Read more at FoodProcessing.com As we enter the third year of the Covid pandemic, food safety is finding its own version of the "new normal." While a number of pandemic accommodations remain as temporary fixes, the experience has led to some permanent changes – for example, more automation, more space for plant-floor workers and more use of remote technologies. "The New Era of Smarter Food Safety" – while that evolving FDA program was not a result of the pandemic, the title nicely sums up food safety in the 2020s. Over the past two years, Covid caused some interruptions in both USDA and FDA inspections; Global Food Safety Initiative-related ones too. Plant shutdowns, company bans on outside visitors and illness among inspectors all contributed to fewer in-person visits. New or temporary employees brought in by processors on a fill-in basis also could have compromised food safety. Fortunately, there was not a single serious incident in 2020 or 2021, much less one that could be pinned on Covid issues. "While FDA has continued many of our oversight activities, there is no doubt the pandemic has had an impact on our inspectional work," the agency wrote in the introduction to a May 2021 report titled, “Resiliency Roadmap for FDA Inspectional Oversight,” outlining the agency’s inspectional activities during the pandemic. Basically, the document prioritized inspections, promising not to slack on "mission critical" ones, which were to be identified "on a case-by-case basis." Mission critical inspections included 29 in foreign countries. But it's a new year, and both of the U.S. government agencies have new initiatives and some new rules to enforce. For starters, both agencies recently got new food safety leaders. Tom Vilsack, who was confirmed a full year ago as secretary of agriculture, in November named Jose Emilio Esteban as USDA's undersecretary for food safety. The reverse was true at FDA. The agency's longtime food safety specialist, Frank Yiannas, remains FDA’s deputy commissioner for food policy and response, a job he's held since 2018. But his boss will be new. Robert Califf was nominated by President Biden, but as of mid-January had not been confirmed. Califf, like Vilsack, held that title during the Obama administration. "I see food safety as going in two potential directions in 2022, based primarily on the direction taken by the regulatory agencies," says David Acheson, who was the top food safety officer in FDA 2002-2009, and now heads food safety consultancy The Acheson Group (achesongroup.com). "To explain: The industry has been dealing with supply chain pressures and workforce issues since the beginnings of the pandemic, which have diverted some focus from food safety, and I don’t see those pressures as letting up anytime soon," Acheson says. "However, regulatory scrutiny has become more aggressive in recent months, particularly in relation to [FDA's Food Safety Modernization Act] compliance and Food Safety Plan evaluation, and I don’t see any relaxing of that either. "So, in general, I would see most companies continuing to do business as usual … unless they catch a regulatory eye for a food safety infraction. Such a wake-up call would force a focus to food safety enhancements," he continues. "Absent such a prod, I would expect the continuing challenges, now exacerbated by inflation and supply costs, to retain corporate focus, with 2022 following similar lines as 2021." Nevertheless, 2022 brings a few changes from all the key food safety authorities. Here's a rundown of top initiatives for the agencies. Food and Drug Administration The FDA has already penciled in the addition of sesame to the list of allergens that must be declared on food labels, although enforcement doesn't begin till Jan. 1, 2023. That brings the total number of allergens to nine, the other eight being eggs, tree nuts, peanuts, cow's milk, fish, shellfish, soy and wheat. In December, FDA added acacia—also known as gum arabic or gum acacia—as part of the agency's definition of dietary fiber. Following FDA's stricter re-definition of fiber in 2016, only seven ingredients initially could call themselves dietary fiber. Other ingredients – such as inulin and high-amylose starch– had to prove "physiological effects that are beneficial to human health." And acacia is the 11th ingredient to have done so (bringing the total to 18). Last October, FDA issued voluntary guidelines for sodium in food that seek to reduce the average level in the American diet by 12%. The recommendation seeks to limit sodium consumption to 3,000mg per day, down from the current average of about 3,400. Current dietary guidelines say adults should consume at most 2,300mg. Despite positive comments from many, including some food processors, they are "guidelines" and "voluntary"; the FDA issued similar voluntary guidelines in 2016, without much effect. But at the time of the 2021 announcement, acting FDA commissioner Janet Woodcock said companies that meet the guidelines will be rewarded—although she didn’t say how, nor if there would be consequences for those who don’t. An unpleasant side effect of the pandemic and more recent supply chain problems has been food fraud. That's moved higher up on the list of worries for both FDA and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. "Any changes to the supply chain potentially increase the risk of fraud on raw materials, ingredients, finished products, and even packaging," says Earl Arnold, AIB International's manager for Food Defense/FSMA, Operations, Quality Assurance. "As shortages occur, fraudsters take advantage of this and attempt to create fraudulent [products] for economic gain." As some ingredients and other supplies became scarce, some processors desperately looked for new suppliers – and in the process may have compromised food safety. "To help mitigate fraud, facilities should first consider developing specific and detailed procedures on what will be done if they need to obtain resources from new/emergency suppliers," Arnold continues. "Most auditing standards and FDA requirements require food fraud programs and risk assessments." For a few years, FDA has been prodded to develop means to regulate marijuana derivatives—both THC and CBD—as food ingredients. A bipartisan bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in December that would require the FDA to regulate cannabidiol (CBD) in foods and beverages. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate earlier last year. But neither bills nor lobbying efforts have forced FDA's hand, although some day, and that day could come this year, the agency will need to deal with this issue. Ultimately, the main effort of the FDA this year will be a continuing development of "The New Era of Smarter Food Safety." The plan builds on the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act and outlines the overall approach FDA will take over the next decade. Influenced at least in part by the coronavirus pandemic, the plan is centered around four core elements: Tech-enabled traceability Smarter tools and approaches for prevention and outbreak response New business models and retail modernization Food safety culture "It outlines a partnership between government, industry and public health advocates based on a commitment to create a more modern approach to food safety," then-FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said at its unveiling. "Since FDA introduced the New Era of Smarter Food Safety in July of 2020, they’ve discussed or presented information at nearly every opportunity and forum available to them," says Arnold. "FDA developed this program because the food industry is quickly changing. New technologies, e-commerce, and expansions of the global supply chain need to be utilized and considered for traceability and food safety management activities to be successful." Progress on the New Era came just this past December, when FDA published its Foodborne Outbreak Response Improvement Program, "an important step … to enhance the speed, effectiveness, coordination, and communication of outbreak investigations." Partly from introspection, partly from an outside review by the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health, which included a look at USDA's FSIS, the FDA will work on: Tech-enabled product traceback Root cause investigations Analysis and dissemination of outbreak data Operational improvements United States Department of Agriculture The Agriculture Department already has seen a food safety milestone: Jan. 1 was the enforcement deadline for the labeling of genetically engineered/GMO/bioengineered (BE) ingredients in food and beverage products. Although USDA created and enforces the 2018 "National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard," the food end-products are just as likely – maybe more so – to be under FDA's jurisdiction. But the origins of BE ingredients or foods almost always lie in agricultural products – and that introduces "one of the most confusing parts of the regulations for the BE disclosure standard … the recordkeeping requirements," says Elaine Meloan, AIB's manager for food labeling. "For any foods on or derived from the substances on the bioengineered food list, companies will need to maintain records showing the BE status of the food," she explains. "A simple statement of 'non-GMO' from the supplier for the records would not necessarily be sufficient to show that the product is not BE. Instead, the supplier documentation would need to show one of the following: The food is sourced from a non-bioengineered crop or source. The food has been subjected to a validated refinement process that shows that the modified genetic material in the food is undetectable. Records of testing appropriate to the specific food that confirm the absence of modified genetic material." USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) also is in the midst of a "comprehensive" effort to reduce salmonella in poultry products. The agency is gathering data and other information with a goal of a 25% reduction in salmonella illnesses. “Reducing salmonella infections attributable to poultry is one of the department’s top priorities,” says USDA Deputy Under Secretary Sandra Eskin, who is leading the initiative. “Time has shown that our current policies are not moving us closer to our public health goal. It’s time to rethink our approach.” So USDA this year will seek stakeholder feedback on specific salmonella control and measurement strategies, including pilot projects, in poultry slaughter and processing establishments. A key component is encouraging preharvest controls to reduce Salmonella coming into the slaughterhouse. The data generated from these pilots will be used to determine if a different approach could result in a reduction of salmonella illness in consumers. FSIS already has held two roundtables with consumer groups and industry to hear their ideas on potential pilot projects and will be holding its next set of roundtables early this year, beginning with one on scientific support for various approaches to salmonella control in poultry. USDA and FDA are sharing responsibility for cultured animal-cell products. "Lab-grown meats" have advanced so fast in the past year or two they're no longer in the lab; several companies are building production facilities to make cultured meat, poultry, seafood and even dairy products. FSIS solicited comments on how to label them last fall, and work continues to develop a framework to bring them safely to consumer tables in the near future. The two agencies also are collaborating on the Closer to Zero (C2Z) initiative. The revelation that there are heavy metals, particularly arsenic, in some foods, particularly baby foods, blew up last summer in Congress and among states' attorneys-general. FDA is expected to provide a preliminary report this April, with phased-in limits coming in following years. Global Food Safety Initiative The non-governmental GFSI certifies a global network of independent food safety auditors and certification bodies, such as the Safe Quality Food (SQF) Initiative and the British Retail Consortium's (BRC) Global Food Standard. So "benchmarking and harmonization" are perennial priorities for the global initiative, especially with a new version of the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements. While GFSI was created by and for the private sector, "In 2022, GFSI will be rolling out an ambitious framework of government-to-business events striving to create an environment where food safety regulators trust that GFSI-recognised certification can be used for risk-based resource allocation in their national food control systems." Having just launched the first set of benchmarking requirements for food safety auditor Professional Recognition Bodies, "We will be moving full speed ahead to raise the profile of the profession of auditing, with the aim to attract and retain talents into this vital profession," the agency wrote us. Finally, the group is developing a proprietary platform to verify GFSI-recognized certificates and to otherwise differentiate its food safety certifications from others, especially fraudulent ones. The project is a response to the feedback of many GFSI stakeholders who report it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish GFSI-recognized certificates from non-recognized certificates or differentiate valid certificates from fraudulent ones.

