You don’t have to be a food safety professional to know that 2018 was a terrible year for fresh produce safety, especially romaine. The entire romaine supply chain, from growers, shippers, fresh-cut processors, through to those at retail and foodservice who interface directly with consumers, recognize that the public’s confidence has been shaken. The onus is on us to regain it.

Recently, the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (LGMA) took a revolutionary step in mandating that growers producing under the LGMA requirements treat surface water that will be used for overhead irrigation of leafy greens within 21 days of harvest. (The required treatment of surface water recognizes the need to use EPA-approved sanitizers in accordance with label requirements. Further, the industry recognizes the importance of co-management of the environmental and food safety risk and provides notice that the sanitizers must be used in a manner that is in compliance with all applicable environmental protection criteria.) United Fresh commended LGMA’s action, which conceptually aligns with guidance we are developing for the breadth of the fresh produce industry relative to assessing the risk of agricultural water.

LGMA is administered by the departments of agriculture in California and Arizona, which are the two main leafy green-producing states. While participation is voluntary, once committed, growers must adhere to the detailed requirements contained in the metrics. State auditors verify compliance. About 99% of the leafy greens coming out of California and Arizona are produced under this system, which was developed shortly after the 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak associated with spinach.

FDA is just beginning to conduct inspections of fresh produce-growing operations subject to the Produce Safety Rule (PSR). However, the requirements around managing and testing agricultural water are not yet in effect and are likely to change. The popular press and consumer groups tend to focus on this point, suggesting that the industry does not want to test water and is putting public health at risk. Nothing could be further from the truth. For reasons too complicated to explain in this column, United Fresh supports FDA’s reassessment of agricultural-water requirements and believes that the LGMA model should be considered as FDA considers a path forward. That said, not all produce is leafy greens.

The new California LGMA water standards were approved on April 19 and will likely be adopted in Arizona. While there is concern that these metrics may be applied to crops with different risk profiles, the risk-based approach to managing agricultural water has merit and is broadly applicable. Instead of debating how to augment the PSR requirements related to generic E. coli, what the test limits should be, and how many tests need to be taken to show that untreated surface water is safe, the updated LGMA water metrics flip the approach to water safety on its head. The new working assumption is that surface water has inherent risk, and treatment must demonstrate it is effective at reducing the risk of open water sources.

Food safety professionals agree that you can’t test safety into a product. The leafy greens industry is now applying that same philosophy to water: just because a test indicates that water meets certain criteria, we cannot trust that it’s always sufficient. Instead, the water source, conveyance system and the way the water will be used are factored into the risk equation. Thus, the framework, at its highest level, should be adaptable to the wide variety of situations used in fresh produce production.

When it comes to assuring leafy green safety, the change to the LGMA water metrics is not the end of the effort but is just the beginning of a new way of thinking about water. While overhead irrigation arguably presents the greatest risk if contaminated water is used, water is used in a variety of ways and the industry will continue to chip away at those factors that present the greatest relative risk. In the meantime, the rest of the produce industry should begin thinking about whether the LGMA approach has application for their commodities and their farms. FDA regulations for agricultural water are too far down the road to wait for a regulatory requirement. Read the LGMA guidelines.

By Lisa Lupo

We asked the pest management industry one question: Can a food processing facility be “pest free”? Then we asked for an explanation of the response:

• If yes, what does it take?
• If no, why?

Along with yes and no receiving an equal number of responses, a few experts did not commit to a solid yes or no, explaining that it depends on a number of variables.

But regardless of the side they took, the experts from the pest control companies and product manufacturers provided valuable insights on the potential causes of pest entry, critical steps that food facilities can take for control, and solutions for significantly reducing the food safety risks from pests.

Following are their responses.

YES

Absolutely! A properly maintained, inspected, and managed facility can be pest free, but only as long as these are continuously done. Most pest problems stem from a lack of maintenance, poor inspections, or poor management that leads to a failure in the “system” and a pest problem to develop. As individuals in a pest population gain access to a facility, the inspection and maintenance practices should intercept these individuals before they can become a large reproducing population, thus keeping the facility free of pest infestations. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!” – Janis Reed, Technical Services Manager, PCO, Control Solutions, Inc.

