FSM2312pg1-2,67-68_FSM230pg1-2,93-94 2/6/12 4:44 PM Page 1

Connecting Food Safety Professionals with Food Safety Solutions

It’s Your Job to Protect Your Brand’s Safety and Quality

It’s Our Job to Make Sure You Have the Right ToolsExplore products in categories like:Analytical Instruments & SystemsChromatography, Mass Spec, Protein Analyzers, Sample Prep, Spectroscopy

Audits/Certification/TrainingConsultantsDetection Systems Antibody, Molecular

Environmental MonitoringSample Collection, Surface Tests, Systems

FacilitiesAir Filtration, Flooring

Inspection SystemsMetal Detection, X-ray Machines

Laboratory ServicesAdulteration & Quality Control, Allergen, Analytical Chemistry, FDA Import, Microbiological, Natural Toxins,Nutritional Analysis, Residue/Contamination, Shelf-life

Pest ControlServices, Software

Sanitation and HygieneHand, Boot & Body Washing Systems, Sanitation Systems, Sanitizers, Cleansers & Dispensing Systems

SoftwareFood Safety Management, Pest Control

Test KitsPathogen, Quality Indicators

Testing InstrumentsData Loggers, Humidity, pH, Temperature

Food Safety Connect is the online marketplace for food safetysolutions that brings it all together—reliable, useful information

presented in an easy-to-use interactive format.

Powered by Food Safety Magazine

FSM2312pg1-2,67-68_FSM230pg1-2,93-94 2/6/12 4:44 PM Page 2

To find your local sales office, visit www.bio-rad.com/contact. In the U.S., call toll free at 1-800-4BIORAD (1-800-424-6723). Visit us at www.bio-rad.com

SAFETY.SPEED.SUPPORT.

Bio-Rad Serves Up the Best Combo.Combine years of experience and the latest PCR technology for fast, accurate, and reliable results. How delicious is that?

At Bio-Rad we have a proud 60 year history of serving the life science and diagnostic markets. Take advantage of our expertise in PCR and our five star service to get the answers you need from any type of sample.

Perform rapid screening of samples with enrichment times of 24 hours or less for all tests

Detect even low levels of contaminants quickly and accurately with highly sensitive tests utilizing our patented technology

Use iQ-Check kits to identify Big 6 STEC, Campylobacter spp, Cronobacter, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria spp, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella spp in food or environmental samples

To learn more about real-time PCR and iQ-Check kits, visit us atwww.foodscience.bio-rad.com and request an in-lab demo.

Bio-Rad delivers a comprehensive suite of tools for food safety testing, including the latest PCR technology.

FOOD SCIENCE // IQ-CHECK™ RE AL-T IME PATHOGEN DETECTION

FSM2312pg3-11,62-63_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:19 PM Page 3

4 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Editorial Advisory BoardDaniel W. Bena

PepsiCo Beverages InternationalReginald W. Bennett

CFSAN, U.S. FDARobert E. Brackett, Ph.D.

National Center for Food Safety and Technology

John N. Butts, Ph.D.Land O’Frost

Brian CampbellKroger Manufacturing

Larry CohenKraft Foods

Michael M. CramerWindsor Foods

Beth Ann Crozier-Dodson, Ph.D.Crozier-Dodson Food Safety Consulting, LLC

Jonathan W. DeVries, Ph.D.General Mills/Medallion Labs

William FisherInstitute of Food Technologists

Russell Flowers, Ph.D.Silliker, Inc.

Veny GapudFieldale Farms

Kathy GombasCFSAN, U.S. FDA

Jim Gorny, Ph.D.CFSAN, U.S. FDA

Donald J. GrahamGraham Sanitary Design Consulting

Paul A. Hall, Ph.D.AIV Microbiology and Food Safety Consultants, LLC

Margaret Hardin, Ph.D.IEH Laboratories & Consulting Group

Larry KeenerInternational Product Safety Consultants

Huub L.M. LelieveldGlobal Harmonization Initiative

Ann Marie McNamara, Ph.D.Jack in the Box, Inc.

Martin MitchellCertified Laboratories/Refrigerated Foods Association

Doug PearisoContemporary Process Solutions LLC

Robert Powitz, Ph.D., MPH, RSR.W. Powitz & Associates

Scott M. Russell, Ph.D.University of Georgia

Thomas M. SauerWell’s Dairy

Richard F. StierConsulting Food Scientist

Darryl SullivanCovance Laboratories

John G. Surak, Ph.D.Surak and Associates

Alexandra Veiga, Ph.D.ITQB-UNL and EFFoST

Don L. Zink, Ph.D.CFSAN, U.S. FDA

Febraury/March 2012Vol. 18, No. 1

FEATURES36 COVER STORY

Antibiotic Resistance: An Emerging Food Safety ConcernBy Susan Vaughn Grooters, M.P.H.

