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.
Unlike FSMA which focuses on EMA with a likely threat of public health harm, VACCP applies to all possible occurrences of food fraud or EMA—such as that of inferior oils added to olive oil.
By Lisa Lupo
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) programs are a standard of the food processing industry. Originally developed for NASA food safety in the 50s, HACCP has become the foundation of today’s food safety regulations — including those of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) — and standards — including those of the certification programs for the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI).
But counter to the widespread awareness and application of HACCP is the relative unfamiliarity, at least within the borders of the U.S., of the food industry with the Threat Assessment and Critical Control Point (TACCP) and Vulnerability Assessment and Critical Control Point (VACCP) programs. This is, in large part, because neither the federal food regulatory bodies nor their regulations implement these programs which focus on food defense (TACCP) and food fraud/authenticity (VACCP). That’s not to say that threats and vulnerabilities are not addressed by the agencies or regulations, they are simply addressed in a different way. But understanding and integrating aspects of TACCP and VACCP can add value to food facilities’ food defense and authentication programs, just as HACCP adds value to food safety.
To explain the fundamentals of these programs; explore the differences between TACCP, VACCP, HACCP, and FSMA; and expound on how they can benefit food facilities, QA spoke with Food Safety Academy President and Consultant Steven Sklare.
QA. We all know of HACCP, but what are TACCP and VACCP?
Sklare. TACCP is defined as a management process, a systematic method, to defend a food supply chain from intentional contamination. The act of contamination is behaviorally or ideologically motivated with the intent to cause harm to people.
VACCP is defined as a management process, a systematic method, to defend a food supply chain from any form of dishonest conduct that impacts negatively on the quality, integrity, or authenticity of food and drink. The “dishonest conduct” is motivated by economic gain.
GFSI’s Food Safety Management Umbrella defines HACCP (hazard/food safety), TACCP (threat/food defense), and VACCP (vulnerability/food fraud) as three separate pillars to be individually addressed.
QA. Why were they developed — and how are they primarily used?
Sklare. HACCP is a systematic approach to food safety that is designed to prevent or minimize the risk of unintentional contamination of food. It is a linear process that is able to address known risks within the realm of food safety. It is not designed for, nor is it effective in, addressing intentional acts of contamination. It has been recognized that there are significant food safety and food quality concerns that are outside the functionality of HACCP. This is why TACCP and VACCP were developed. Intentional acts of contamination represent “vulnerabilities” as opposed to “risks.” This is a non-linear process.
While HACCP, TACCP, and VACCP sound alike and have similarities, there are significant differences. TACCP is used in the food industry to address food defense-type issues, and VACCP is used in the food industry to address food fraud/food authenticity-type issues.
QA. Why have they not been widely implemented in the U.S.?
Sklare
Sklare. The issues of food defense and food fraud are more narrowly defined within the food regulations of the U.S. TACCP and VACCP can be used to address food defense and food fraud issues as they are defined within U.S. food safety regulations, but they are significantly broader and more comprehensive than is needed for compliance.
QA. GFSI defined the Food Safety Management Umbrella (above) to include HACCP, TACCP, and VACCP. Can you discuss this?
Sklare. GFSI, which is a non-governmental, voluntary system of standards, represents an approach to food safety that encompasses food quality as well as food safety. TACCP and VACCP address issues of both food safety and food quality. They are two additional pillars that were needed to support GFSI’s broader and more comprehensive approach to protecting consumers’ health on a global basis. They have been endorsed by GFSI as methods to accomplish certain goals.
QA. How does a TACCP program differ from the FSMA Food Defense (IA) rule?
Sklare. Both a TACCP program and the FSMA Food Defense (IA) rule address the issue of intentional adulteration of food for the purpose of causing harm to people’s health. The FSMA IA rule is more narrowly defined than what a TACCP program would address. The purpose of the IA rule is to prevent or significantly minimize intentional acts of food adulteration intended to cause wide-scale public-health harm. In addition to this, through FSMA, Congress directed FDA to apply the requirements of the IA Rule only to those points, steps, or procedures in the food system that are at the highest risk for intentional adulteration.
A TACCP program would take into account a much broader range of intentional adulteration considerations.
QA. How does VACCP differ from the economically motivated adulteration (EMA) of FSMA’s Preventive Controls rule?
Sklare. VACCP is a method of addressing EMA, which is a sub-set of the broader category of food fraud. EMA is committed for economic gain. The criminal’s intent is to cheat you, not to make you sick.