Yes, but it requires the proactivity, education, and commitment of employees and service providers, including the PMP. Even if there is no rodent issue today, a lack of vigilance will lead to a problem tomorrow. All must know what conditions are conducive to pests and be able to report or take action when something is amiss. For example, the receiving department must be aware that rodents and pests can enter the facility as stowaways on incoming shipments and know how to identify and deal with problem deliveries. Ongoing exclusion is also essential. Entry points must be sealed with rodent-proof material and regular inspections conducted to ensure that entryways remain sealed and no new entryways have developed. – Dave Colbert, Vice President Sales, Xcluder

There will always be some type of pest pressure, but with diligence you can keep any type of infestation from becoming established. It takes monitoring for pests and a knowledge of past issues and conducive conditions that lead to pest pressure. For example, is there is a history of house fly problems? Have entry points been properly addressed? Are there enough light traps? Has sanitation outside the facility been addressed? Different facilities and locations have their challenges. Spending the right amount of time on an account, with the right materials and cooperation of customers is what makes a pest-free facility attainable. – Mel Whitson, Senior Field Technical Service Manager, Zoëcon Professional Products

Although pest pressures in food processing plants are always high, a facility can achieve a “pest-free” condition. To reach “pest free,” the partnership between the facility staff and the pest manager, throughout their respective organizations, must be committed to this goal. Key stakeholders on both sides must instill a sense of value and commitment to observation, reporting, communicating, and action when existing or conducive pest conditions exist. – Joe Barile, Technical Service Lead, Bayer Environmental Science’s Professional Pest Management Team

Yes. When you have proper sanitation programs, excellent pest exclusion, sanitary design, and a well-documented HAACP program, you can keep pests out. Protection from food contamination is a continual challenge for food manufacturers. However, it’s a beautiful thing when a pest management professional works closely with key personnel such as the quality assurance team, the sanitation manager, maintenance, and the plant manager who are all concerned with food safety and a pest-free environment. It also helps having FDA and its Food Safety Modernization Act as a regulatory body that holds food companies accountable for preventing food contamination. – Shane McCoy, Director of Quality and Technical Training, Wil-Kil Pest Control

IT DEPENDS

Being pest free can be a challenge. Inherent in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) are concepts of economic thresholds — the cost of pest control does not equal or exceed the cost of product damage. An IPM program includes action thresholds to prevent overreactions and underreactions to pest issues in order to not exceed economic thresholds. For instance, if you have a single rat inside of a food processing facility, immediate action will need to be taken as it poses a health risk to employees, could result in damaged products, and could negatively impact an audit. However, if you have house flies outside near trash containers, a higher number may infest the area before action is needed. – Jerry Heath, Entomologist, Industrial Fumigant Company

It depends. Birds pose problems for facilities on the interior and exterior. Most interior problems occur because birds are comfortable on the exterior, then find their way inside, through open doors, cracks, ventilation, etc. Birds should be discouraged from landing on exterior features (lights, signs, ledges) near ingress points. This is easily done with optical gel, spikes, and electrified track. Once inside, food and water should be eliminated. Birds should be removed using mist nets and live capture traps, and openings should be closed off. If it’s not possible to stop their entry, sensitive areas of the facility can be bird-proofed. More areas can be added going forward. – Cameron Riddell, President, Bird Barrier America

There are many factors that influence the presence of certain pests in a food processing facility. Although it is hard to see a 100% pest-free environment, our goal is always to keep pest populations in check and below expected levels. In a commercial facility of this nature, an integrated pest management approach that pays close attention to hygiene, exclusion, and prevention is crucial for a successful control program. In addition, it is very important that food processing facilities work together with a certified pest management professional to develop monthly pest control protocols and services that fit their needs. – Freder Medina, Technical Market Manager – Pest Control, BASF