46 SPOTLIGHT: MEAT AND POULTRYBest Food Quality and Safety Practices for PoultryBy Veny Gapud, M.S.

50 CATEGORY: INGREDIENTSCommunicating Food Ingredient Safety in a Fear-Driven EnvironmentBy Lindsey Loving

54 MICROBIOLOGYIdentifying and Controlling Microbiological Cross-ContaminationBy John Holah, Ph.D., Edyta Margas, Robert Hagberg, Benjamin Warren, Ph.D., Judy Fraser-Heaps and Sara Mortimore

COLUMNS12 Testing

Rethinking Listeria: Things ChangeBy Jim Byron

16 Regulatory ReportIngredient Adulteration Undermines Food SafetyBy Markus Lipp, Ph.D.

20 International Food SafetySupporting SustainabilityMeans an End to WasteBy David Napper

22 PackagingPackaging for Enhanced Food SecurityBy Kenneth S. Marsh, Ph.D., CPP

DEPARTMENTS6 Editor’s Letter

8 News Bites

10 People & Places

62 Product Showcase

67 Advertisers Index

FSM2312pg3-11,62-63_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:19 PM Page 4

Select the Enterprise Food Safety ManagementSo�ware Solu on...

Food Safety Management

Supplier Rating

Food Quality Software

ISO Compliance

Food Safety

Supply ChainHazard Analysis Critical Control Points

HACCP

HACCP Software

Safe Quality Food

Safe Quality Food

International Food StandardISO 22000

InternationalFood Standard

ISO 22000

Food Quality

HACCP Compliance

Food & Beverage

IFS ISORFR

HACCP Software

Food Safety

Food Management

Food Quality

ISO 22000Supplier Rating Food Safety Management

FSMS

International Food Standard

Critical Control Points

FDA Compliance

FDA Compliance

Food & Beverage

Global Food Safety Initiative

GFSI

HACCP Plan

Food Safety Management SoftwareSafe Quality Food

Supplier Rating

Food Quality

Food Management

FSMS Software

Hazard AnalysisISO 22000

HACCP ISOFSMS

Food & Beverage

BRCGFSI British Retail Consortium

Supply Chain Supplier ManagementHACCP Compliance

RFR

FDA FoodSafety

HACCP

SQFRFR

FSMSBRC

IFS

Food Safety

ISO Compliance

SQF

SQF

Supply Chain SoftwareBRC GFSI

SupplierRating

FoodManagement

IFS

ISO

FSMS GFSIBRC

FDAISO

FDA

ISO 22000SQF FDA

BRC

FSMS Software

IFS

Food & BeverageHazard Analysis Critical Control Points

GFSI

ISO

Food Management

HACCP

RFR

SQF

ISO 22000

ReportableFood Registry

Food SafetyRFR

Best Prac�ces: Integrated modules for Food Quality and Safety Management:Document Control • CAPA • HACCP • Employee Training • AuditsNonconformance • Repor ng • Project Control • Change ManagementSupplier Management • Risk Assessment ...and more!

Preven�ve Controls: Provides monitoring and tracking for hazard preven on, sanita on and hygiene documenta on and training, environmental monitoring and food allergen control

Risk Management: Iden fies, mi gates, and prevents high-risk events in the Food Safety System

Flexible: Leading edge flexible workflow adapts to all business processes, without programming

Integra�on: Integrates with 3rd party business systems

HACCP Module: Manages and tracks Prerequisite Programs, Hazard Analyses, and Cri cal Control Points

Compliance Management: Maintains compliance to regulatory ini a ves: FSMA, HACCP, SQF, BRC, IFS, and ISO 22000

...with the most VALUE

www.etq.com/foodsafety800-354-4476 • info@etq.com

FSM2312pg3-11,62-63_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:19 PM Page 5