However, there have been many incidents of EMA where a significant threat to public health resulted from a criminal act to make money. Take, for example, the adulteration of chili powder with Sudan dye. The chili powder was diluted with Sudan dye to lower the production cost of the powder. The use of the dye introduced an unlabeled toxin into the food. VACCP is designed to mitigate the vulnerability of this type of EMA as well as one where the act of adulteration produced an inferior product that was not a threat to human health. An example of this would be the dilution of a fruit drink with water.
VACCP applies to all ingredients and all possible occurrences of food fraud or EMA, whether it is a food safety or food quality issue. FSMA’s Preventive Controls Rule focuses on those instances of EMA that have a likely threat of harm to public health.
In other words, FSMA is primarily concerned about whether or not someone’s act of fraud (cheating you) is likely to make someone sick. If it is a question of only being cheated — well, FSMA isn’t so concerned. The problem is that it is not always cut and dry whether an act of food fraud will lead to a public-health issue or not.
QA. How can TACCP and VACCP integrate with FSMA to add value?
Sklare. It’s not really a question of integrating with FSMA any more than HACCP integrating with FSMA. They are tools to help to support a FSMA compliance program. TACCP and VACCP complement HACCP. TACCP and VACCP are designed to mitigate the vulnerabilities involved in acts of intentional contamination which HACCP is not.
As far as FSMA is concerned, they are tools that can be used to satisfy requirements of FSMA such as food defense and intentional adulteration. The additional value they could provide is that they will help satisfy the requirements of FSMA and go beyond them.
QA. What else should the food industry know about TACCP and VACCP programs?
Sklare. It is important that the food industry understand that the food safety management procedures and practices that have been designed to guard against unintentional contamination do not provide the tools to deal with intentional contamination.
TACCP and VACCP can provide those tools. That doesn’t mean that TACCP and VACCP are the only ways to deal with issues of intentional contamination. If you are building a program to address your “vulnerabilities to food fraud” or “threats of malicious adulteration or contamination” you will be addressing the same concerns as a TACCP or VACCP program.
The author is Editor of QA magazine. She can be reached at llupo@gie.net.
4 Filthy Flies
Features - Pest Management
Making your food facility “inhospitable” to flies.
Flies are commonly considered to be nuisance pests, but in a food facility, these pests can be of significant risk. “Whether it is the transference of E. coli O157:H7 via a fruit fly or Salmonella enteritidis by a house fly, the potential for product and process contamination for food processors and related foodborne illness should not be discounted,” said Insect-O-Cutor President Jack Harris. “With filth flies being unwelcome guests in food processing facilities, one should be as inhospitable as possible to these pests.” But what is meant by “filth flies”? And what exactly does the food facility do to be “inhospitable”?
Four of the most common fly pests in food facilities are the relatively large house fly and the small fruit, phorid, and moth (drain) flies. Following are overviews of each of these and what food processing facilities can do for prevention and control.
THE HOUSE FLY
Removal of breeding sites is a key component of a fly program.
Bugwood.org
Because the house fly lives in close association with people, it is one of the most commonly encountered pests around the globe, said MGK Animal Health Technical Field Specialist Cassie Krejci. “House flies represent a serious health threat in food processing facilities as they are capable of mechanically transmitting numerous foodborne pathogens that cause disease.”
Prevention. “House flies are strong fliers and can enter a clean facility through an open entry point and with the help of negative air pressure from the building,” said Syngenta Professional Pest Management Technical Services Manager Nicky Gallagher. Other areas that allow house flies to enter a facility can include weep holes, wall voids, and dumpster chutes with poor sealants. Thus, house fly prevention should include:
Installing effective window and door screens, opening doors only when necessary, installing air doors on frequently used entry points, and setting fly lights to trap flies that get through.
Inspecting incoming shipments that could transport fly eggs and larvae.
Removing all organic materials in potential breeding sites.
Regularly cleaning garbage cans; placing trash in sealed garbage bags; and locating garbage receptacles as far from building entrances as possible.
Control. “Removal of breeding sites is a key component of a fly program,” Gallagher said. Critical areas should be cleaned frequently to reduce food sources or breeding sites.
Additionally, Krejci recommended indoor and outdoor applications of insecticides labeled for food processing facilities. This would include space spraying of indoor areas where flies rest (avoiding contact with exposed food and food handling surfaces) and outdoor applications in fly-resting areas. “Products that include an insect growth regulator (IGR) will provide additional control over future generations of house flies,” she said.