It depends on how you define “pest-free.” For example, it is completely realistic to expect food products manufactured inside modern facilities to be free from pests. In other words, no pests should be present in the food. However, pests are going to interact with, and likely penetrate, even the most structurally sound buildings through frequently used doors, inbound ingredients, utility penetrations and so on. The key is to have detection systems in place to forewarn pest professionals when pests infiltrate the facility. Perhaps more importantly, have a solid corrective action plan to proactively address pest activity when it is found. – Dan Collins, Regional Technical Director, McCloud Services

NO

I do not believe a food processing facility can be completely pest free, as we exist in a world where insects are all around us, including those that are too small to see. However, with dedication and adapting integrated pest management practices like exclusion and sanitation techniques, facilities can keep insect population levels at a very low level; one that will not cause economic loss. Constant monitoring and communication between on-site employees and pest professionals is key to maintaining control of insect pests. – Cassie Krejci, Animal Health Technical Field Specialist, MGK

A food processing facility can’t be truly pest-free just due to the nature of the business. You have people, raw ingredients, and packaging components moving in and out all day, increasing opportunities for pests to be transported into the building within a standard ingredient or process. We call this phenomenon the “trojan horse concept.” The trojan horse is a real danger to any pest control program because we cannot inspect 100% of every shipment or the people visiting. Additional challenges include the constant opening and closing of doors; or worse, doors not closing when they should, increasing risk; and the power of the building’s attractants to pests which includes smells, waste, warmth, and lighting. These factors cannot be eliminated entirely, so pest activity will always be a risk. – Dominique Sauvage, Senior Director of Quality, Training, and Field Operations, Copesan Services and Terminix Commercial

YES!...Now close the facility doors forever and write your pest management professional a blank check! No facility can become truly “pest free.” The real question should be “What modern techniques and programs would enable us to become ‘pest prevention oriented’?” I see those as being:

1. A properly performed facility risk assessment detailing every known risk observed and the potential for risk.
2. An integrated pest management (IPM) program with executive level backing, budgetary funding, and a focus on the pillars of IPM: detection, identification, biology, risk, etc.
3. A prevention-minded process for incoming goods and exterior pest pressures.

– James Miller, Market Manager-PCO, Trécé

The ultimate answer is no. In the real world of shipped raw materials, palletized goods, aging facilities, and human error, it is only a matter of time before an unwanted pest finds its way into the most secure food-processing operation. However, for practical purposes, it is possible to virtually eliminate risk to facility products with a proper reaction to pest pressure. The critical factor is early detection. This can be accomplished reliably with a thorough quarantine and monitoring protocol, regular inspections, and aggressive control measures when pest thresholds are breached. – Eric Paysen, Technical Services Manager, Professional Pest Management, Syngenta

A completely pest-free facility is probably not possible due to the large quantity of raw materials, packaging, and supplies being transferred into the facility. Even with very tight supply-chain specifications and controls, this is likely not realistic or at least cost attainable, though tight controls can minimize the likelihood of incoming infestations. It is possible for facilities to proactively prevent pest entry from the ambient environment and create an environment within the facility wherein any pests are eradicated before they create a hazard. Both would require an integrated approach including environmental, mechanical and chemical eradication, coupled with a strong monitoring program, sanitation and “pest proofing” specific susceptible processes and areas. A wide range of resources are available to create such a program. – Cisse Spragins, Founder/CEO, Rockwell Labs Ltd

No, food processing facilities are under constant pest pressure. Penetration or introduction into a site is always a threat. The problem is only mitigated through a complete partnership between the pest management professional (PMP) and the staff of the facility. That arrangement works on a day-to-day basis with both teams assessing and evaluating the site and working toward the goal of keeping pests out. – Ethan Vickery, President, VM Products

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

By Lisa Lupo

The word “clean” can be idiomatically used to emphasize the completeness of an action or experience, e.g., “he was knocked clean off his feet.” Synonyms include words such as totally, thoroughly, and absolutely. When your cleaning and sanitation crew finishes its shift, are those words applicable to the state of your food processing facility? What does it really mean to be thoroughly/totally/absolutely clean? And why is that important?

