat, and 50% of its vegetables.
• The country has the world’s largest agricultural economy, and ranks as the largest global producer of pork, wheat, rice, tea, cotton, and fish.
• The value of China’s agricultural output is that of the U.S.
• The country is currently the fifth largest exporter and fourth largest importer in the world.

(Source: Colin A. Carter. “China’s Agriculture: Achievements and Challenges.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Update 14(5)(2011):5-7)

According to many of the experts cited in this article, China’s goal is to become the top food producer in the world. “Food is the foundation of their economy, and food safety and quality really are top of mind in China,” Rey said. This is, in part, because of the need to feed its immense population, but it also is critical in building its reputation as a food exporter, as well as the fact that China’s people are becoming more vocal and demanding that local foods also be of high quality. “It’s a matter of stability,” Rey said. “The best way to keep a country at rest is to keep the people happy.”

This cry of the people does seem to be having impact as well. As Lawrence said, “I have seen a vast improvement in supply of materials and recognition that products for a developing export market require a different standard—and that has led people to question, ‘Why would we have a different set of quality standards? Doesn’t the Chinese consumer deserve the same degree of quality?’”

This has, then, raised the bar for local producers as well, Lawrence said.

“The Chinese government has become far more aware that it can’t march to the beat of a different drummer in food safety and food quality than the rest of the world—and have an impact,” he added.

In fact, Reuters recently wrote that China’s Premier Li Keqiang was quoted by state radio as saying that China’s economy must sustain mid- to high-level economic growth, and manufacturers must be encouraged to move up the value chain.

It was on this topic that Rey met with the Premier in October. The country’s strategy is to move from quick production with a goal of supplying the people’s needs to quality production to improve the quality of life and the environment, Rey said. China still needs to meet its people’s needs, but “now is the time to be quick and good as well.” To do so, the country is shifting its label verbiage from “made in China” to “created in China” with a focus on innovation, Rey said, adding that he was then told, “As a global company, you should support our strategy.”

China’s Government System.

Such shifts in focus or even regulation are not uncommon, and, as such, one challenge of operating in China is the speed at which the government can enact new rules. Just because a business met all the regulations yesterday doesn’t mean that it meets them today. Unlike the U.S. where food legislation must follow a strict process with time allowed for stakeholder input, China has no such requirements, so can— and does—set new regulation(s) virtually overnight, with penalties immediately enforced. For this reason, it is important that businesses build private/public partnerships, Rey said. On the positive side, this is fairly easy to do in China because the government understands the need as well. Because China can supply only 70 percent of the food needed by its people, it needs outside suppliers.

While the government is working to improve this focus, implementing new regulation, such as the recent proposed revision to its Food Safety Law, there is a question as to how deep the effort really goes, Eldridge said. “China wants to drive and improve its image and quality, but it has a ways to go.” Even within the government, there is a great deal of fragmentation. Food businesses are regulated by the national government (and must be approved to even begin operation), but they are also under the auspices of each separate province—with separate being a key word. “The lack of consistency drives one of the greatest challenges” for companies conducting business in China, he said. The regulatory inconsistencies occur not only between provinces, but also between a province and the national government; at times, national regulations are stricter, then, at other times, a business may follow all the national requirements only to find it isn’t meeting even stricter provincial rules.

In some ways, however, “it’s not that different from the thought process we have—it’s just more complex,” Acheson said. As a former FDA official, he has interacted directly with officials of the Chinese government and seen a great deal of change over the years both within the government and between the government and its people.
 

In the Past ...

In 2007, Acheson met with Chinese officials to discuss issues of food and other products being exported to the U.S. from China. But rather than focusing on the production or product safety, Acheson was told, “If you could only control your media and get Congress under control, we wouldn’t have a problem.” At that time, they saw food safety as simply a matter of brand management; they were more concerned with the impact on China’s economy than on the quality of the products. There was a definite disconnect at that meeting with China focused on ensuring that its exports didn’t stop and the U.S. focused on the safety of its imports, Acheson said.

Not long after that, in 2008, Acheson was speaking with Chinese regulators following the melamine contamination of infant formula. He asked the officials to explain how China regulates its food processes—from the farm through distribution, processing, and retail. “They couldn’t tell us,” Acheson said. “Our system isn’t great, but they couldn’t even tell us what theirs was.”