Read more at SupermarketPerimeter.com Grocery store bakeries serve as a popular option for convenient, fresh, and ready-to-eat items that can be purchased as a part of a one-stop shopping experience. At the same time, proper labeling of allergens along with the prevention of bacterial pathogens are essential to maintaining a high level of food safety in these bakeries. Costly recalls occur when allergens are left undeclared on labeling, and recent examples include Whole Foods Market’s September recall of apple and cherry pies from five stores in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia due to undeclared milk and eggs. These recalls can become even more far-reaching as Jimmy’s Cookies recalled Marketside chocolate candy cookie cakes form Walmart stores in 23 states in August due to undeclared peanuts. “These recalls highlight the need to ensure products are accurately labeled and that verifiable cleaning and sanitation procedures are properly implemented for prevention of both allergen and pathogen-related issues,” said Hilary Thesmar, senior vice-president of food safety at Arlington, Va.-based FMI - The Food Industry Association. Label accuracy in focus With grocery store bakeries handling large quantities of the most common food allergens including wheat, egg, milk, soy, peanuts, and tree nuts, there is plenty of opportunity for cross-contamination or labeling errors. Because of this, Thesmar said food allergens are the most significant food safety issue for grocery store bakeries. In fact, Food and Drug Administration recall information indicates that 16 out of 18 recalls of bakery foods in 2021 were due to undeclared allergens, and two resulted from bacterial pathogens. Allergen labeling will be expanding soon as sesame was added to the list of major food allergens in 2021 under the Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education and Research Act, and the act requires declaration of the presence of sesame on food packaging labels by January 2023. Staff training on allergens is essential in the process, and FMI partners with the International Food Protection Training Institute to provide allergen awareness training for members, and they even offer a course in allergen awareness for food employees in retail grocery settings. Contamination with foreign materials is another area of concern for bakeries as illustrated with Kroger’s recent recall of certain Country Oven baked goods due to possible metal fragments in the starch that was used to manufacture the products. These products were distributed to 29 states. Holding suppliers to the highest standards Another one of the biggest steps grocery store bakeries can take to ensure the safety of their products is to require suppliers to meet the highest standards. “We hold our suppliers accountable to provide complete and accurate allergen controls and information,” said Mike Tilden, director of deli and bakery for Kansas City, Kan.-based Balls Foods. “After that, we consider anything produced in our bakery to have potential cross-contamination and label accordingly as all of the major allergens are present within our bakeries. Labeling is the best tool we have to inform our consumers.” Peg Ray, senior manager for product development and innovation at Manhattan, Kan.-based AIB International, said suppliers to instore bakeries experience many of the same food safety issues manufacturers across the supply chain face including package labeling as well as a lack of allergen and foreign materials controls. To address these issues, she said suppliers should participate in a recognized outside audit scheme with a report that shows compliance to standards. “Any agreement between the bakery and the supplier should include a provision that the supplier immediately notifies the bakery of any regulatory activity involving the supplier, which will help keep any unsafe product from reaching consumers,” Ray said. Ray said suppliers should have a food safety plan that includes foreign material removal and temperature control considerations. Kill step validation for any baked goods should also be provided, and bakeries should also establish specifications for each ingredient and finished product a manufacturer provides. Retailers should review the certificates of analysis suppliers provide against the specification for each lot of material received at the instore bakery, Ray said. Ray said all manufacturers must comply with the Food Safety Modernization Act, and their Preventive Controls for Human Food and Foreign Supplier Verification Programs must be evaluated. In addition to purchasing documented items from reputable suppliers, proper sales and customer service support at the store level is critical when there are questions for the supplier on how to produce or handle the product in the stores, said Tracey David, quality team member at Dawn Foods Global, Jackson, Mich. Randy McArthur, national technical sales at Dawn Foods Global, said that when they work in the field with customers, they follow food safety guidelines taught by SaniServe and the National Institute for the Food Service Industry. Considerations in the store Staffing issues can also impact the ability of bakeries to adhere to standards. “Given the current state of labor shortages and high turnover in the industry, proper food safety training is certainly a big challenge,” McArthur said. “In a busy environment, there can be lots of room for error which can quickly become hazardous and affect food safety. To prevent any issues, every employee must learn proper handwashing and use of gloves, as well as what products in the bakery are potentially hazardous and what the critical control points are for those items.” David also said team members at grocery store bakeries must know not only how to properly handle products when making them, but also how to handle products when presenting them to the customer. This includes knowing whether the product can be shown at ambient or refrigerated temperatures and how long it can stay at those temperatures. McArthur said it is critical bakeries have simple and readily available training and reference manuals that employees can access continuously. He said each of their manufacturing plants and distribution centers receive regular, voluntary third-party inspections to assure the highest sanitation and safety standards. He said as a part of their daily cleaning, safety and documentation routine they must recalibrate the machinery each hour to ensure correct operation for metal detection. Additionally, when new products are formulated, food scientists make sure they have the proper pH and water activity to ensure that each product is stored properly according to its storage method and shelf life. Thesmar said training for all food workers is important to assist with compliance, avoidance of cross contact, proper labeling, basic food handling practices and employee hygiene. She also said constant communication is essential for retailers and suppliers, and suppliers should communicate any formulation changes that could impact allergens. She said a strong food safety program relies on a comprehensive approach with strong leaders, a solid program and robust training so employees are aware of expectations. She said it is also important that managers ensure appropriate verification procedures are put in place to check the accuracy of labels and identify formulation changes immediately. Thesmar also said third-party food safety management programs such as SQF can help retailers assure suppliers have strong programs in place. An annual audit can evaluate if systems are functioning properly in order to prevent contamination. To that end, Jayne Kearney, director of marketing for Bake’n Joy Foods, North Andover, Mass., said that her company’s SQF audit score is consistently rated as “excellent,” and their operating practices include kill steps and metal detection at the appropriate stages of manufacturing. Additionally, all Bake’n Joy associates adhere to Good Manufacturing Practices, and the company has a dedicated environmental, health and safety manager overseeing all facilities to not only ensure regulatory compliance, but also to make sure that facilities are the safest they possibly can be for associates. At the store level, Tilden said managers for Balls Foods are food safety certified via classroom instruction and testing. According to the International Dairy Deli Bakery Association, Madison, Wis., some considerations for food storage within a bakery include keeping coolers at or below 41 degrees and freezers at or below 0 degrees, thawing items in refrigeration and not room temperature, and keeping raw and baked products separated in coolers. Not stacking raw products such as raw eggs above baked items is important as they may drip onto baked products and cross-contaminate. Storing bakery products at least 6 inches off the floor and placing open bags of ingredients in covered bins to prevent rodents and insects are important considerations as well. Following these standards will help to maintain customer trust and drive business in grocery store bakeries in addition to preventing a recall situation. Yet even when an issue arises, there is always the opportunity to learn and improve. “Some retailers have taken a recall due to a mistake made at the store level and used it to update and revise their policies, procedures and training to strengthen their allergen control or food safety programs,” Thesmar said. “Recalls are expensive, but the longer-term implications are with customers and trust.”  