Antibiotic Resistance at the Forefront of Food Safety

While a long time coming, the U.S. Food and Drug Admin-istration (FDA) has recently announced the prohibitionof the extralabel use of some cephalosporins in food-pro-

ducing animals, concerned that such continued use may lead to theemergence and dissemination of cephalosporin-resistant strains of

foodborne bacterial pathogens. If these drug-resis-tant bacterial strains infect humans, it is likely thatcephalosporins will no longer be effective for treat-ing foodborne illness in those people. FDA is par-ticularly concerned about the extralabel use ofcephalosporin drugs that are not approved for usein food-producing major species because very little

is known about their microbiological or toxicological effects whenused in this manner. FDA has determined that such extralabel uselikely will cause an adverse event, presenting a risk to public health.Antibiotics are given to food animals for many reasons: for in-

fectious disease treatment and control or for disease prevention be-fore a herd- or flock-wide outbreak occurs. In the past, usingantimicrobials for growth promotion was widely advocated to en-hance the feed-to-weight ratio for poultry, pigs and beef cattle, pro-viding a huge economic incentive.Our cover story by Susan Vaughn Grooters, M.P.H., entitled

“Antibiotic Resistance: An Emerging Food Safety Concern,” fo-cuses on the food safety implications of the misuse and overuse ofantibiotics in food animal production. She states, “The emergenceof antibiotic-resistant foodborne pathogens is inherently linked tohow antibiotics have been used in food animal production. Everytime an antibiotic is used, its efficacy diminishes. Once bacteria de-velop resistance to a given antibiotic, they often lack susceptibilityto other antibiotics that share a similar mode of action or coexiston the same bacterial plasmid. Creating policies, both in humanmedicine and animal husbandry, which will minimize the overuseand misuse of antibiotics is essential.”One only need to have a friend or family member preparing for

major surgery to be reminded of the tremendous risks associatedwith MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) in hospitalsettings. And how many parents are able to say no to a prescriptionfor an antibiotic for a child with an ear infection? No matter wherewe look, antibiotic resistance touches our lives. However, in thearena of foodborne illness, it is critical that the issues be examinedvery carefully and that the correct policies be mandated.While the matter is still debated, we can all agree that antibiotic

resistance is a complicated issue that needs urgent attention andcontinuing dialogue as the policies of food production begin toshift to protect these essential drugs from losing their effectiveness.

Best Regards,

Barbara VanRenterghem, Ph.D.Editorial Director

6 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

FOOD SAFETY MAGAZINE (ISSN 1084-5984) is published bimonthly byThe Target Group Inc., 1945 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201;(818) 842-4777; Fax (818) 769-2939; E-mail info@foodsafety-magazine.com. Periodicals Postage Rate paid at Glendale, CA, and ad-ditional mailing offices. Subscriptions: Free to qualified subscribers asdefined on the subscription card; $85.00 per year for nonqualifiedsubscribers. Back Issues: $10.00 per copy, prepaid. Change of Ad-dress: Notices should be sent promptly; provide old mailing label aswell as new address. Allow two months for change. Editorial Contri-butions: Unsolicited manuscripts should be submitted to: Food SafetyMagazine, 1945 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201. Notice—Everyprecaution is taken to ensure accuracy of content; however, the pub-lishers cannot accept responsibility for the correctness of the informa-tion supplied or advertised or for any opinion expressed herein.POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Food Safety Magazine, 1945W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201. ©2012 by The Target Group Inc.All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without written per-mission is strictly prohibited. The publishers do not warrant, either ex-pressly or by implication, the factual accuracy of the articles ordescriptions herein, nor do they so warrant any views or opinions of-fered by the authors of said articles and descriptions.

CEO, The Target Group Inc. Don Meeker

Publisher Stacy Atchison

Lucky Charm Bobby Meeker

Editorial Director Barbara VanRenterghem, Ph.D.

Art Director/Production Craig Van Wechel

Circulation Manager Andrea Karges

Administrative Manager Allison Demmert-Poland

Publishing Office 1945 W. Mountain St.Glendale, CA 91201

Main (818) 842-4777 Fax (818) 955-9504

customerservice@foodsafetymagazine.com

Editorial Office 1945 W. Mountain St.Glendale, CA 91201

Phone (508) 210-3149Fax (508) 210-3139

barbara@foodsafetymagazine.com

Production Office 1113 Ellis StreetFt. Collins, CO 80524

Phone (970) 484-4488craig@foodsafetymagazine.com

Advertising SalesBobby Meeker (818) 842-2829

bobby@foodsafetymagazine.com

Adam Haas (407) 601-5440adam@foodsafetymagazine.com

Editor’s Letter

FSM2312pg3-11,62-63_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:19 PM Page 6

© 2011 Roka Bioscience, Inc.* Roka Automated Instrument manufactured by Gen-Probe Incorporated

Freedom is here.Catch the new wave in automated pathogen testing.