Such issues and incidents have since led to hefty changes, Acheson said, driving the country to raise the importance of food safety, write food safety standards, and reorganize and change the structure of its processes. However, he added, “it’s still a work in process.”
 

China’s Product Control.

One area that remains significantly different than that to which Western food systems are evolving is China’s reactive vs. preventive perspective on food safety and quality.

One particular practice that illustrates this is its verification of food safety through product control or “positive release.” In much of the Western world, we depend on the food safety system and process controls to produce safe food, with testing early and throughout the process for validation. In China, there is little concern about the means by which the food is produced and processed, it simply is supposed to meet quality standards at the end. Thus, the focus is on the end product rather than on the process. When inspection occurs, it is done at the end of the line on the final product. If the quality of the product is considered acceptable, the product is passed. While this may seem to be a valid measurement, the fact is that it is impossible to test or sample every product, so there is that much more potential for unsafe foods to make it to market.

Perhaps the government feels that the quality is better controlled by severe penalties, which are considerably harsher in China—with adulteration seen as a capital offense. “If you kill someone with food poisoning, you can go to jail for a long time or be executed,” Acheson said. But he added, “Does this really act as a reasonable deterrent? I’m not sure it does.” This is because it is often more an aspect of the Chinese system, culture, and lack of preventive measures. In many instances the Chinese just don’t see things the same way we do. Excepting the cases of economic adulteration, “they’re not usually trying to get away with something,” Acheson said “it is more about just being different.”

China’s Supply Chain.

The reactive nature of the Chinese system also is of particular concern because of the country’s fragmented supply chain—one of the greatest challenges of food production in China, particularly in relation to the origination of all food: the farm. “Families are the major units for the production and sale of primary edible agricultural products in China,” said Wu in Food Safety in China. Citing the 2011 China Statistical Yearbook, he noted that there were about 240 million farmers in the country, 89% of which were scattered farmers. Of these, only about 12% (29 million) were part of a cooperative, leaving the vast majority of crops for food production to be sourced from small family farms averaging 12 acres per household. Thus, small private farmers compose the main body of agricultural production in China.

Although the overall level of food quality and safety is improving, Wu noted, “This small-scale, decentralized, and disordered pattern has become a serious problem. A considerable proportion of operators involved in food circulation lacks the necessary equipment, facilities, and standardized management, and thus does not meet the basic requirements for transacting food business.” The main problems he sees as existing in food quality and safety supervision in circulation in China are the complexity of the food supply chain and the fact that the majority of operators in the supply chain are small- and medium-sized business, with the number of these businesses continuing to grow rapidly.

As of 2011, 90% of the operators were individual businesses. “The increase in the number and proportion of individual businesses makes it more difficult to supervise food quality and safety in circulation,” he stated.

Thus, a critical challenge in conducting business in China is managing the supply chain. You have to carefully manage all suppliers—primary, secondary, and tertiary—and have more sensitivity to what happens on the farm, Lawrence said. “It all, ultimately, goes back to the farm—whether animal or plant.”

This was a lesson that Lawrence learned in his years of working with and in China. “When we started, it was one step back tracing, and we had a rigid food safety plan in our plants. We qualified our food safety system and expected that we could have the same expectations of our suppliers. That’s not the case.” For example, he said, a tertiary supplier may substitute a non-approved ingredient to cut costs without realizing or considering the impact on the end product. If you don’t have oversight of these suppliers as well, your product—and brand—is being put at risk.

Economic adulteration, foreign material, and microbiological concerns are the greatest issues of supply from the farm in China. Much of the problem is due to lack of knowledge and training in good practices, along with the cultural psyche of cost cutting and good-enough quality. Historically, counterfeit products and knockoffs have been culturally accepted; although this is changing, the general thinking is, if you get away with it, then there’s no problem. The lesson learned is that you need to be proactive and have an effective strategy to prevent such incidents. Although there has been improvement in some areas through the years, Lawrence said, it is necessary that you are involved with and have personal oversight of all your suppliers, your suppliers’ suppliers, and so on. (See Decades of Lessons Learned, at the bottom, for more from Lawrence.)
 