Read more at FoodEngineeringMag.com

Read more at SnackandBakery.com The grain-based snack and bakery industry has a number of vital, perennially important food safety issues to consider as we move into a new year. Food safety has always been important in snack and bakery facilities, and it has ramped up this year due to COVID-19, as well. Supply safety “Today’s global snack foods industry is very complex. The diversity of ingredients, processing techniques, industry requirements, and supply chain models present many safety and quality challenges. Therefore, whether processors are utilizing wheat, rice, corn, soybeans, or other ingredients, rapid and accurate analytical results can help inspire smarter food safety decisions and ensure the integrity of product supply chains,” says Wes Shadow, market manager, grain, PerkinElmer, Inc., Waltham, MA. “When dealing with grains, moisture is an especially important safety parameter as particularly damp or arid conditions can lead to the growth of carcinogenic mycotoxins. As such, regulatory thresholds for mycotoxins set by the global governing bodies, examples including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Food Safety Authority, and the China Food and Drug Administration, are in place at various stages in the process and manufacturing pipeline to help minimize the risk of mycotoxin presence,” he says. “To ensure supply chain safety, the industry is increasingly adopting sensitive, efficient detection methods that allow processors to monitor for the presence of mycotoxins at harvest, during storage, and before shipment or processing. PerkinElmer brings accuracy and ease of use to the forefront of mycotoxin testing with the AuroFlow AQ Mycotoxin Platform and new MaxSignals HTS Total Aflatoxins and DONA ELISA Kits,” Shadow notes. The AuroFlow AQ Mycotoxin Alfa test strips allow farmers, grain silo workers and lab professionals to cover all six of the most commonly regulated mycotoxins in grains, he says. “Through a single-step, water-based sample extraction, this quantitative solution is not only easy to use but is also more environmentally sustainable than traditional methods. When used in conjunction with PerkinElmer’s QuickSTAR Horizon portable strip reader, mycotoxins are detected in levels as low as 2 ppb in under 6 minutes making this analytical solution as rapid as it is robust. This USDA/FGIS approved solution also offers flexibility to be used on-site by farmers or by laboratory professionals due to its portability and user-friendly interface.” Designed for complex matrices such as finished feed and grains, PerkinElmer’s MaxSignal HTS Total Aflatoxins and DON ELISA Kits provides an automated and easy-to-use mycotoxin testing workflow, Shadow adds. “This solution allows lab teams to process up to 180 samples in 180 minutes. The new MaxSignal HTS offering has been developed to ‘set it and forget it,’ minimizing the need for manual intervention, reducing the risk of manual error and helping the customer meet their regulatory standards.” Regulatory concerns Earl Arnold, manager, food defense/FSMA, operations, quality assurance, Americas, AIB International, Manhattan, KS, says that the number one food safety priority should be allergens, as it is the number one reason for recalls in the U.S. “It is critical that manufacturers clearly define and follow label reviews, ensuring the right product goes into the right package and the label declares the correct allergens of the product. Additionally, if a facility has unique allergens, or those not common in all products and produced on shared equipment, then detailed change over cleaning is necessary to minimize allergen cross-contact,” he says. “Additionally, the number one reason for FDA issuing 483s in 2019 and 2020 is not having a Foreign Supplier Verification Program, as required,” says Arnold. “Unfortunately, we are currently on track to repeat this in 2021. FDA sees education as the main gap for not understanding or capturing this requirement.” Familiarity with FDA’s New Era of Smarter Food Safety will be beneficial, Arnold says. “This topic has been covered by FDA personnel at numerous speaking engagements and is what FDA is currently working on. It is important for manufacturers to stay current with topics like these, so they can be prepared if and when they become requirements. FDA has also proposed a new regulation for traceability requirements for high-risk foods. It is only in the beginning phase and has not formally approved this regulation. Some of these requirements may affect the snack and baking industry, as some of the ingredients listed like nut butters are commonly used in the industry.” As for additional safety measures, Arnold says: “I see manufacturers maintaining several personnel safety measures after the pandemic. These include an increased focus on hand washing and hand sanitizing, increased cleaning frequency of high touch areas, and the continuation of visitor protocols.” Kill steps During the food manufacturing process, steps are often used to eradicate pathogens from products. These are called “kill steps.” The American Bakers Association (ABA) collaborated with AIB International and researchers at Kansas State University and the University of Georgia to create Baking Process Kill Step Calculators. The calculators take recorded time and temperature parameters and automatically determines the total process lethality (e.g., 5 log) for Salmonella. They also give a standardized methodology to more than 2,000 bakery products on store shelves, and the calculators are approved by FDA; they also comply with the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). “The selection of product types for the kill step validation project was done to encompass a broad range of baked goods,” says Brian Strouts, technical advisor, ABA, Washington, D.C. “The study was initiated with the hamburger bun as it was a fairly simple formulation and process. The testing methodology was also developed around this initial product as this type of testing was breaking new ground and was unpublished at the time. The most recent product, fruit-filled pastry, is a more complex multi component product but the testing principles still apply and the kill step calculation works the same way. In addition, the research team has now published several articles in peer reviewed journals that validate the models and the results,” he says. Dave Bauman, food safety professional, operations, Americas, AIB International, Manhattan, KS, says that although most food products undergo a supposed kill step at the point of production, the process often lacks scientific documentary evidence or proof of effectiveness. “Since 2011, FSMA has required all FDA-registered food manufacturing facility comply with the validation and verification of a kill step. Manufacturers must validate that the preventive controls that are identified and implemented are adequate to control the hazard as appropriate to the nature of the preventive control and its role in the facility’s food safety system,” says Bauman. “Our Baking Process Kill Step Calculators help evaluate the lethality of your process in a variety of products. A report is then generated, which can be used as supporting documentation for FSMA’s validation and verification process. We currently offer 10 different Kill Step Calculators. This includes calculators for Cake Muffins, Crisp Cookies, Soft Cookies, Hamburger Buns, Whole Wheat Bread, Nut Muffins, Yeast Raised Donuts, Flour Tortillas, Cheesecake, and Fruit-filled Pastries,” Bauman adds. “For each of the calculators, we collaborated with the American Bakers Association and its Food Technical and Regulatory Affairs Committee, along with researchers at Kansas State University and University of Georgia. Each of these calculators can help customers increase food safety assurance, while maintaining compliance with the Food Safety Modernization Act’s regulation for hazard analysis and preventive controls,” Bauman notes. Pest control Pest control continues to be an important issue in food facilities. Glen Ramsey, technical services manager, Orkin, LLC, Atlanta, says that while we’re not quite in a post-pandemic phase yet, some pre-pandemic activities are resuming and that means pest activity will be as well. “We’ve continued to see an increase in rodent issues as their food sources are made available again and seasonal weather will begin to push pests inside to more temperate locations. Facility managers should work with their pest control provider to implement a strong exclusion program to keep pests out of their facilities. If staff are returning to work after the pandemic as well, it doesn’t hurt to get your pest control provider to do a refresher on staff training to help spot signs of pest activity,” he recommends. Fly control remains a top concern for snack and bakery facilities, Ramsey notes. “Our new, state-of-the-art LED traps draw flies to an internal, non-toxic sticky board. This product provides better performance, less maintenance and increased energy efficiency. It’s also more sustainable than fluorescent insect light traps,” he says. “Prevention should still be the top priority and the best way to keep pests out is by implementing exclusion tactics such as installing door sweeps, sealing cracks and holes and performing regular inspections alongside your pest provider to see potential trouble spots in real time.” In addition to exclusion tactics, areas that store food products are going to be a top concern for keeping pests out during the winter months. Keep all stored food products in airtight containers off the ground and away from exterior walls, Ramsey suggests. “The garbage area is also a crucial hot spot for pests and should be part of routine inspection and maintenance. Place dumpsters as far away from your building as possible and make sure waste management comes to pick up and empty dumpsters at least twice a week to prevent food waste from sitting too long and attracting pests. Inside, make sure trash is emptied at least once a day and trash bins are hosed down and cleaned regularly to avoid any food build up,” says Ramsey. Pat Hottel, technical manager, McCloud Services, a Terminix company, South Elgin, IL, says that in the Midwest, [the company has] seen unusually higher numbers of stored product pests like Psocids (booklice), cigarette beetles, and Indianmeal moths. “This may be due to some of the unseasonably warmer temperatures that we saw later in the summer and into the fall. We also saw an increase in demand for both fumigation services and ULV space treatments in our control plans,” says Hottel. “House mouse issues have also been on the rise. I would encourage facilities that do not already have a system in place for monitoring their shipping and receiving area center aisle to establish programs for these areas. Whether it be a visual inspection alone or supplemented with trap monitors, these programs are especially important if facilities have high external mouse activity. Additionally, thorough inspections of incoming shipments are a necessity,” Hottel recommends. Hottel says that birds are often an issue around food manufacturing facilities due to the attractions of warmth, food, harborage, and water. “We have been using a relatively newer product on the market to keep these pests off of structures in the form of computer-generated laser devices. Hand-held lasers have been used for many years to harass birds inside structures to move them back outside. These units are installed outside to move them off buildings and structures. By reducing landing sites, we can reduce interior migrations and mitigate the food safety risks,” she explains. “The Indianmeal moth pheromone has been available as both a lure for traps and as a dispenser for disrupting mating,” says Hottel. “It is now available as a sprayable formulation. While the dispensers remain our primary tool, there may be some areas where the sprayable is an option. We continue to look for sites where remote monitoring systems are good options and are currently using systems for rodents and stored product pests.”