Indoor maintenance also can be completed with spot or crack or crevice treatments, and exterior granular fly baits can provide control in bait stations or as a broadcast treatment.
Other building-related controls, which may not seem obvious, include reducing the structure’s insect attractants, primarily that of lighting, for both the interior and exterior, Harris said. Examine the light-output spectrum of your fixtures; only those with little or no insect-attracting wavelengths (UVA) should be used on or around the facility’s exterior. The same consideration should be applied to interior lighting, though factors such as color indexing and intensity may take precedence.
If lighting with insect-attracting wavelengths is used inside the facility, as is sometimes necessary to achieve optimal operational light output, any errant light emissions to the outdoors should be minimized by placing the lighting so as to reduce direct outward emissions, he said. “And in a nod to efficiency, timers and activation sensors can greatly reduce continuous errant-light emissions from a facility’s interior lighting while reducing operational costs.”
THE FRUIT FLY
iStock
Technicians often must conduct lengthy inspections to find the source of a fruit fly infestation.
“Fruit flies are very common indoor pests that have the potential for disease transmission and can be a nuisance when hovering over food,” Gallagher said. They are common wherever food is but are particularly attracted to ripened or fermenting fruits and vegetables.
Prevention. “Fruit flies breed in drains, garbage disposals, trash cans, and other like areas,” Krejci said, adding, “Preventing a fruit fly infestation is as simple as eliminating the source.”
However, finding the source is not always as simple, as eggs are easily transported into facilities with food deliveries, and adults can enter through door and window screens, Gallagher said. “Technicians are often tasked with conducting lengthy inspections to find the source of the infestation.”
Control. Once a fruit fly infestation is established, control starts with locating any potential food source and removing it. A single piece of produce that may have fallen behind a shelf can be the source of an infestation, so thorough inspections of the facility are important, Krejci explained.
Fruit fly traps can help with monitoring or control, and adult fruit flies can be controlled with space sprays. However, Gallagher said, “It is essential to locate and eliminate breeding sites. This can be a challenge, but taking time to conduct thorough inspections and consistently communicate with facility personnel to discuss their role in fruit fly prevention can result in long-lasting control.”
Control also should include:
Drain cleaning with a stiff brush and an anti-microbial foaming agent. Some IGRs also can be used to treat drains.
Deep cleaning of decaying matter found on the underside of drain covers, caulk lines, backs of appliances (like ice machines and dishwashers), and dark corners.
Space spraying in approved areas with an adulticide and treating landing zones with insecticides, taking care to never treat food-contact surfaces.
THE PHORID FLY
Sewage accumulating under slabs can create a vast resource for phorid fly breeding.
Stoy Hedges
Phorid flies are small in size but can mechanically spread bacteria to food and food-contact surfaces from the outdoors, Krejci said. Frequently found around garbage, drains, damp organic waste, and rotting produce, phorid flies also can bring pathogens into a facility after breeding in dead animals. “Because they feed in decaying debris, feces, floor drains, and such, phorids are suspected of carrying Salmonella, E. coli, and similar pathogens to food and food-contact surfaces,” said Industry Consultant Mike Holcomb. “Their presence in food plants or conditions favorable to their activity is a serious find for food inspectors.”
Additionally, he said, the fly larvae go through a wandering phase and leave the food source to pupate in a safe/hidden place, so the first signs of activity can be the adults, the wandering larvae, or the pupal cases — in some unexpected places. Because of that, “outside the box” thinking can be most effective for controlling this pest in food plants and warehouses, he said.
Prevention. Holcomb provided the example of phorid fly pupae found inside the electrical plug of a portable scale in a plant’s packaging department. Even though the manufacturer produced low-moisture dog treats, equipment was wet cleaned weekly. When the equipment plug was dismantled, small deposits of airborne food particles (fines), water overspray from sanitation, and fly pupae were found inside. The plant sanitarian had this rickety “resource site” replaced with a new water-tight plug designed for use in wet processing areas, Holcomb said.
In another facility, a phorid fly pupa case was found attached beneath the lid of a rodent trap by a third-party auditor, who cited the food facility for not properly maintaining the pest control equipment, Holcomb said. According to the site’s IPM program, internal rodent devices were to be serviced/maintained weekly, so the auditor’s contention was that since the phorid fly completes its development (egg to adult) in two to four weeks, the presence of an empty pupa case indicated that the station was not cleaned weekly. Further, it strongly indicated that a mouse had died in the rodent trap — but none had been written into the technician’s service report. It was circumstantial evidence, but strong enough to discredit the pest control company.