Risk Assessment.

When working with local suppliers, Acheson said, one question a business should ask itself is, “What risks do I need to consider that I wouldn’t have to in the U.S.?” Then determine how to discern if a supplier poses that risk. The means of doing so are similar to those you would conduct in the U.S., except that, in general, they are less reliable. For example, you can:

• Handle it through a combination of reputational audits. … But, in China, many of these are questionable at best.
• Request certification. … There are a lot of companies that will issue certificates, but even Chinese nationals have said, “We get certificates, but we don’t trust them; and if we don’t trust our own, the U.S. shouldn’t either.”
• Test for contaminants. … Though reactive rather than preventive, conducting your own testing on incoming supplies is probably one of the most critical aspects of ensuring the safety of your food. But there are limitations. Beyond the inability to sample every item is the fact that testing in China is not always to the levels or with the same recovery as that expected by U.S. companies, Eldridge said. This not only can lead to a contaminant not being detected, it also can result in false positives, “so you end up working through issues that really aren’t issues,” he said. Additionally, it can be extremely difficult to test for unknown ingredients that may have been added as an economic adulterant.
• Train and educate your suppliers.
   

Supplier Training. “One of our main challenges is getting local supplies that can meet our requirements,” Rey said. “So we have a plan for that … We train and manage our suppliers from farm to factory.” And in China, this is not simply a best practice, it is an expectation of the government, and it is driven, at least in part, by government mandates on local purchase. That is, food and beverage manufacturers that operate in the country must source at least 50% of some products (such as dairy) from local farms. Thus, if the local farms or other suppliers do not meet a corporation’s requirements, it becomes that company’s responsibility to train them to do so.

Not only, then, does this enable the corporation to maintain its quality, it builds the quality of the entire Chinese food system. The country is quite open to applying best practices from the Western world, but it sees the integration of that as being the responsibility of the corporations that wish to do business there.
 

China’s Cultural Influence.

While much of what has been discussed in this special section includes at least indirect consideration of the differing culture of the Chinese, there also are some cultural aspects that have very direct influence on successfully conducting business in China. “For American companies, the culture of China is fundamentally different,” Acheson said. “There are things that are acceptable there that aren’t acceptable here.” A few of the most evident are:

• Concept of time. “In our culture, time is money. In China it’s not,” Rey said. Setting up deals takes time and they don’t want to lose face. “Make it a win/win. Do what you need to do to achieve that—be open-minded and respect them. If you make them upset, it will be risky for you; they have the time to kick you out.”
• Style of cooking. At least one of the reasons that China does not have the emphasis on and testing for Salmonella, Listeria, E. coli, and other such pathogens as does the Western world is because the style of cooking of its people is more likely to negate the effects. That is, traditionally, food has been bought and served fresher and cooked more thoroughly, with less consumption of ready-to-eat foods.
• Food availability. There is no “three-second rule” in China. If a person is cooking a meal at home and something falls on the floor, it is picked up and used. If it is past its sell-by date, the date is ignored. Because food has traditionally not been as plentiful in China, waste is not tolerated, or as accepted, as it is in the U.S. And these same attitudes and practices can carry over into the food plant.
• Lack of employee empowerment. In China, challenging a manager or even asking questions or submitting an idea can cause a person to be fired, so workers don’t, but simply do as directed. Thus, “the level of competence in a facility is aligned with the level of the top manager,” Rey said. “Developing a food safety culture is not easy because you can’t go through the people. If the manager doesn’t support it, it won’t happen.” However, he added, this is beginning to change as a new generation joins the workforce—a generation that is university-educated, is more Westernized, and brings new expertise.
   

So, how do you overcome the cultural differences? “We learned to adapt to their culture without changing our core values,” Rey said.

Boots on the ground.

One of the greatest lessons learned by the experts consulted was the necessity to have “boots on the ground” while also employing Chinese nationals in management. To successfully implement your company’s requirements and best practices, you need to have managers in China who have been with your company, understand its culture and needs, and can enforce best practices … while working with the people of China and their culture.