Read more at FoodSafetyTech.com by Megan Coy Moran With allergens being the leading cause of recalls in the U.S., accounting for approximately 47 percent of recalls as of the most recent FDA reportable food registry annual report, FDA has placed “an emphasis on preventing allergen contamination, protecting consumers, and reducing the need for food recalls.” So, when FDA makes allergen control a priority, how can you be confident that it is a priority for your team and in your facility? By providing your designated Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI) with the right PCQI training. Introduced in the Preventative Controls for Human Food Regulation final rule that exists within the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), a PCQI is required to be on staff in all food and beverage facilities registered under section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) Act. In this role, the PCQI oversees development of the Food Safety Plan, hazard analysis, preventive controls, verification activities, and validation of process preventive controls. Further, FSMA mandates that all food manufacturing facilities conduct Hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls (HARPC), while also implementing science-based preventive control measures to reduce the potential risk of food product adulteration. Each of these are managed by the PCQI and critical to achieving food safety. With the goal of preventing foodborne illness and maintaining compliance with the FDA, the PCQI also needs to possess an in-depth knowledge of the facility’s Environmental Monitoring Program, food allergen controls, sanitation controls, supply chain controls, and recall plan. The importance of the PCQI’s many responsibilities means they need to have the necessary training and skills for the creation, application, and verification of these and other measures as applicable to their facility. The PCQI’s oversight and familiarity with the Food Safety Plan also suggests they are likely the primary contact when FDA arrives at your facility for an inspection. Their ability to answer the inspector’s questions and successfully manage this process helps ensure that those visits are as concise and positive as possible. Having this single point of contact is also beneficial for the inspector, as they know they can count on the PCQI as a resource to provide them with necessary information without having to chase down multiple sources. Too, having a PCQI on site makes it easier to then implement regulatory requirements and any necessary preventive controls within the designated time, as they are already familiar with the facility and team. The best PCQI training will prompt participants to think through real-world scenarios, preparing them to identify best practices to achieve food safety. By then putting this theory into practice in their facilities, they will help ensure compliance. Further, it is important that any course they take features consistently updated information, so you can be assured that what they are being trained on is current and accurate. For instance, when the U.S. Congress passed and President Biden signed the FASTER Act into law in April 2021, including sesame as an allergen of concern, this was an important update. As new information becomes available, their training should remain timely and accurate, ensuring that the experience is relevant and responsive to changing regulations. Because production right now is priority and many teams are short-staffed, it can be difficult for some to find the time to travel to participate in an in-person training course. This makes online training appealing, as it can be completed when time becomes available, while also saving on travel costs. With the right training, your PCQI will be an invaluable member of your team. By aligning priorities with regulators and prioritizing food safety throughout their responsibilities, they will improve your facility’s ability to produce safe food. With our PCQI Online training, your PCQI will be an invaluable member of your team. By aligning priorities with regulators and prioritizing food safety throughout their responsibilities, they will improve your facility’s ability to produce safe food.