“A thoroughly/totally/absolutely clean food facility is a hygienic facility that serves as the foundation for manufacturing safe, high quality, and consistent food products,” said The Ohio State University Food Industries Center Program Specialist Steven Simmons. “It is a hazard-free facility at pre-op inspection, that allows for the continuous mitigation of pathogen cross-contamination and allergen cross-contact during operation.”

Unclean surfaces can and will contaminate product with spoilage, pathogenic bacteria, or allergens, so having an absolutely clean environment means that the sanitation process is capable and in control from a microbiological standpoint, preventing contamination from the plant environment, said FoodSafetyByDesign President John Butts. “Unfortunately,” he added, “there are harborage sites and growth niches below the surface in the equipment and facility that may emerge during the production process.” Because of that, words such as thoroughly, totally, and absolutely clean would mean the ability to keep subsurface growth niches and harborage sites from exuding their contents, he said. “Sanitary design is necessary to minimize this risk.”

The creation and maintenance of a hygienic food facility is arguably the most critical component of any effective food safety system, and the overarching goal of all food safety systems is to protect public health, Simmons said. “The U.S. food supply is commonly regarded as the safest in the world, largely due to the emphasis that food manufacturers place on sanitation.” Additionally, because unsanitary conditions resulting from deficient sanitation practices are often the root cause of inspection non-compliances, recalls, and foodborne illness outbreaks, USDA and FDA regulations stress the importance of food facility sanitation, such as through Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs) and Sanitation Preventive Controls, he said.

But, said DOZ Enterprises President Ole Dosland, the level of “clean” is in the eyes of the beholder: a plant maintenance worker would have a different level of clean than that of a microbiologist, yet both levels might be acceptable for their purpose; and cosmetic cleaning might fool a visitor, but deep cleaning is critical to meeting food safety expectations of no insects or harmful bacteria. Because of these varying perceptions, it is important to define an acceptable level of clean, based upon science and prevention of hazards, to provide clarity and consistency for the cleaning activity, Dosland said.

COMMON FAILURES. The three experts agreed that the areas most commonly missed in cleaning and sanitizing are those that are difficult to access. And when they are missed? “Product contamination and reduced shelf life are common results of failure,” Butts said.

These can include low areas, such as the underside of equipment, the wheels of material-handling equipment, the support structure of conveyor belts, and the interior of control boxes, as well as high areas, such as overhead utility piping, refrigeration equipment, and the underside of elevated walkways, explained Simmons.

©littlewolf1989 - stock.adobe.com

Overhead areas are of major concern because they are likely oriented directly above exposed product, product contact surfaces, or product contact packaging at some point in the manufacturing process, Simmons said. “It is possible for these areas to harbor environmental pathogens, with the ability to contaminate product or surfaces through a drop of condensate or as passengers on dust.”

Other common failures are:

• Lack of periodic deep cleaning of equipment through disassembly. In fact, a common failure is even knowing the proper level of disassembly, Butts said. This should be determined by measuring design risk areas visually and microbiologically in a seek and destroy (S&D) investigation. This is important because, he said, “Repeated S&D investigations yield data that is used to define normal and periodic levels of disassembly. This data also measures the effectiveness of the normal and periodic sanitation process.”
• Inattention to “touch points,” such as door handles; doorway curtains; control panels; hoses and nozzles; and the handles of utensils, tools, and material handling equipment. Touch points are key vectors for pathogen cross-contamination and allergen cross-contact and must be adequately cleaned and sanitized to minimize the risk of employees’ hands introducing these hazards to the product, product contact surfaces, or product contact packaging, Simmons said.
• Lack of sanitation of employee hands, gloves, uniforms, and personal protective equipment are also of concern, he said. If these become contaminated, they must be replaced with sanitary versions prior to continuing sanitation operations.
• Rushing to get the job done. “Often sufficient time is not allotted for the desired cleaning activity due to production overruns and early startups,” Dosland said. “A well-developed SSOP should identify the time frame needed to accomplish the task.” A solution is to provide an uncompromising time frame for the SSOP(s) start to finish. Then, periodically update each SSOP to maximize cleaning effectiveness and efficiency.
• “Sanitation crews are often overly aggressive when pre-rinsing and manually cleaning, using excessive water pressure or overly abrasive scrubbing tools, respectively,” Simmons said. This is an issue in pre-rinsing because the goal is to flush large soil particles from surfaces prior to cleaning, but excessive water pressure is likely to displace soil from one area to another as water oversprays, or casts off the sprayed surface. This is most problematic on food contact surfaces for allergens, and on floors and drains for environmental pathogens.
• In manual cleaning, sanitation crews tend to use overly aggressive scrubbing tools, such as scouring pads, inadvertently damaging equipment surfaces, Simmons added. This can be serious because the damage enhances the ability of food soils and microorganisms to adhere to the surface, while reducing the effectiveness of cleaners and sanitizers.