But that is unlikely to lead to success unless you also build a strong connection with government officials—who still hold the ultimate control—to develop trust. To effect this, Eldridge said, “We moved toward Chinese nationals. We tried first with our own people, and still use some of our own people. But we found that, in an attempt to become more seamlessly integrated into their system, we needed to bring their people onto our team.”
 

A Global Power.

“Many companies are focusing on China because there is so much room for growth,” Rey said. The country is already number one in food production; now its continuing improvement in quality is likely to lead to global growth, which is positive and refreshing, but also a bit scary, he said.

In many ways, China’s potential for growth is less restricted than that of many in the Western world because it doesn’t face the issues of limited money and resources. Federal regulators in the U.S. and Europe have had to deal with numerous budget cuts and reduced personnel. The Chinese government doesn’t have to deal with these limitations, and even in business, capital expenditures are rarely an issue, Rey said.

But the crusade for improvement in the food safety and quality of this progressing country is being driven as much by its people as by its government’s export goals. Not only is the younger generation bringing new, Westernized ideals, but the increased influence and wealth of the growing middle class is carrying with it demands for improved food safety and quality—of food that stays in the country as well as its exports.

Then you have the media. With the worldwide availability of the web, no longer does the Chinese government hold the media under its control. “We’re now in a situation where China’s media is its biggest threat,” Acheson said. It is a “big, big change” and one that is forcing the country to face and correct issues of food safety and quality and look to playing the game the Western way.

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

Decades of Lessons Learned in China

With decades of experience in doing business in China, Roger Lawrence, McCormick & Co. corporate vice president, global quality assurance and regulatory, shares 15 strategies and lessons learned through the years. But if you take home only one lesson, it should be the one upon which all the rest are based: The more remote the supply chain becomes, the more you need to make certain your quality and food safety standards are being met. Trust, but verify.

1. Realize the cultural differences. There are differences, and they impact the business world. You must guard against cost cutting, shortcuts, and loose adherence to standards when the benefits of adherence are not readily apparent. Such practices are ingrained, but they are changing.
2. Understand the country has a different perspective on purchasing with a key focus on cost reduction by means we don’t necessarily see as acceptable. You can put out a policy, but you have to have oversight to ensure employees do it—particularly those of tertiary suppliers.
3. Align company ethics. The difference in ethics is not devious; it is simply a difference in culture and a lack of understanding of our standards and processes.
4. Invest in supplier development and collaboration. Evaluate what you need to do in the supply chain to ensure your food safety and quality standards are met.
5. Educate suppliers in “developed-country” standards of quality and food safety. With most supply originating on small family farms, the people are so far removed from the actual manufacturing that they don’t understand the standards. It is changing, but is still decades behind in some areas.
6. Understand the trade-offs between the economies realized and the risks and costs associated with off-shore sourcing. Although there are certain savings, you need to realize that money will need to be spent in training, education, and development of standards. Understand the investment you will have to make to get safe, quality food—and not put your brand at risk.
7. Have an in-country purchasing and quality assurance staff. Sending a knowledgeable, experienced QA manager to live in China and oversee the production on a daily basis will ensure that standards are being met. Otherwise lower-level personnel may make decisions that are not in the best interest of your company.
8. Take nothing for granted, leave nothing to chance. You may expect that purchasing supplies from the local branch of a known, international brand means that you can assume it will meet that company’s standards as well as your own. This is not necessarily the case in China. You have to think differently and conduct due diligence with every supplier.
9. Ensure that management and oversight extends beyond first-tier suppliers. It is important to have oversight of secondary and tertiary suppliers as well—and may, in fact, be even more critical. Understanding the incentive and motivation for economic adulteration will also help in prevention.
10. Companies can have good equipment and facilities, but lack process control and management practices to operate properly. You can buy an existing plant, but you have to ensure it is set up and maintained properly. Don’t be lulled into thinking you have it under control when you really don’t.
11. Guard against changes to the product, process, or facility. Ensure that this is not simply an expectation, but that everyone understands the standards and why they are important. Tolerate no shortcuts.
12. Understand the use and misuse of documents. Certificates of Analysis often have little value, as it is common culture to simply print these without adequate backing or certification. This also is where testing becomes critical—you will need to do more incoming testing to validate supply quality and authenticity.
13. Place staff at supplier’s facility. While you can’t completely prevent issues, being onsite can help circumvent them.
14. Purchase from a new supplier only after an on-site audit by you or a reliable third party. Always thoroughly check out suppliers before you use them.
15. Conduct spot checks/screening for known and unknown economic adulterants. Testing is critical, and the more remote the supplier, the more important testing becomes.