Read more at BakingBusiness.com by Bret Zaher, Manager, Operations, Americas Do you ever wish for another set of eyes to identify gaps in your systems? How about another brain, solely committed to thinking about those tasks you don’t have time for? Maybe a second set of hands to get it all done? Though it sounds like science fiction, it is entirely possible. I recently had the opportunity to work onsite with a customer that was three months behind on their Master Cleaning Schedule. The current labor shortage echoing across the industry had left them unable to staff key positions, making the schedule difficult to maintain. Though the current staff was working as hard as they could, their processes were inefficient and key items were being missed, which risked compromising food safety and product quality. Fortunately, they knew to call in expertise. For those unfamiliar, an operation’s Master Cleaning Schedule details every aspect of what should be cleaned, when that work should be done and who is responsible for doing so. In this case, cleaning was often delayed because supplies and chemicals had run out, or the necessary equipment was broken and awaiting repair. While these seem like simple fixes, the right expertise had not been onsite to see the issues, think about how to address them and establish best practices to avoid them in the future. Working in partnership with the bakery, we were able to establish best practices like automated re-order points for supplies and cleaning chemicals, ensuring their availability in the future. Additionally, by establishing monthly preventive maintenance, critical machines were more likely to remain operational and available when necessary. I also provided their team with training on the appropriate use of those chemicals and equipment, setting them up for future success. By partnering with the right expertise, a second set of eyes is not so far-fetched.

Read more at FoodManufacturing.com by Vikas Menon, Food Safety Professional If you and other leadership were unable to set foot in your facility for an entire month, are you confident that food safety would remain a priority? What about six months? Is it possible for even longer? That is exactly what some have been faced with the past year or more, as restrictions have limited access. If you and your team have embraced and fostered a food safety culture, you can be confident that your team will continue to prioritize food safety. Developing a food safety culture is not a single solution for every food safety challenge, as each food system has its own complexities. Too, if considered as just another addendum to keep on file for an audit, then it will not make a big difference. Instead, food safety culture planning is a step toward progress to perfection. Enhancing an organization’s food safety culture gives individuals and teams the freedom to uphold food safety best practices. For organizations that have a strong desire to strengthen their food safety beliefs, then food safety culture planning will deliver remarkable returns. Within organizations, visible culture is the way we say we do things. As an example, adhering to a six-step method while washing hands is a behavior often expected from every food handler. A similar policy is likely written into your policy documents and something frontline employees are trained on when they begin in the role. Conversely, invisible culture is the way we actually do things. Do you know whether your employees are washing their hands using this method? And is there a consequence – positive or negative – when an employee does or does not? In situations like these, employees should understand that food safety antecedents like handwashing are based on organizational expectations. The training you provide should ensure that such expected behaviors and consequences are effectively communicated. If poor training is provided, or inapt consequences are used, this could negatively influence their behavior. Those behaviors may become shaped into hardened beliefs about food safety, which often have a root cause in food safety obstacles. These obstacles are driven by core psychological behaviors of the workforce and restrain development of a positive food safety culture. Their formation does not happen suddenly. Often, you can see them through a few initial signs. When conducting an audit, I sometimes witness deviations that indicate such obstacles are forming. For example, water dripping from an overhead drain goes unnoticed and unaddressed by an employee. Maybe debris on the floor is not removed by a cleaning crew. These could be initial signs of obstacle formation and a deteriorating food safety culture. If you are noticing such issues more often, realize they are more than symptomatic. They are an early warning sign and there are likely several obstacles in place, each undermining food safety. With this understanding, there is an opportunity for training on specific food safety-related tasks, providing corrective actions to raise awareness with employees of the consequences of the behavior(s) in question. Should you start seeing such incidents regularly and employees do not seem to care, then the condition has likely developed into a hardened belief. These will be accompanied by a psychological barrier that drives the action within a specific group or across the organization. Site management should identify and correct these beliefs, as they will trigger the formation of a negative food safety culture in the organization. Unfortunately, once it reaches this point without having been addressed, such deterioration is most often noticed only after a critical food safety issue like a recall. The question I’m often asked by food manufacturing leadership is “How do I build a food safety culture in my organization?” My response is never about the culture specifically. Instead, I recommend they “Start by removing the food safety obstacles.” Identification of those obstacles and the destruction of hardened beliefs that align with them is key in establishing a strong food safety culture. Until such steps are taken, any support for broader food safety culture initiatives will be denied. Companies that have developed a deep-rooted food safety culture provide platforms for self-analysis to understand and identify those obstacles at all levels of the organization. Support from leadership is also essential, allowing everyone from management to frontline workers to embrace the opportunity to change and improve their way of doing things with food safety as the focus. Working collectively, they can remove the obstacles that negatively impact their culture.   Establishing a food safety culture does not happen overnight. In fact, it can take years of hard work and commitment from across an organization. By taking an approach that seeks to understand and effectively address these issues at all levels, when changes happen that may challenge food safety, you can be confident that your organization is prepared because of your food safety culture.

Listen to the entire podcast at FoodEngineering.com

Read the entire article at MeatPoultry.com

Read more at BakingBusiness.com by Earl Arnold, Manager, Food Defense/FSMA, Operations, Quality Assurance As we near the holidays, consumers will soon be craving their favorite seasonal baked goods. Your operation may be tasked with helping meet that demand, which may have you running at increased capacity. Per the US Food & Drug Administration’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), if significant changes like those allowing for enhanced production occur in your operation, your food defense plan should be reviewed and updated. As you increase production, you may need to hire temporary or contract labor, or full-time employees may be taking on new responsibilities through the season. Unfortunately, each of them can be considered insider threats and will need to be accounted for in your plan as potential vulnerabilities. Additionally, if employees take on new responsibilities within the food defense plan, they will need to be trained to ensure they are qualified for those identified tasks. Your operation may also have changed procedures to receive additional ingredients or may be working with secondary or emergency suppliers that are not familiar with your processes. New potential vulnerabilities could result, so a physical evaluation and document review of receiving procedures is required for all ingredients, raw materials and packaging. This will help ensure those products remain unadulterated. Finally, because you may have to store additional ingredients or inventory until the product is needed at retail, consider conducting a physical evaluation and document review of your storage practices. You may need to limit access to storage areas to authorized personnel only or adjust your program based on these temporary procedures. These and other measures will help ensure that all hazards/vulnerabilities remain under control, while highlighting whether production changes may prompt concerns. These steps will also ensure that food defense is not compromised during enhanced production runs. That will result in a happy holiday season for you, your production team and your bottom line.