SOLUTIONS. How does the food facility correct these? “The solution to most sanitation program deficiencies is an effective employee training program,” Simmons said. “Sanitation employees must understand the importance of their responsibilities and buy in to the company’s food safety culture.” It is the responsibility of each employee to choose to perform their tasks properly, but management can support this through job performance rewards, often linked to monitoring and validation data.

It also is critical that sanitation employees are provided with the proper tools and supplies, he said. For example, if abrasive scouring pads are the only manual cleaning tools available, it is highly likely that sensitive equipment surfaces will be damaged.

Some best practices in sanitation the consultants have seen and recommendations they have developed from those include:

• Engaging sanitors who understand that they have the most important job in the facility; if they fail everything else is at risk. “Sanitation management must effectively engage sanitors while removing roadblocks from their success,” Butts said. “The most demoralizing situation is when a facility deploys a contingency of ‘QA Police’ to enforce visual cleanliness.”
• Clearly establishing a robust comprehensive microbiological environmental monitoring program, Dosland said.
• Reducing the monotony of sanitation work and enhancing employee vigilance. “There is a tendency for sanitation crews to get into daily routines, which may appear to be the ideal scenario for a properly implemented sanitation program. Unfortunately, routines tend to reduce employee vigilance when seeking out niches and other problem areas within a facility,” Simmons said. To break the routine, vary employee responsibilities from day-to-day or at least week-to-week, or have employees inspect the work of their coworkers to hold each other accountable for completing the work appropriately. This also helps each employee maintain familiarity with all areas and equipment in the facility.
• Similarly, Butts recommends that facilities measure and recognize the work of sanitors and expect microbiologically clean. “Make it a plant KPI,” he said.
• Sanitizer rotation is a practice that has the potential to improve the effectiveness of every sanitation program, Simmons said. Using a different sanitizer every other night, every other week, or even once weekly may enhance a program’s ability to combat the wide variety of spoilage and pathogenic organisms that may be present in a food facility. The theory is that each sanitizer has a different efficacy for each organism, so a simple rotation will minimize any deficiencies or gaps and reduce the likelihood of an organism becoming a problematic resident in a facility,” he said.
• “One job position I don’t hear much of anymore is a plant sanitarian,” Dosland said. “The best tip I can offer is to have one.” A clean facility is a longer-lasting facility reflecting an industry leader, he said. “That doesn’t happen by accident, it is the result of the intelligent effort that a sanitarian can provide.”

VALIDATION. How do you know if your facility is thoroughly/totally/absolutely clean? The first step is designing and developing a robust sanitation program and assembling a trustworthy, knowledgeable, and skilled team, Simmons said. Then, management must interact routinely with the team, including observations, discussions, ongoing education and training, and review of monitoring and verification records, such as adenosine triphosphate (ATP), microbiological, and allergen test data, he said.