All that said, there is an old saying, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” If you make a product in China and it’s not subject to being copied, you should be insulted.

Several helpful books have been written about the cultural differences—some of them subtle, some of them with enormous implications—encountered by Westerners conducting business in China.

Those seeking a guidebook to some of the unique cultural aspects of doing business in China can consider Sam Goodman’s 2009 book, “Where East Eats West: The Street-Smarts Guide to Business in China.” Goodman writes (with humor) from the viewpoint of someone who spent several years in China and learned from his mistakes as much as he did from the lessons of others.

My own experience living and working in Hong Kong for two years has not provided anywhere near the breadth and depth of lessons upon which to base a book. Nonetheless, even a business visitor to China will pick up on some of the cultural distinctions, both profound and subtle, found in the business community in China.

On the subtle side of the ledger, in China, business cards are respectfully presented using both hands; and pointing directly at someone is generally considered disrespectful. Who should pay for dinner or lunch and under what pretext can be tricky in any nation. In China, however, it takes on a series of offers, convincing bluffs, and insistence on paying that often renders the overseas visitor completely baffled as to what has just transpired.

A potentially more meaningful cultural phenomenon in China, which traces back to centuries of Confucianism and imperial deference, involves the difficulty of communicating upward from the lower levels of organizations. The risk of a lower-level employee providing feedback that may ultimately harm his or her career is perhaps best captured in the Chinese proverb translated to English as “the shot hits the bird that pokes its head out.”

China’s wider contact with the rest of the world in the past 30 years has exposed managers and employees alike to more open communication methods with supervisors. The era of Imperial China is long past, and globally practiced management techniques are as evident in China as they are in North America. However, centuries of culture and tradition are not easily eroded.

The hazards of self-censored dialogue with those of superior rank were portrayed by Malcolm Gladwell in a chapter of his 2007 book “Outliers.” Gladwell summarized research performed by airline crash investigators who, when studying pre-crash cockpit transcripts, recognized a pattern of second officers and navigators refraining from communicating directly and strongly to first officers that the plane may be headed for trouble.

Such incidents involving muted warnings were largely absent at U.S. and Western European-based airlines but more common in cockpits from airlines based in nations where maintaining respect for people of higher rank is considered sacrosanct.

I am an outsider to the food and beverage quality assurance industry, but my perception is that it involves life-and-death considerations at least in equal proportion to air travel. Likewise, there would seem to be infinite scenarios where an employee on the lowest level of an organizational chart may well be the one in the best position to sound the alarm to prevent a disaster.

Establishing protocols where all workers from top to bottom understand that health and safety take precedence over productivity likely involves non-stop communication at food processing plants around the world. In China, it also may involve reassurances that production workers are empowered to raise a question when appropriate.

Although understanding cultural differences is a critical part of engaging in international business, my experience living and working in south China for the past two years has led to another important reminder: Always beware of generalizing.

American business theoreticians and managers may pride themselves on their ability to adjust to “creative destruction” and “disruptive technologies,” or to create flat orgcharts. However, business owners and managers in the U.S. hardly move in lock-step.

While many production facilities in the U.S. can pride themselves on the spirit of teamwork and cooperation evidenced daily, there is a broad range of employee morale levels in the food processing sector, just as in any industry. There are likely facilities in North America where production workers, even without the cultural conditioning, do not feel empowered to take the risk to halt output in order to ask a safety or health-related question.

Likewise, business managers in China are far from captive to their history and culture. In the past three-and-a-half decades, Chinese students have cultivated a growing presence at university science departments and management schools around the world—particularly the English-speaking world. A plant manager in China is as likely to be familiar with the most recent studies in U.S. science or business management journals as his or her counterpart in North America.

In the industries I write about (scrap recycling, metals production and papermaking), I have had the good fortune to visit dozens of production facilities in North America, several in Europe and perhaps two dozen in China, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

While the language being spoken and printed on the workplace signs serves to remind visitors where they are geographically, it soon becomes evident that each facility reflects the priorities of the people who own and manage that workplace.