Introducing the Roka Automated Instrument *

Unparalleled automation, ease of use, and efficiency for food safety testing

K True walk-away automation

K Rapid, accurate results

K Simplified 3-step, sample-to-results process

K Flexible continuous-access sample loading

K Complete sample-to-result traceability

K Proven molecular testing technology

It’s the technology you’ve been waiting for. It’s the freedom you deserve.

We’re Roka. And we’ll help you get there.

1.855.ROKABIO | www.rokabio.com

!"#$% '()*+#,,---. /0110..---23.1-4)

FSM2312pg3-11,62-63_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:19 PM Page 7

Report Details EU Food Safety Testing Market Larger than U.S. Market

Europe is a substantial market for food microbiology testing. The population of the27 countries of the European Union (EU) is 500 million,

nearly 60 percent greater than the U.S. population. Al-together, the countries of the EU performed an es-timated 275 million food micro tests in 2011,according to Food Micro, Sixth Edition: FoodMicrobiology Testing in Europe (FoodMicro—6), a new market report from Strate-gic Consulting Inc. In comparison, therewere 213 million tests conducted in theU.S. in 2010. The report analyzes the dis-tinct and important EU food microbiologytesting market in relation to that in the U.S.In addition to size, the European food

safety testing market differs from the U.S.market in areas such as methods used, or-

ganisms tested and current and pending regu-lations. For more information about the report,

visit www.strategic-consult.com.

Concerned by the growing body of scientific reports caution-ing against the unregulated use of nanotechnology in consumerproducts, a coalition of nonprofit consumer safety and environ-

mental groups is suing the U.S. Foodand Drug Administration (FDA)—thefirst lawsuit over the health and envi-ronmental risks of nanotechnologyand nanomaterials.The lawsuit demands FDA respond

to a petition that the public interestorganizations—Friends of the Earth,Food and Water Watch, the Center forEnvironmental Health, the ETCGroup and the Institute for Agricul-tural and Trade Policy—first filed withthe agency in 2006.The 80-page petition documents

the scientific evidence of nanomaterialrisks stemming from their unpre-

dictable toxicity and seemingly unlimited mobility, requestingFDA to take several regulatory actions, including requiringnano-specific product labeling and health and safety testing,and undertaking an analysis of the environmental and healthimpacts of nanomaterials in products approved by the agency.Since 2006, numerous studies and reports, including publica-

tions by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office ofthe Inspector General and the U.S. Government AccountabilityOffice, acknowledge significant data gaps concerning nanoma-terials’ potential effects on human health and the environment.

FDA Sued Over Nanotechnology OMB Says Food Safety Merger Next

NEWS FLASH: Highlights of the FSM eDigestAn article in our January eDigest (available at the eDigest archives at www.foodsafetymagazine.com/exclusives.asp)focused on global imports and exports, and howthe Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 affectssuch international trade. In “Quality and FoodSafety in the International Arena of Food Production,” Herbert Weinstein, Ph. D., discusses the best ways for foreign food producers to successfully produce and deliver products that meet these new specifications.

A single federal foodsafety agency will happen ifCongress grants the Obamaadministration authority to re-organize the government.

In itsJanuary 13,2012, edition, The HagstromReport said Office of Manage-ment and Budget (OMB) Di-rector for Management JeffZients said that if Congressgrants President BarackObama the power to consoli-date federal agencies, the firstproposal will be to merge thesix business-oriented agen-cies, folding together the

Commerce Department’score business and trade func-tions, the Small Business Ad-ministration, the Office of theU.S. Trade Representative, theExport-Import Bank, the Over-seas Private Investment Cor-poration and the U.S. Tradeand Development Agency.

Zients added that a follow-up proposal would be to con-solidate U.S. Department ofAgriculture’s Food Safety andInspection Service with thefood safety unit at the U.S.Food and Drug Administra-tion.

The Government Account-ability Office has called forconsolidation of all foodsafety functions into a singleagency, an end to fragmentedoversight supported by most,but not all, outside foodsafety advocates, which gen-erally see such “consolidationpowers” for Obama as a rareopportunity to achieve along-elusive goal.

8 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Recent Articles Available Online at www.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature.aspMicrobial contamination is a con-

stant threat to the food products soldaround the world. In the Celsis RapidDetection article “Reduce the Impact ofContamination Events with Rapid Mi-crobial Methods,” approaches for man-aging risk and enhancing food safety arediscussed in the context of rapid micro-biological methods. New tools and tech-nology for preventing microbialcontamination of food are highlightedin the DeltaTRAK article “Focusing theSpotlight on Prevention.” Finally, Vedeqsa showcases their article “LauricArginate—A New, Active PreservativeDerived from Natural Materials.” Lauricarginate functions as an antimicrobialcompound.