Dosland provided a three-step method for determining an acceptable level of clean. Assuming the Master Cleaning Schedule (MCS) and Sanitary Standard Operating Procedure (SSOP) were developed properly:

1. Verify the MCS and SSOP have been followed. If one is late with the MCS, the SSOP might not be adequate.
2. Examine the cleaned surface organoleptically for instantaneous feedback. If it doesn’t feel, look, or smell right, it probably isn’t right, he said.
3. If 1 and 2 are acceptable, confirm with microbiological testing. Microbiological testing/swabbing includes testing for target pathogen(s) and indicator microorganisms.

If any indications of failure are found, it is critical that they are corrected. Product contamination and reduced shelf life are common results of failure, Butts said, and it also could cause products requiring a COA to not be in compliance with the product specification, leading to rejection.

“The consequences are serious,” Dosland said. “Bacterial contamination of products can lead to foodborne illness, recall, product destruction, and facility closure.”

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

By Lisa Lupo

Photos by Parker Michels-Boyce

Its product may consist of only three key ingredients, but Sabra’s combination of chickpea paste (with only chickpeas from family farms of the Pacific Northwest), tahini, and soybean oil has enabled the company to gain a 60% share of the U.S. hummus market. Not only is this emerging market estimated to reach $1.1 billion by 2022, according to Market Research Future, but Sabra is smack in the center of that growth, with its passion for bringing center-of-plate positioning of hummus to North American consumers. Used here today, primarily as a dip or spread, hummus is a main dish in the Middle East — for breakfast, lunch, or dinner. And that is exactly the tradition Sabra aims to bring to North America.

Sabra hummus is made of chickpeas and tahini with soybean oil, a little garlic and salt, and citric acid and potassium sorbate to maintain freshness. A variety of consumer-inspired garnishes top it off, then it is packaged and ready to sell. But it’s not quite as simple as it sounds. Not only is Sabra keenly focused on innovation, but hummus production is not without its food safety and quality challenges.

Ever since its founding in Queens, N.Y., innovation has been at the heart of Sabra. Always tapped into the trends of the day, while understanding that Americans’ tastes would change, Rabbi Yehuda Pearl, who began his career as a butcher, placed his stake in Mediterranean cousine. He purchased a 50% share of Sabra and focused in on plant-based hummus, with a recipe he felt would resonate with Americans.

Since that time, the company has undergone a number of mergers and acquisitions: Strauss and Pepsico are now 50/50 partners and Pearl is a consultant; the production has moved to Virginia with a new plant built in 2008 and expanded in 2018. Sabra went international in 2011, selling products in Canada, then, in 2012, producing product in Mexico sold under the name Obela there and in Australia, New Zealand, and The Netherlands. Although Sabra also sells guacamole, the Virginia plant produces only hummus products.

HUMMUS INGREDIENTS. There are tens of thousands of varieties of chickpeas, but only a single variety is ever used in Sabra hummus, and it is produced by a cooperative of family farmers in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). Similarly, the company uses unique types of tahini, all produced globally and then mixed together to ensure consistency in every lot. Regardless of whether it is a main ingredient of the hummus or a secondary ingredient in a garnish, everything that goes into a Sabra product is also non-GMO.

Sabra executives visit the PNW region a few times each year, not only to inspect the family farms, but to simply “visit in the garages with their families and be in the fields for harvest,” said Senior Director of Strategic Sourcing and Procurement Susan Hickey. “We deal with 80 to 110 family farmers every year, depending on their rotational crop,” she said. Chickpeas are a desirable agronomic crop, as the plants put nutrition back into the soil, and the dry climate and fertile soil of the PNW make it ideal for chickpea production.

But Sabra products are about more than their ingredients, said Chief Technology Officer Cherie Floyd. “We want to have a great ‘feel good’ food. It’s not just about how it tastes and looks, it’s how sustainable it is,” she said. “With hummus’ main ingredient, chickpeas, being such a beneficial rotational crop and the resulting hummus a delicious and nourishing food, I like to think about Sabra as a rejuvenator. From soil to consumer, it helps rejuvenate consumers as a wholesome, satisfying food.”