Read the entire article at WorldBakers.com

Read the entire article at Baking & Snack

Read more at PetFoodProcessing.com

As the world slowly opens back up, many of us are now able to leave the frustrating day-to-day dealings with the COVID-19 pandemic in the past. But before you do, it might be a good idea to take some time and review with your team what you did right and what you did wrong, because you may have another one on your hands in the not-too-distant future. According to a new study by AIB International, which provides consulting on many aspects of the global food and beverage supply chain, fully 78% of food and beverage executives say they are actively preparing for a future global pandemic. That fact caught me off guard, as we hadn’t had such a pandemic before COVID-19 for 100 years, since the “Spanish Flu.” But their preparations make sense when you consider that fully 30% of the food industry leaders expect another global pandemic within the next four years. I frankly hadn’t thought the odds were anywhere near that high. CEOs from companies in food processing/manufacturing are more likely to believe another global pandemic will happen within the next four years, according to the study. Prior to COVID-19, I’ll bet like a lot of Americans, I hadn’t really thought globally. I should have been more aware, if only through the many new pests that have plagued American fruit growers in the 20-plus years I have been covering this great industry. Because, outside of the European grapevine moth and the light brown apple moth (from Australia), they have all been from Asia: spotted wing drosophila, Asian citrus psyllid, brown marmorated stinkbug, and, most recently, spotted lanternfly. I guess it’s more evidence that we truly live today in a global economy. An entomologist once told me that the pests are in essence the price we pay for all the low-cost goods we’ve gotten from Asia all these years. I’m not bashing Asia at all; I too enjoy a smartphone and all the other electronic gadgets that are all made more cheaply in Asia. When viewed in that light, that virtually everything that happens in one corner of the globe can affect any other, it only makes sense to prepare now. “This research highlights the dramatic impacts felt by so many companies in the industry due to a lack of preparedness. Despite the understandable ‘crisis fatigue’ from grappling with COVID-19 over the past year, it’s clear that now is time to prepare for the future and elevate critical planning to a best-in-class standard,” said Steve Robert, Global Vice-President, Product Innovation, AIB International. Those costs weren’t insignificant. Just more than ¾ of the companies with annual revenue of $1 billion or more reported an increase in operating costs, compared to 62% of companies overall. Worse, 19% of companies realized an increase in operating costs and a decrease in revenue. Another 43% had it better, seeing an increase in operating costs, but no decline in revenue. But though COVID-19 may have cost them a bundle, many respondents still aren’t ready for another pandemic. More than half — 61% — said their company did not have an adequate plan in place to deal with COVID-19. And while companies now feel more prepared than in the past, 45% still do not feel very prepared for a future pandemic. It sounds like the time to start preparing for the next one is now.  

Listen to the full podcast at SnackandBakery.com

Read more at QualityAssuranceMag.com During the pandemic, many parts of the food industry had to quickly pivot to keep the supply chain stocked with safe food. As things slowly get back to whatever the new normal will be, the food industry is learning which of those pivots, such as remote audits, might stick around. Gwenda Jarrett, certification manager for AIB International, thinks hybrid audits — where documentation, policies, strategies and hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) are checked and interviews are conducted remotely, but an on-site inspection still occurs — could stick around. We caught up with Jarrett to talk about why she thinks that, what food manufacturers need to do to prepare for remote audits and how to make them go a bit smoother. Quality Assurance & Food Safety magazine: Why do you think remote audits will stick around? Gwenda Jarrett: When you actually do a full on-site audit, you spend a lot of the time in the office reviewing documents and records on screens anyway. We have clients for whom we do head office audits as well as site audits. We can now have representatives from the head office in New York and Dallas and California all on the same call. Normally, you'd have to physically go there, and then there’s jetlag and travel costs that can make it expensive. QA: Why is it unlikely 100% remote audits (unless mandated by local laws or policies) stick around?GJ: During and after a 100% remote audit, auditors don’t necessarily feel satisfied and corporate want the independent and fresh eyes on the plant. The sites struggle. The unions kick up a fuss. Operators don’t want to be on camera, it’s noisy, you can’t physically see or smell things in the same way using a camera. As an auditor, it doesn’t feel satisfying. We’ll only use 100% in absolute crises. QA: Certain certifications have different requirements when it comes to hybrid audits vs. 100% remote, such as the amount of time between the virtual and in-person portions of a hybrid audit. Why is it important for auditees to know these differences? GJ: All food safety audits do require a minimum of 50% of the audit time to be spent on site, so there is commonality between the schemes. If sites don’t plan their audit or talk to their certification body they could be out of certification if the requirements are not followed. And then there are implications of not maintaining certification like restarting the certification process with FSSC or being on the uncertified clients directory with BRCGS. Not a place you ever want to be. So you've got to know the rules, understand the rules. Go talk to the certification body. They can explain the rules to you. QA: Both hybrid and 100% remote audits are possible thanks to different information communication technologies (ICT) tools. Based on audits you’ve done, what are some tips for manufacturers when it comes to ICTs? GJ: There are certain questions that the food manufacturer has to ask of the auditor. “If I let you come into my factory with a recording device, which we're not usually allowed to use, what are you going to do?” Have the auditor sign a document that they’ll only livestream, not record. When we do the remote audit, you invite us. Don't use the auditor’s Microsoft Teams, use yours. You don’t know who else will have access to it. Don’t send your HACCP plan or other key documents, unless you are confident that the data is secure. I’d rather you show me the plan. One, it’s big. Two, if you send me that via email, what if somebody hacks it? Security, confidentiality and data protection are absolutely vital. You’ve got to have, if need be, multiple firewalls. QA: Why might that level of protection be important to companies? GJ: They’re your documents. What if it’s a recipe? Your HACCP plan might have your process parameters, time, temperature, flow rates, pasteurization units, whatever. The site needs to be very protective of their data. Just because we're the auditor, there's no reason for them to give us things instead of just showing as they would on an on-site audit. QA: What are some best practices you’ve seen to make these audits go more smoothly? GJ: I audited this little company in Ireland. What they’d done is, they did a pre-audit. They got headsets for all the auditees. They all had an extra smart device. They got an extra headset that they took around and gave it to the operator so I could speak to them. I could talk directly to the operator and not through somebody else. They’d done everything they could, so the auditee felt comfortable. And that's what made it successful because this place was so noisy, and that's why they had this headset. It was almost as good as being there. Don’t be afraid to ask questions such as: “Why do you need to see that?” or “Why do you need to see that document twice?” Keep the auditor to the audit plan. You made arrangements for somebody to come to the office or be online, make sure they stick to it. Just because it’s remote, don’t let the auditor not stick to the plan. Make sure you ask for breaks. I was shadowing an auditor recently in India, I was on Teams, and they just kept going. I said, “Stop. Look at them. The guy just walked in with tea and biscuits and you’re still talking. Give them five minutes." Whether you’re on site or at a screen, the fatigue is still high. This sounds simple, but don’t shut all the documents on the computer. I was doing an audit and they kept shutting the documents. Then they’d have to go back and it took three of four clicks to get back. I’d have to say, don’t shut it because I want to come back to it.” Keep things open if you can. It took so much extra time. QA: What should food manufacturers keep in mind if they're nervous about hybrid remote audits? GJ: It feels stressful, but it’s not. It’s not as bad as they think it’s going to be. Hybrid auditing works. It really does. You can say all you want to, but until somebody goes through it, then they realize it’s not that bad. Just remember, it’s your audit. It’s not the auditor’s audit, it’s your systems. Take your time. Make sure it works for you.