Ultimately, it is corporate or workplace culture that has the greatest impact on a facility’s priorities, more so than national or regional culture.

The author is an editor with the Recycling Today Media Group and can be contacted at btaylor@gie.net.

“New technology for metal detection and X-ray inspection is improving processors’ ability to detect smaller foreign objects and prevent the waste and delay of false rejections,” said Todd Grube, Heat & Control product manager, inspection systems. One such technology is that of a metal detector that utilizes a spectrum of frequencies simultaneously and continuously, which reduces false rejects caused by product effect without a reduction of metal-detection sensitivity, Grube said. It also detects smaller particles of ferrous, non-ferrous, and AISI Type-316 stainless steel in most applications, he said.

On the other hand, Grube added, “X-ray inspection is the Swiss Army knife of foreign object detection with its ability to find metal, glass, plastic, stone, bone, and other materials.” One new technology in that area is the dual-energy X-ray inspection system that improves detection of low-density objects in products that overlap or have uneven surfaces, such as cereal and certain frozen foods, he said.

Another new technology is that of disruptive, multi-energy, X-ray spectrometric detectors, said Alain Delpy, Multix sales and marketing manager. X-ray technologies generally distinguish between two energy bands, but these spectrometric detectors enable distinction between various materials having different X-ray spectral signature. The technology is based on the combination of a semiconductor crystal (CdTe/CZT) sensor operating at room temperature; high-speed, front-end electronics capable of precisely measuring the energy of each incidental x-ray photon and high data-rate processing methods, Delpy explained.

According to Dictionary.com, spectrometry is “the observation and measurement of wavelengths of light or other electromagnetic radiation.” Based on that concept, this technology can improve the ability of X-ray scanners to identify materials in real time—from airport security luggage inspection to non-destructive testing for quality control in foods.

Using material quantification as an example of the technology’s sensitivity, Delpy said, standard X-ray provides a gray-scale image, whereas spectrometry enables the addition of a colorization linked to the material composition of the objects. Placed on top of a density image, this new image can detect the difference between two types of a product, such as different colas, he said. “It can discriminate the composition of the matter. This is quite unique and important in understanding where a defect is.” By providing another layer of information, the technology can reduce false positives as well as detect additional defects. The equipment also can be used for quality determinants and labeling, such as for evaluating percentage of salt, fat, or oil in food.
 

Detectability.

In addition to detection, “X-ray detectability is something that is becoming increasingly relevant,” said Paul Gaertner, Detectapro marketing manager. Because X-ray equipment is growing in popularity, and foreign object contamination also can come from inadvertent employee actions—such as dropping of a pen in a food production area, such items are being designed to be detectable by X-ray as well as metal detection equipment—and are available in a variety of colors to help prevent cross contamination.

Using detection and scanning systems in a processing plant allows for the safe use of plastic tools and materials, said Sean Smith, Detectamet CEO. “The development of detectable plastics has meant that they are more likely to be detected and rejected, and so protect the consumer and reduce the risk of emergency recall.” This is important because contamination incidents can be caused by a disgruntled employee’s deliberate sabotage as well as by an unintended accident. A detectable plastic scraper may not prevent this, but its pieces are far more likely to be detected, rejected, and prevented from being released and delivered to the retailer or food service outlets.

For accuracy and cost-efficiency, it is important to use the right detection equipment for the application, as some can provide more sensitivity than is needed for a product, Smith said. For example, a multi-spectrum metal detector for raw meat, cheese, fresh spinach, and other high product-effect foods would be “over qualified” for products such a potato chips, ice, or aspirin.

To determine the foreign object detection equipment needed for your product and plant, Grube said to ask yourself four questions:

1. What are the primary contaminants that could be introduced into the product?
2. At what points in the process can contaminants be introduced, and inspection should occur?
3. What is the minimum contaminant size to be detected?
4. What fail-safes can be implemented in the inspection process to ensure contaminated product does not get to the end user?
    

Adding fail-safes can include requiring suppliers to have an effective inspection program; installing inspection equipment to detect foreign objects in incoming raw ingredients; and implementing pre-process inspections to detect metal, stones, and other debris—and keep these contaminants from damaging valuable processing machinery.
 