But a “feel good” food extends even beyond its production, extending into the community, she said. One way that Sabra does this is through its Plants with a Purpose (PWP) garden — an onsite area worked by employees for the benefit of employees. Those who work the garden can take produce home for free; others can purchase the produce at low cost; and some of the produce is provided to local food banks. The company also attempted to bring more production to the local economy in 2013, working with Virginia Commonwealth University researchers and 11 Virginia farms to grow chickpeas locally. The effort, however, was unsuccessful as the Virginia climate turned out to be too wet and humid for successful production.

As such, production really encompasses a lot more than food, Floyd said. “There needs to be a lot more to food companies than making great food.” That’s not, in any way, to disparage the importance of making great food. In fact, Sabra has a number of food safety and quality programs to ensure its product consistently meets its Gold Standard.

THE FOOD SAFETY PROCESS. At Sabra, said Senior Director of Global Quality and Food Safety Rob Mommsen, “Food safety culture is the number one priority. I don’t have any trouble getting money needed for food safety.”

Food safety has always been a part of the company’s production, but, like other companies that have been through major recalls and have learned lessons they are willing to share with the industry, Mommsen openly discussed the Sabra recall of 2016. Due to concerns over Listeria monocytogenes, which was identified at the manufacturing facility but not in tested finished product, the company recalled all but its organic hummus. The recall led to a number of improvements, which have made it “probably the safest refrigerated food plant in the U.S. if not the world,” said Mommsen, who rejoined Sabra after the recall to strengthen its food safety practices and policies.

Today, food safety is in evidence throughout the manufacturing process from receipt of goods to shipment of finished product:

• Chickpea cleaning. Chickpeas are unloaded into a surge hopper onto shaker tables to remove foreign objects. But only rarely will any objects be found, as the PNW cooperative has the exact same equipment through which the chickpeas are run before being shipped. From here the chickpeas go into a pressure cooker, which uses computer-controlled thermal processing to ensure cooking at a temperature exceeding 212^°F, which kills any bacteria and results in a product that is very close to commercially sterile, Mommsen said. Once cooked, non-killed spores can still regenerate, so Sabra prevents that through quick cooldown to below 40°F. At that point, he said, “The chickpea paste is now ready to be made into hummus.”
• The tahini room. As the most restricted area in the entire plant, the room in which the tahini barrels are opened and the product is mixed and pumped into the piped system is off-limits to all but an authorized few. To ensure this, the door adjoining it to the processing area can be opened only from the inside, having no handle on the outer side. The pallets used in this room never leave the area and the barrel tops are sprayed down with a cleaner before they are opened. Every day at 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., the entire system is taken down for top-to-bottom cleaning. The food safety steps in this area are so critical because, Mommsen said, “If we were to contaminate this system, the plant would be down for three days.”
• A closed system. From this point on, the product flows in a closed system, with no further exposure until opened by the consumer. The chickpea paste and tahini are piped from their tanks into a mixer with the oil and additives. The resulting hummus is piped into the containers, any garnishes added, a plastic seal applied, and the lid placed.
• Testing. Even with its preventive controls, Sabra’s testing is extensive — with both an internal Sabra-run lab, and an onsite third-party lab for all its finished product and pathogen testing — enabling fast, onsite results. Every four minutes, cups are pulled from the line; then every two hours, a composite of these is tested in a multiplex PCR system which can produce results for Listeria, Salmonella, and E. coli at the same time. The plant takes 1,000 environmental swabs each month and maintains pathogenic rates of 0.3% or less — well below the unofficial FDA level of 1.0%, Mommsen said.
• Dead or alive. Beyond that, Sabra uses a Listeria detection system that “picks up dead bugs and live bugs,” Mommsen said. “We don’t care if it’s dead or alive. If it lived once, it could live again.” It runs its environmental swabs through a PCR cycling machine which screens for 10 genes that can be pathogen indicators. It is a system that has become popular for foods that have seen major recalls, such as leafy greens, peanut butter, ice cream, and ground beef.
• Maintenance room. Sabra’s focus on sanitation is in evidence even in its maintenance room which Mommsen noted as “one of the cleanest I’ve ever been in.” Run by Matt Clark (“one of our rising stars”), the room’s organization and sanitation assist in food safety as the tools and parts are used into the food area.
• People traffic. “The biggest food safety problem is traffic patterns,” he said. Many of its low- and medium-care areas were changed to high-care after the recall, and Sabra-provided boots are worn by workers and visitors, and foot foamers are located at the entrances of all sensitive areas.