Control. “Accurate identification is the first and most important step of any fly control program,” Gallagher added. “If the fly is not accurately identified, the treatment process may not match the biology and behavior.” Phorid fly control may involve tearing into walls, repairing septic systems and leaking pipes, and removing contaminated soil or organic material. “When no apparent food source can be located, some established populations can continue the life cycle completely underground, with adult phorid flies finding their way into buildings through cracks and joints,” Gallagher said. For instance, sewage accumulating under slabs can create a vast resource for phorid fly breeding. Check for broken septic lines or cracked septic tanks, especially in older buildings.
“Cracks in plumbing, expansion joints, and windows are possible entrance points for phorid flies and should be repaired,” Krecji agreed. As with all small-fly infestations in food processing facilities, cleaning and maintenance of drains, removal of excessive moisture, and applications of insecticides and IGRs are important pillars of control.
THE MOTH/DRAIN FLY
The most effective way to prevent moth fly infestations is to eliminate organic, rotting material that they breed in.
WIKIMEDIA
Moth flies, also commonly called drain flies, are considered to be likely mechanical vectors of bacterial pathogens, as they are covered in fine hairs and scales, Krejci said. For their development, moth flies rely on standing water that is ripe with organic matter, and they ofetn are associated with high indoor humidity.
Because they originate in filthy conditions, moth flies can transmit bacteria and other microbes, Gallagher said. Adults also can be a problem by falling into food or getting in people’s eyes and mouths, and they commonly aggregate around windows, toilets, and other moist areas.
Prevention. To help prevent drain flies, keep indoor areas dry and free of excessive moisture, Krejci recommended. Clean wet areas often, paying special attention to toilets, water-holding tanks, drains, and sinks.
“The most effective way to prevent moth fly infestations is to eliminate organic, rotting material that they breed in,” Gallagher said. Clean drain pipes, drain traps, and other plumping components to eliminate the breeding sites often found in these areas. “Enzyme cleaners designed for use around plumbing sites are ideal for breaking down these kinds of bacteria,” he said.
Control. Control of moth flies is similar to that of fruit flies with removal of breeding sites as the first pillar of control, Krejci said. Landing areas in a food processing facility, such as the walls behind counters, can be treated with an approved adulticide, and using insecticides that are microencapsulated may provide a long residual, she said. “As with all fly infestations, use of an IGR is an important step to controlling future generations.”
FINAL FLY ADVICE
“Fly control can take time, persistence, and attention to detail,” Gallagher said, “But communication is also important.” If employees see a fly problem, they should report it as soon as possible, and honest communication from facility personnel about new infestation sightings, or even re-infestations, is imperative for a swift resolution.
Additionally, Krejci said, effective monitoring is essential to the success of an integrated pest management program in food processing. “For the past 30 years, much has been written about pest monitoring and sampling with sticky traps in structural environments,” she said. “However, pest control companies may not be maximizing the value of monitors, as monitors are often abandoned after the pest is identified.” Moving the monitors around the facility can pinpoint the exact location of the infestation or entry point, and control measures can be deployed more effectively, she said.
For both monitoring and control of any flying insect, facilities also should consider the use of insect light traps (ILTs), Harris said. As lighting fixtures that employ ultra-violet, insect-attracting lamps, ILTs are a means of mechanical control. Insect light traps are typically installed:
At immediate entry points like loading docks where there is no direct exposure to open product, process, and related items.
Along an insect’s most probable path from entry towards critical areas where easy contamination could occur.
Within production areas (but not over exposed food or food-contact areas) to act as both a last mechanical control device and a monitoring device.
“Should a phase-three monitoring unit experience increased insect-catch activity, then facility personnel or responsible contractors should be made aware of this pest pressure to identify and eliminate this risk,” Harris said. (For more information on ILTs, see Reading the Message Your ILT is Relaying.)
Post-treatment monitoring of flies in food processing facilities is also important, Krejci said. Use traps to count the population and make sure it is declining. Control should be gained within several days if all resting, breeding, and feeding sites are treated. If it’s not, she said, re-inspect to make sure all relevant areas have been cleaned and treated. “If necessary, expand inspection area to other nearby sources of infestation,” Krejci said. “It is important to talk with employees of the food processing facility to make sure all sanitation and exclusion recommendations are being followed.”
The author is Editor of QA magazine. She can be reached at llupo@gie.net.