“It is important for processors to maintain an effective quality control program to ‘validate’ that their inspection equipment is operating per their HACCP program,” Grube said. “This includes performing regular (annually or more frequently) validation by the inspection equipment manufacturer or a qualified third party.”

With the range of selections in foreign object detection, what is the most important key to selecting the proper equipment and determining placement? That, Delpy said, is a matter of understanding what you want to protect and the capabilities of each technology.

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

Thinking about integrated pest management (IPM) today compared with extermination of many years ago, I have to smile. I remember my first real-paying job was spending weekends with a friend in a small family bakery, working 10 hours a day as the clean-up crew. It is hard to believe, but I started this job before there even was an official EPA. Things sure have changed since then!
 

Yesterday’s Extermination.

In those days, when mice got into the facility, which was common, my job was to get rid of them. I could simply chase them with a broom. Or, my other option was to spread around some bait, then try to find the mice when they died the next week. Snap traps were also available and, after a few bruised fingers, I got the knack for setting them. What did a 14-year-old kid know about mouse control?

Looking back reminds me that in those early days, the emphasis of pest control was to rely solely on liberal use of pesticides to accomplish a reduction in the pest population. There was certainly no shortage of dead bodies to demonstrate to customers that the treatment was effective in killing the pests. Some efforts were truly amazing and were cataloged with pictures to convince other potential customers that if they hired this company, they could expect the same results.

Since the focus was on getting the pesticide out into a broad area quickly so nothing could escape, the researchers developed methods for fogging materials that would get the insecticides out faster and deeper into the hiding places. Throughout this time in our history, we were wrapped up in demonstrating how many cockroaches, flies, or other insects we could kill. Never did we consider that those that survived would repopulate the same area. We were less concerned about the biology and behavior of these pests than our ability to keep killing them in large numbers.

Were it not for some of the great minds during our time, we would likely still be practicing the kill game and remain ignorant of what IPM truly means. Fortunately, we had people who were curious enough to ask the question “Why?” and dedicate themselves to looking for the answer. People, who realized the answer needed to be shared, spent their lives dedicated to educating all who would listen to the importance of their discoveries. People like Arnold Mallis, Austin Frishman, Vern Walter, Bobby Corrigan, and many others created the opportunity for knowledge to be shared and change to occur.
 

Today’s Pest Management.

Today, IPM has evolved into a science-based program that relies heavily on our understanding of a pest’s biology and behavior. Fortunately, because of this, the programs have migrated away from a reliance on pesticides as the sole response. Now the expectation is that professionals will use many tools to manage a pest issue with the goal of ultimately eliminating the population from the area of concern.

We no longer just take a shot in the dark when it comes to pest issues. We have learned to complete a detailed assessment of the facility to determine the presence of pests and the overall level of activity present. Armed with this knowledge, we step back and assess the best approach to deal with the issues at hand. We think in terms of modifying the environment through changes in sanitation, engineering, practices, and pesticides that will have the greatest impact on the population. Sometimes we have to realize that our best effort will not lead to elimination of a pest population, so we have to strive to reduce the population to a tolerable level so pests have no negative impact on the food products or people working in the facility.

Education must always be a major thrust of a viable IPM program. For obvious reasons, if people knew what they were doing was wrong and their activity was encouraging pest activity, we would hope they would stop doing these things. Unfortunately, ignorance is alive and well in every aspect of integrated pest management. In many cases, the term IPM has become just a buzz word, and the work being done under its banner does not represent the intent of the program. Unfortunately for many customers, the term IPM is simply new window dressing for the same old chemical-intense approach that has the same failure rate as in the past.
 

Tomorrow’s Pest Program.

There is change coming. New regulations such as the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the requirements for intensive audits conducted as a result of the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and a better understanding of IPM by customers is placing pressure on IPM practitioners to step up and do the job right. There will be a much higher scrutiny of programs under these new rules and programs. Weak programs will be identified and changes will be required to remain in the competition for business.