News Bites

FSM2312pg3-11,62-63_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:19 PM Page 8

There is more to safety than meets the eye.BioMonitoring by EMD Millipore.

BioMonitoring is about more than just innovative microbiologytesting solutions. It is a comprehensive approach providing regulatory expertise, services, and trust. Our solutions help identifyunwanted contaminants in food quickly and reliably to providethat one invaluable result: Safe Products.

Our broader portfolio including Biotest Microbiology (heipha/Hycon) products: Microbiological membrane fi ltration

Traditional and rapidmicrobial detection & identifi cation

Ready-to-use and dehydrated culture media

Viable and non-viable air monitoring

Surface monitoring

www.emdmillipore.com/biomonitoring

EMD Millipore is a division of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

NOW: Including

Biotest Microbiology

Portfolio (heipha/Hycon)

FSM2312pg3-11,62-63_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:19 PM Page 9

Sean Connolly has joined SaraLee Corporation as the chiefexecutive officer of the com-pany’s North American retailand foodservice business.

Sodexo Inc. hasannounced the ap-pointment ofOlivier Poirot assenior vice presi-dent and chief financial officer.

The Grocery ManufacturersAssociation (GMA) has an-nounced that Glenn Black hasbeen selected to chair thenewly formed food safety pre-ventive controls alliance steer-ing and executive committee.GMA also announced the ap-pointment of Jennifer Kaledaas vice president for industryaffairs, operational effective-ness.

Food Safety NetServices has namedPatricia Wester,vice president, regu-latory affairs.

United FreshProduce Association has wel-comed Shelby Rajkovich as

their new communicationsmanager.

The American Meat Institutehas announced the appoint-ment of food industry veteranEric Mittenthal as vice presi-dent of public affairs.

Thierry Fabozzihas been namedmanaging directorof Plastic Technolo-gies Inc. Europe,Yverdon, Switzer-land.

Bettcher Indus-tries Inc. has an-nounced that PaulPirozzola hasjoined the companyas vice president of

marketing.PRO*ACT, a dis-

tributor of fresh pro-duce to thefoodservice industry,has announced theaddition of KellyJacob to the managementteam in the newly created posi-tion of vice president of retailsales.

International Light Tech-

nologies has named PhilGoodwin to the position oflight-emitting diode (LED) light-ing sales manager for their ex-panding LED product line.

Certified Laboratories Inc.and the Certified Food SafetyCenter are pleased to an-nounce the addition of GaryGray to its roster of seasonedprofessionals.

Vollrath has an-nounced the ap-pointment of NancyWagner to vicepresident of supplychain.

Key Technologyhas announced thepromotion of BretLarreau to the newposition of managerof business devel-

opment, Louis Vintro as seniorvice president ofbusiness develop-ment and globaloperations and

RichardHebelas optical productmarketing manager.

James Moe andBrendan “Denny”

Terrazas have been namedblending supervisors at Wixon,a manufacturer of seasonings,flavors, ingredients and con-sumer products for the foodand beverage industry.

Staco has re-cently added long-time industryveteran Jim Beiers-dorff as the Easternregional manager.

Dur-A-Flex has namedDavid Hughes vicepresident of mar-keting, research &development.

Neogen Corpora-tion has hired Gerry

Broski as senior di-rector of food safetymarketing.

Wendy Warren,Ph.D. and TonyVagnino have

joined AEGIS FOOD TESTINGLABS to help cus-tomers understand

andcopewithchangingfood safety regula-tions.

10 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

People & Places

Fabozzi

Jacob

Pirozzola

Wester

Poirot

Wagner

Vintro

Hebel

Beiersdorff

Hughes

Broski

Warren

Vagnino

Larreau

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has announced in a pres-entation to the American Farm Bureau Federation that the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Food Safety and Inspec-tion Service will close five dis-trict offices as part of USDA’s“Blueprint for Stronger Service.”The offices to be closed areheadquartered in Lawrence, KS;Beltsville, MD; Minneapolis,MN; Albany, NY and Madison,WI. The transition is expected to be complete at the end ofFY13.Based on a department-wide review of operations conducted

as part of the Obama administration’s Campaign to Cut Waste,the new blueprint means significant cuts to all major agencies.Altogether, USDA will close 259 domestic offices, facilities andlabs across the country, as well as seven foreign offices. Thesechanges will provide efficiencies valued at about $150 millionannually. A complete list of cuts, as well as detailed fact sheets,has been made available online at http://goo.gl/dgWiX.