Read more at FoodBusinessNews.net As far as COVID-19 is concerned in line with foodborne illnesses, bakers may be able to rest easy. “As recently as February of this year, USDA and FDA again underscored that current epidemiologic and scientific information shows no transmission of COVID-19 through food or food packaging,” said Rasma Zvaners, vice president, regulatory and technical services, American Bakers Association. But airborne transmission remains viable, making upgrades in HVAC systems and compressed air systems a priority for some sites. Bret Zaher, operations manager, AIB International noted that changing filters to a higher MERV/micron rating helps with purity, and using point-of-use filters protects places where compressed air comes into contact with product or packaging. “Many customers are now requiring their air to be tested on an annual basis for yeast, APC/TPC and/or mold,” he said. “Airflow studies are often conducted to ensure adequate and proper flow of the air is occurring to ensure that proper positive and negative air pressures are achieved, especially in the high-risk areas of the plant.” Gina Reo, president of Quality Assurance Strategies LLC, pointed out other tests that have come into increasing demand over the past three years include those for allergen adulteration, which has been the most prominent item noted by the FDA from 2017-20. “The baking industry sector tends to be the hardest hit with allergen adulteration recalls,” she said. “Generally, causes are found to be from labeling error or mis-labeling, missed ingredient on label or formulation error.” Some of the biggest current recalls are centered on undeclared allergens. Mr. Zaher noted that an allergen program that includes ingredients, packaging supplies, processing aides, sanitation, storage practices, handling procedures and employee welfare are key to success. He advised that sites increase the frequency of their labeling checks for proper product packaging, annual reviews of a site’s ingredients to prevent new allergens in raw materials and ensuring that old labels are discarded and not stored with new labels. He also cautioned that sourcing from alternate suppliers and making emergency purchases can introduce new allergens that were not present in the primary supplier. And the list of allergens that need to be claimed on labels must be updated avidly. “Recently, the Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education and Research (FASTER), introduced the FASTER Act, S. 578, which would add sesame as a major allergen and was unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate,” Ms. Reo said. “The bill will now move to the House of Representatives where it awaits a vote. Bakers will need to prepare for this new allergen, as likely it will pass congress.” Foreign materials are causes for concern, even with the advancement of foreign material control devices over the years. To prevent metal and glass recalls, Mr. Zaher said sites have been updating to metal detectors with the capability of detecting smaller pieces of metal. Color sorters and x-ray devices are being added for additional foreign material control, and shatterproof light and window replacements in older production sites reduce potential glass breakage, he said. Jessica Burke, delivery partner relationship manager, British Retail Consortium Global Standards (BRCGS), warned manufacturing sites that needed to close down parts or all of production during the past year are beginning to resume operation and will face enforced changes in the workplace environment, potential labor shortages, and supply chain disruptions. “Some sites will be busier than ever with additional demand, while others will need to pivot to introduce new product lines,” she said. “These conditions are placing additional pressure on sites and stretching operations, which can impact food safety compliance.” Quality assurance will not be allowed to be put on the backburner despite these conditions. “In times of crisis, culture is more important than ever,” Ms. Burke said. “As operations resume, leadership, communication and empowerment are key.”

Read more at BakingBusiness.com by Peg Ray, Senior Manager of Product Development and Innovation The first step the procurement team must take to handle the threat of ingredient supplier interruption is to contact all current suppliers to determine what business contingency planning they have in place to maintain the supply chain. After that, secondary suppliers of critical ingredients should be identified and put through the standard supplier approval process. This process must be completed, as taking shortcuts would increase the likelihood of a food safety consequence during a supply shortage. The approval effort should include checking databases and other sources to determine if any of these ingredients are subject to food fraud. Food fraud that compromises food safety should be of primary concern. Any targeted ingredients should be subjected to appropriate testing for the known compromising agent. Finally, for ingredients that are imported into the United States, it is required that the Foreign Supplier Verification Program be maintained. Ignoring this law is not an option. Samples of the ingredient from a proposed secondary supplier should be procured for testing in small batches and in actual production. This will help ensure that the quality and food safety attributes of these ingredients meet the standards and performance levels identified in the specifications. Other backup plans could include the sharing of affected ingredients between sister locations to cover the needs for both sites until the compromised supply chain shortages are resolved. Sourcing specialty ingredients may best be resolved by converting production to core products with ingredients that are more easily sourced. Contingency planning and maintaining strict standards for suppliers should ensure that food safety and quality are not compromised during a supply chain interruption.

Read more at QualityAssuranceMag.com Food safety is a team effort, and a company’s quality assurance efforts can only be as good as the people, at all levels, who are working toward those goals every day. Basically, food safety is all about the people. That’s why human resources (HR) plays an integral role in establishing and promoting a food safety culture, from hiring talent that aligns with QA values to designing effective training and incentive programs.We sat down with AIB International’s Stephen Ward, manager, quality assurance, EMEA GMPs, and Raul Arroyo, food safety professional, to understand how HR and food safety and quality assurance can collaborate to develop and sustain a food safety culture. Culture is tough to explain sometimes. “Culture in any facility can be challenging,” said Ward. “It relies not just on measurables and specifics, but also ethos or customs and values, which are felt by people at all levels.” “HR should be part of the food safety team, helping to hire the best talent and ensure that there is a cultural fit with the company.” Raul Arroyo, food safety professional, AIB International Breaking down communication silos so messages flow easily through various departments and job roles helps grow a culture that everyone understands and supports. “When management is involved, this communication improves,” Ward said. Guidance from HR can help QA professionals and management effectively approach employees to address issues related to labor regulations, for example. “Their guidance can direct employee engagement to ensure a positive response and improvement from the employee,” said Arroyo. “HR can also provide information about the languages that are spoken in the facility to ensure that training and education are delivered in a way that is most beneficial.” HR gets your team. “They know the most about people and the most about the culture that exists in the facility,” Ward said. “They know what is going on beneath the surface and are the best source of knowledge about the people and teams.” For this reason, HR’s involvement can elevate food safety training. Their insight can also help direct food safety training to change attitudes, mindsets and ingrained behaviors. “Ultimately, this builds a culture that is committed to food safety,” Ward said. Specifically, HR can build reinforcement programs tied to incentives. “By understanding the motivations of the people and teams,” Arroyo said, “the incentives you offer will be reflective of their interests, whether it’s tickets to a basketball game or a classical music concert.” Hiring? Invite HR into the room. “HR should be part of the food safety team, helping to hire the best talent and ensure that there is a cultural fit with the company,” Arroyo said. Also, HR and QA should huddle and discuss interview questions that support food safety goals — and every candidate needs to answer the same questions. This will help the team identify talent that respects a food safety culture and is prepared to live it. “For instance, you might ask, ‘What do you think about the need to remove your piercing every day before going into production?’ ” Arroyo said. “Their answer will tell you a lot about their cultural fit within an organization that is committed to food safety.”

The coronavirus pandemic came has a huge surprise for many, but it really should not have. Public health experts have been sounding the alarm for years. Now that we have been living and working for more than a year in the pandemic, what have we learned and how do we best move forward? By Judi Lazaro, Global Director, Food Safety, AIB International To better understand the impacts of the resulting COVID-19 disease on the food industry and the outlook on what is next, we surveyed 325 food and beverage executives globally and interviewed an additional 16 about what COVID-19 has cost their companies and how they are preparing for the next pandemic. What we found is startling – 30% of food industry executives think we will see another pandemic in the next four years, while half say they still feel unprepared for the next pandemic. This demonstrates not only the importance of current COVID-19 protocols, but also the need to critically examine their pandemic preparedness plans for the future. Following, we will examine the food and beverage industry’s readiness for COVID-19, how COVID-19 impacted their companies and how they reacted. Finally, we will look at how food and beverage executives are planning for the future. The Food & Beverage Industry Was Not Prepared for COVID-19 The majority of companies (61%) say they were not adequately prepared for the current pandemic. While most had plans in place prior to COVID-19 (63%), a third of them said these plans did not adequately address COVID-19 and its effects. Thirty-eight percent said they did not have pandemic preparedness plans at all prior to the pandemic. You can read the rest of this article in the May-June Issue of European Baker & Biscuit magazine, which you can access by clicking here.