Inspections, with clearly documented findings providing an in-depth look at a facility and clear recommendations for solutions to pest issues, are an important part of any IPM program. Unfortunately, many IPM inspections or assessments I review deal mostly with the number of captures or baiting devices and very little with defining the threat the facility faces. More often than not, no mention of other pest issues beyond rodents is being addressed in these assessments. Not only is this practice not conforming to the doctrine of IPM, it is negligence and a failure in professionalism. What benefit does a food manufacturing facility gain from an assessment where the provider says it has the right number of bait stations and rodent monitoring devices in place but the facility is experiencing significant issues with stored product insects and German cockroaches throughout the facility—particularlywhen these are not mentioned anywhere in the IPM report?

A cornerstone of both FSMA and GFSI is preventive controls. FDA and consumers want a more proactive approach to food safety and far less of a reactive approach where intervention and action is taken only after an event has occurred. The same applies to pest management. The expectation will no longer be that a pest management company shows up after an event has happened and begins looking at ways to fix what should never have happened in the first place. A company can debate that you are only providing what the food plant will pay for, but in reality, many contracts are sold with a limited scope of service because the sales personnel fail to realize the extent of the problems.
 

Monitoring and Analysis.

All food plants should have active monitoring programs that enable them to collect information on levels of pest activity at any given time. The use of pheromone traps for specific high-risk species of stored product pests as well as general-use glueboards to alert for other invading species is an imperative. What follows that is the difficult part of the program—having someone who can recognize and assign significance to what is being captured in the devices. Too often those who are less informed rely on just reporting a total number of insects and miss the step of identifying the significant insects. The solution to this issue is education of the people responsible for the checks.

The lack of knowledge on the part of a technician leads to misrepresenting the significant information in the report to the company. I recently conducted an assessment of a food plant experiencing significant insect issues. Looking at the contractor’s assessment and service records, you would not know the true extent of the issues. Captures in light traps were documented as 1-50, 50-100, and 100+. When the glueboards in the light traps were examined, they revealed that German cockroaches, warehouse beetles, cigarette beetles, and Indianmeal moths were among the insects that made up the numbers reported. Month after month, the same result was reported with no indication that the facility had an issue with stored product insects showing up in the light traps.
 

Trending Analysis?

Another item I frequently hear about, which is a vital aspect of IPM, is trending reports. I wish it was mandatory for every person uttering the words to have taken at least one class in statistics or looked up the term in a dictionary. According to the Urban Dictionary, trend is defined as a mutilation of the English language as “currently popular.” The Oxford English dictionary, however, says trend is “a change or development in a general direction.” One would imagine that doing IPM trending is popular in some circles so we, too, must have one.

Based on this, trending should be done to detect a change in the overall program. The change is identified from the data collected from each device in total. When data indicate an upward trend in population, deeper analysis would identify the precise location of the data point(s) where change occurred, and trigger a response.

I have encountered a few firms that emphasize weekly trending of individual devices. This is excessively time consuming and yields information of little to no value about the program. The device is a data point that provides a value for the trend analysis over a defined period of time. A requirement for 52 trending reports per year for every rodent monitoring device which consists of a solitary data point does not provide much useful information when compared to the sum total of data points presented on a visual graph of total weekly activity in the program. Always keep in mind that the collection of data without significance, just to have data, is simply a drain on limited resources. Measure everything you do against a desired outcome.

IPM is not just a string of three letters; it is an important process that requires the practitioners to possess a high level of knowledge. Without this knowledge to recognize what a facility is facing and the most appropriate steps that need to be taken, the programs being pushed onto these food plants are no different than those of the past. Education about what to expect in a particular food plant, how to search for potential issues and what to do if you find them is an absolute mandate of a good IPM program.

We are at a point in time where excusing a lack of performance by food companies and pest management firms due to not knowing the right information is becoming inexcusable. Regulations and customer expectations require more. Each failure costs a food company significant amounts of money. Shutting down production for two or three days, while pest management companies try to execute a solution for a problem that should not have occurred in the first place, will receive less tolerance.

IPM is not a new concept as a quote from the 1856 publication The Practical Entomologist shows: “If the work of destroying insects is to be accomplished satisfactorily, we feel confident that it will have to be the result of no chemical preparations, but of simple means, directed by knowledge of the history and habits of the pest.”

The author is Director of Education for Clark Pest Control.