USDA Blueprint for Stronger Services PURE Bioscience Receives GRAS Determination for Proprietary Formula

PURE Bioscience announced that their proprietary antimicro-bial formula, silver dihydrogen citrate (SDC), has received FDAGenerally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) determination for use onfood processing equipment, machinery and utensils.

The GRAS designation is usually awarded to chemicals or sub-stances added to food; in this case, SDC is being applied as ahard-surface disinfectant formula. This is a very positive step to-ward bringing a nontoxic formula (no rinsing required) to the foodprocessing industry, which has been widely criticized for not beingable to control E. coli, Norovirus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-cus aureus and other pathogens, all of which PURE’s patentedSDC kills with a 24-hour residual.

Covance Receives ISO AccreditationCovance Inc. announced that the International Organiza-

tion for Standardization (ISO) awarded full 17025 accreditationto its new microbiology laboratory in Madison, WI. Covanceacquired the laboratory from TRAC Microbiology in Septem-ber 2011.

News Bites

FSM2312pg3-11,62-63_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:19 PM Page 10

Request your FREE copytoday of our 265-pagebuyer’s guide!Call 800-328-8378 or visit weberscientific.com

Legendary for great prices since 1959

800-328-8378 • weberscientific.com

DB™ Prefilled Dilution Bottles

Never Hassle with Shrink Bands Again!

LABO

RATORY SUPPLI

ER

AW

ARD WINNING

Huge freight savings andfaster delivery nationwide.

Much easier to open and use

Easy pull strip

Easier to store Greener packaging60% smaller footprint and 3times less corrugated wastethan the competition12 1 ⁄4”

12 1 ⁄4”

FSM2312pg3-11,62-63_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:19 PM Page 11

12 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

“When you can measure whatyou are speaking about, andexpress it in numbers, youknow something about it; butwhen you cannot express it in

numbers, your knowledge is of a meager or unsatisfac-tory kind.”

—William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907)

These words are as true today as they were over a cen-tury and a half ago. As scientists, it is our nature to in-vestigate, measure and improve. Numbers and data arethe basis of our informed decision making. Our need forreliable data causes us to examine in detail the workingsof our surroundings and learn as we improve. When itcomes to Listeria, recent events involving the Listeriaoutbreak associated with cantaloupe highlight the im-portance of our work to investigate, measure and im-prove. An examination of Listeria testing is appropriate,and with new assays coming into the market, now maybe the time to completely rethink your past practicesand current programs.

Recent events remind us that we should ask ourselvesthree questions: 1. Is the data that I have sufficient and is it accurate? 2. Do current data represent the reality of my entirefood production process and facility? 3. What has changed in my business and how do Iquantify the impact of changes?

Things change. Our desire for efficiency and im-provement drives change. In the world of food produc-tion, changes over decades of “improvement” have

resulted in modern food production sys-tems that are very unlike systems of thepast. Think about it: How does the scaleand efficiency of your facility todaycompare with 10, 20 or 30 years ago?Small changes can have a significant im-pact, too. And with these changes, it isimportant to discuss and investigate thepossible unintended effects of change. Itis possible that “improvements” to in-crease production efficiency may also in-crease the potential for deadlypathogens such as Listeria to invade andfind harborage in your facility.

This article will review Listeria test-ing—new developments that will be in-troduced to the market in the year aheadand also the fundamentals of selecting aListeria test for your business. Listeriacan be a difficult pathogen to find. Suc-cessful food manufacturers make findingListeria a priority to be able to eliminateit from their facilities. Having the rightListeria test is an important part of theoverall process of improvement.

Understanding ListeriaListeria monocytogenes is one of six Lis-

teria species. Listeria is able to survive forprolonged periods in extreme environ-ments where, once established, it is diffi-cult to eradicate. Listeria is aslow-growing organism, so Listeria teststypically are characterized as taking along time to provide a result. The effortsof test kit manufacturers have recentlyresulted in many tests that provide re-sults within 24 hours or less. Additionalactivities by test kit manufacturers willcontinue to bring innovation and im-provements to the kits available in themarketplace.

A comprehensive Listeria testing pro-gram should include both product test-ing and environmental testing. As foodsafety professionals, we utilize two typesof tests for Listeria:

Listeria spp. testing for environmen-tal samples. Because your goal in testingis finding harborages that are potential

Rethinking Listeria: Things Change

Testing for Listeriain the year ahead.