Ex accusantium illum est et a explicabo et sit quas tempore doloribus laudantium dolor ullam sint aperiam rerum rerum quo quia quos illum. Et laboriosam dignissimos placeat qui sunt magni accusamus voluptates tempora aspernatur atque vero voluptas explicabo quod voluptatum commodi impedit ducimus ut eligendi. Sed ab magni sed nostrum dolor ut excepturi ab a repellendus aut ut quis sed fugiat magnam praesentium distinctio molestias nemo in amet doloribus et ut molestiae quam vel quisquam et inventore. Et nihil quaerat qui est similique maiores illo quis laborum eum adipisci magni ea aliquam totam omnis dolorum alias dolorem voluptatem nihil autem.

Read more at RefrigeratedandFrozenFood.com Demographic changes and consumer behavior are driving increased demand for refrigerated and frozen foods. Even the pandemic has had an influence on their consumption. As many restaurants have closed or reduced their seating, more shoppers are reaching for frozen pizza, ice cream and other foods they can enjoy at home. This makes it increasingly important to ensure not only the safety of the food being produced, but also its packaging. Almost every refrigerated or frozen food product must be stored, transported, and sold with suitable packaging. For manufacturers and retailers, that packaging must enable damage-free transport, ensure stability, be easy to stack, and be lightweight to keep transportation costs low. For consumers, packaging must be easy to handle and practical, be environmentally friendly, protect the food from damage, and must not release harmful substances into the food. The right packaging also makes these products easier to promote, merchandise, and for consumers to select. These diverse demands require a variety of different packaging materials. Typical materials can include plastic, glass, paper, and cardboard, as well as natural materials like cork, jute or cotton, and aluminum or tinplate. Many solutions even call for varied combinations of these and other materials. Walking the grocery aisles, consumers can choose from a wide range of packaging material that includes menu trays, PE bags, steamer bags for vegetables, traditional waxed cardboard packages, and cans for beverages. But too often, the importance of packaging in regard to its food safety benefits can be an afterthought. Food packaging material must be appropriate to the extraordinarily high sensitivity of prepared foods, as these foods can be exposed to numerous opportunities for spoilage from the time they are packaged until they are prepared by a consumer. Packaging material keeps harmful environmental influences such as light, oxygen and moisture away from the product, while reducing potential contamination and damage. This reduces the spoilage caused by microorganisms, as well as flavor changes and vitamin loss. Packaging also limits foreign odors and helps maintain freshness for an extended period. In addition, packaging communicates important information to the consumer, including allergen statements, ingredients and nutritional facts, and the best by date. In this way, packaging helps ensure the quality and safety of food products. For refrigerated and frozen foods, temperature requirements and humidity can prompt additional challenges. In many cases, the packaging material must withstand not only cold temperatures, but also the microwave oven that allows for fast and convenient preparation. This presents yet another food safety consideration, as heating food in the package can lead to migration from the packaging material into the food. To ensure food safety in these conditions, the demands on packaging are even higher. Because food packaging materials are also food contact materials, they must be inert, which means that no substances that would impair food safety may be transferred from them to the food. Accordingly, these materials must be manufactured in accordance with what are known as "good manufacturing practices," or GMPs. As a result, their production must be carried out within the framework of documented quality assurance systems and according to defined specifications, which are commonly referred to as certification standards. Depending on a variety of factors, including the country of destination of the food being packed, and often the demands of the retailer, these standards can be very diverse. Choosing the right standard and audit scheme for the operation can help ensure that food safety and quality programs meet internationally recognized requirements, which in turn increases the chances of doing business within the food industry. When assessing the different standards to help prove that the implemented quality management system is sound and strong, it makes sense to choose one of the GFSI benchmarked schemes. It is important to emphasize that only those programs with an on-site component are currently benchmarked. The four programs in place are IFS PacSecure, BRCGS, SQF, and FSSC 22000. Both IFS and BRCGS under the accreditation of ISO 17065 have a strong focus on quality, food safety, and legality. The SQF code also under ISO 17065 has three certification levels. Level 1 is entry level and for low-risk products only. Level 2 is GFSI benchmarked, focused on food safety and is the most often used SQF Level, while Level 3 also incorporates quality. FSSC 22000 targets primarily food safety and legal compliance. Out of the four, FSSC 22000 is the only standard under the management systems’ accreditation without a graded result. IFS PacSecure and BRCGS do have a straight-forward one step certification process in place, while SQF and FSSC 22000 each require a two-stage audit process. The importance of packaging for refrigerated and frozen foods cannot be overlooked. The standard that best suits the needs of the packaging manufacturer largely depends on the customer they are supplying to and the challenge the company is willing to take on. By selecting the right audit scheme for the operation, manufacturers can help ensure the safety and quality of the product and its packaging through its demanding journey.

Read more at BakingBusiness.com Training employees in any food manufacturing operation is challenging. There is not only a moral responsibility to produce safe food but also a legal responsibility in complying with the current GMPs. Specific sections of the Food Safety Modernization Act going into effect as recently as 2020, coupled with challenges associated with the pandemic have also created difficulties in staffing enough trained personnel to work all scheduled shifts. If employees are not following proper food safety protocols and regulations, even a small bakery could have an impact on thousands of consumers. Effective training of both full-time and temporary staff is necessary and can be accomplished in several different ways to help avoid food safety issues. Some facilities start each shift with a brief training session, focusing on key best practices or opportunities for improvement. Training that addresses not only “how” to do something but also “why” can be particularly effective. There are also several cost-effective online courses that guide entry-level, temporary and even seasoned full-time employees through essential food safety practices. Reminders should then be reinforced throughout shifts by line leaders and can also be posted in key locations such as breakrooms and restrooms. While they are being trained, temporary employees should be utilized in areas that may not have as much of an impact on food safety. They can also be supervised and closely monitored by full-time employees who provide guidance in situations that may pose a food safety risk. The Food & Drug Administration does not separate findings or violations depending on whether employees are full-time or temporary. Thus, it is the responsibility of the company to ensure all employees working with food products are trained so thatthose foods are prepared, packaged and handled in a manner that does not put consumers at risk.

Read more at FoodProcessing.com Half of food company executives say they feel unprepared for the next pandemic – which 30% say will happen within the next four years, according to a survey from AIB International. The poll of 325 North American food industry executives showed that 61% of respondents say they were not adequately prepared for COVID-19, even though 63% said they had a pandemic plan in place. Of those, one-third said their plans proved inadequate. As for effects of the pandemic, 62% of companies experienced increases in operating costs, which averaged 11%. One in three companies experienced a decrease in revenue, averaging 27%. The biggest reason for the increased operating costs was having to spend on personal protective equipment and changes to the work environment, cited by about three-quarters of respondents. Other major expenses were sanitation, employee training and supply chain sourcing. Employee absenteeism was the top problem of the pandemic, cited by half of respondents. A little less than half cited canceled or reduced orders. Perhaps most surprising is that 30% of executives said they expect another pandemic in the next four years, and 50%, in the next 10. “For companies that had preparedness plans in place before COVID-19 struck, almost all said they had revised their plans due to this pandemic,” the report says.