Parker Michels-Boyce

Parker Michels-Boyce

Parker Michels-Boyce

Parker Michels-Boyce

Parker Michels-Boyce

“It is interesting to see the change in culture; after the big recall, everyone got smart,” Mommsen said. And it’s not just Sabra associates who are aware of the impact. “FDA and the State of Virginia have all come in to see how we accomplished it so fast,” he said. The secret: “You have to get your GMPs and traffic patterns under control.”

QUALITY ASSURANCE. Meeting Sabra’s Gold Standard for quality means ensuring consistency. The greatest quality challenge with hummus is variability, Floyd said. With produce, there is always variability, and produce (chickpeas) makes up three-quarters of it product. “So you have to try to maintain something the consumer can rely on, on a consistent basis,” she said.

When that quality is maintained consistently, it shows with the final product epitomizing the Gold Standard. As explained by Research Chef Sam Wallis, within the round plastic container of hummus:

1. The “hill shoulder” (the hummus shape around its edge within the container) is shaped like a rounded hill.
2. The center “nipple” looks like a Hershey’s Kiss.
3. From the center to the shoulder there are regular, consistent ripples that create a “voluptuous and creamy appearance.”
4. The color is an even beigish tan, visible through the sides and half-clear top of the transparent container.

“People eat with their eyes,” Floyd said. “For us, the visual appeal is as important as the taste.” For both appearance and taste, she said, it’s not enough for Sabra to know that it is meeting consumers’ tastes and expectations, the company wants to know why.

“We do a lot of competitive tasting trying to determine exactly what it is that makes it so special,” Hickey said. “Why does it work?”

Parker Michels-Boyce

“So,” Floyd said, “We start in the kitchen. We start everything with a culinary standard; we look for things that are familiar but a little edgy.”

INNOVATION. That “kitchen” is in its Pearl Center of Excellence which was added with the 40,000-square-foot expansion of its Virginia plant in 2013 and is led by Corporate Executive Chef MaryDawn Wright. Sabra has a core group of consumers that loves hummus, but it is trying to reach others by using garnishes and providing recipes of things that are familiar, so hummus “is not too scary too try,” Floyd said. Thus, the Sabra kitchen is where “art meets science” in its efforts to change the way consumers experience hummus.

Along with creating consumer recipes, the kitchen develops menu items for restaurant accounts, arenas, and institutional facilities. The goal is to showcase hummus and introduce it to new consumers through its incorporation into foodservice menus and “having it be the star; the center of the plate,” Wallis said. This was displayed to QA through a tasting of Sabra’s hummus products, and a lemon raspberry hummus toast with drizzled honey, tomato basil hummus toast, a margherita pizza hummus flatbread, and a classic hummus with date syrup and chopped pistachio dessert.

Wallis faced a unique interview process, designed to ensure he would bring innovation to the kitchen. Not only were there discussions with Sabra executives, he was given a “Mystery Basket” challenge, similar to that of Food Network’s Chopped. “I was given ingredients and told, ‘You have one hour. Make three dips based on our classic hummus.’” If the dips Wallis provided then were anything like the dishes at our tasting, he was likely a shoo-in for the job.

In 2018, Sabra updated its packaging and logo, leaving its “iconic red rim unchanged” but color-coding the labels by flavor and increasing the transparency of the lid. While the original intent of the updated logo was to reimagine the Sabra sun as a chickpea sun, its shape is seen by many as a heart. In either case, just as the sun is the center of the universe and the heart is the center of the chickpea, so too are Sabra’s quality, food safety, and innovation taking hummus to the heart of the consumer’s plate.

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