By Jim ByronTESTING

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 12

Pure and simple.Pathogen testing.

© 2

012

3M.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Introducing the 3M™ Molecular Detection System. Fast. Accurate. Easy to use. Affordable. Compact.

www.3M.com/3MMolecularDetectionSystem/FSA

Molecular Detection System. Fast. Accurate. Easy to use. Affordable. Compact.

www.3M.com/3MMolecularDetectionSystem/FSA

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 13

14 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

sites for Listeria growth, the test methodyou choose should be broad based andcapable of detecting all six strains of Lis-teria. A method that detects all six Liste-ria strains will provide the mostcomplete information about yourprocesses and facilities.

L. monocytogenes testing for productsamples and direct product contact sur-faces. Because of ourinterest in protectinghealth, we test productfor L. monocytogenes.This is your final op-portunity for assurancethat systems are work-ing properly and theproduct manufacturedis indeed safe to eat.This part of your over-all testing program en-sures that product iswithheld from com-merce until test resultsfor product or productcontact surfaces have been received andresults are negative

New Listeria Test MethodsAs food scientists, we can expect 2012

to bring new, significant developmentsin sophistication of Listeria testing andmicrobiological testing generally. Somenotable and interesting new technologiesare being developed for both Listeriaspp. and L. monocytogenes testing.

One innovative technology is basedupon highly accurate multiplex poly-merase chain reaction (PCR) for simulta-neous analysis of 10 to 30 targets,building upon conventional PCR capa-bility and combining DNA tagging withliquid chromatography-mass spectrome-try. “Mass tags” are coupled to PCRprimers that, following amplification,provide two unique identifiers per ge-netic target and appear in the mass spec-trometric analysis only if the target issuccessfully and specifically amplified.Results can be displayed and shared elec-tronically utilizing easy-to-use applica-tion software with no need forconventional PCR gel analysis.

In a departure from the amplificationand detection of DNA, another technol-ogy involves an rRNA method com-bined with several sample preparationinnovations that offers unique advan-tages. Exploiting the relative abundanceof RNA over DNA in bacterial cells(100–1,000 times more), the methoduses enzymes and isothermal transcrip-

tion-mediated amplifi-cation to produce anRNA amplicon underrapid kinetics, resultingin up to a billionfoldamplification in 15–60minutes. Target captureinvolving oligonu-cleotides enhances themethod’s ability toovercome potential in-terferences and in-hibitory effectsassociated with the ma-trix or sample.

Another advance in-volves new tests for Listeria spp. and L.monocytogenes that combine proven mo-lecular science with innovation in biolu-minescence. The result of this innovativethinking is a user-friendly method thatincorporates isothermal amplification ofDNA coupled with simultaneous analy-sis of bioluminescence to produce ahighly accurate and flexible test plat-form.

Choosing a Listeria Test In determining which is your best test

kit option, consider several factors inmaking your decision.

Types of TestsPathogen testing methods may be cat-

egorized into two major types, culturalmethods and rapid methods. While cul-tural methods are accurate and the costof materials is relatively low, they can belabor intensive and may require special-ized skills and training to perform. Rapidmethods offer good value, even thoughthey may carry a higher materials cost,because they are accurate, faster thancultural methods and usually require lessspecialized training.

Rapid MethodsRapid methods in the market today

that are AOAC certified can be groupedgenerally into one of two broad cate-gories: either protein-based detection orDNA-based detection. Protein methodsutilize immunoassay antibody technol-ogy for detection. Following incubation,an aliquot of enrichment media is trans-ferred to the assay and a positive or neg-ative result is indicated. The format ofimmunoassays can vary widely fromuser-friendly lateral flow devices to moresophisticated automated ELISA (en-zyme-linked immunosorbent assay) sys-tems.

Molecular methods are based onDNA detection by PCR. Following incu-bation of the sample in enrichmentmedia, an aliquot is transferred for “am-plification” of the target DNA using athermocycler, which measures thechange in concentration of DNA overtime to determine the status of the sam-ple—positive or negative. Some PCRmethods involve three steps: enrichmentfollowed by thermocycling and finallydetection using pulsed-field gel elec-trophoresis or another method.

Validated & Certified MethodsChoosing a method that has been

validated and certified by an appropriateindependent authority increases your as-surance that your investment in testingwill withstand scientific scrutiny—andmeet regulatory requirements. It is im-portant to review the details of the meth-ods you are considering to verify that themethod has been validated for the foodmatrix that you are testing and that youclearly understand other important fac-tors such as sample size and enrichmenttime. You should use the online re-sources of the appropriate scientific au-thority in addition to requestinginformation from the test kit supplier.AOAC International is the primary U.S.authority for certifying test methods. De-pending on your objectives, you maybenefit by visiting several other authori-ties online, including the U.S. Food andDrug Administration, the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture Food Safety and In-

TESTING

“”

“Successful food

manufacturers make

finding Listeria a

priority to be able to

eliminate it from

their facilities.”

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 14

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 15

spection Service, Health Canada and theFood Chemicals Codex.

Inclusivity & ExclusivityThese data tell you about the organ-

isms that the test will and will not detect.In addition to providing informationabout true positives that the test will de-tect, interpretation of the data helps youunderstand the potential for false-posi-tive and false-negative results.

Inclusivity testing is performed by thekit manufacturer to determine from abroad range of organisms those that willproduce a positive result by the test. Inthe case of Listeria, a review of inclusivitydata will indicate which Listeria speciesare detected by the kit. If there are or-ganisms that produce a false positive onthe kit, these may be indicated in the in-clusivity data. By contrast, if there areListeria species that are not detected bythe kit, then the absence of these speciesmay be your indication that the methoddoes not detect all Listeria species. It isimportant to review the inclusivity datawhen choosing a kit.

Exclusivity testing is performed by thekit manufacturer to test a broad range ofnon-Listeria organisms that produce anaccurate negative test result. These dataprovide additional information aboutthe test accuracy—in this case, the abilityof the test to accurately produce negativeresults for non-Listeria bacteria.

Sensitivity & SpecificityThese measures capture the ultimate

test accuracy compared with a reliablebenchmark. Sensitivity and specificityare reported as a percent.

Sensitivity of 100 percent indicatesthat during the validation, there werezero false-negative results—in otherwords, all of the intended Listeria weredetected by the method.

Specificity of 100 percent indicatesthat during the validation there werezero false-positive results—only Listeriaintended to be detected were detected.

Sample Enrichment MediaSample enrichment using nutritive

media is necessary when testing foodand environmental samples because ofthe very low prevalence of Listeria and

other pathogens in food products andfood manufacturing environments. En-richment times vary based on the per-formance of the mediain resuscitating weak orinjured cells as well asthe detection capabili-ties of the test assay. Asyou consider differenttesting systems, youwill have the opportu-nity to discuss enrich-ment media with yourtest supplier and evalu-ate the potential benefits of using con-ventional media or pro-prietary media. Hereare highlights of eachoption:

Conventional enrichment using less ex-pensive conventional media may be ac-ceptable when performance of the testassay is not affected. Cost savings are

typically offset by the need for addi-tional enrichment time.

Selective enrichment for Listeria takesadvantage of opti-mization of the mediato grow Listeria to theexclusion of other or-ganisms. Additives in-cluded in the mediaformulation will pre-vent the growth ofnon-Listeria organismswhile nourishing Liste-ria to grow faster inan environmentwhere competitionhas been minimized.When making a deci-sion to use any media,

it is important to confirm that themedium has been validated to workwith the test assay that you will beusing.

TESTING

“”

“As an industry, we

have the tools to

detect and prevent

outbreaks of

listeriosis and other

foodborne disease.”

(continued on page 64)

Presumptive Sanitizer Testing: • Chlorine • Peroxide • Peracetic Acid

Unique test strip chemistry allows monitoring of sanitizer levels

Definitive Microbe Testing: • Listeria • Salmonella • Shigella • E. Coli

Microslides® rapid isolation system to confirm contaminants

Know Your TargetKnow Your Target

www.precisionmicroslides.comwww.precisionmicroslides.com

Laboratory Services performed by NRCM Certified Microbiologist on staff

Let us help. 1-855-649-9008

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 15

16 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

The food industry is no stranger to risk manage-ment. In the battle for consumer dollars,product recalls caused by contamination oradulteration can be catastrophic. Business,legal and moral repercussions resulting from

lapses in food safety and quality are top-of-mind issuesfor all manufacturers. Significant resources are dedicatedto minimizing these risks, generally through a variety ofindustry (and additionally, manufacturer- or retailer-spe-cific) quality assurance (QA) systems. As global foodsourcing and international manufacturing sites have sky-rocketed, risk management is an increasingly complexproposition, and quality and safety systems are chal-lenged to keep pace.

Contamination and adulteration are distinct threats.While both involve the presence of something thatshould not be in a food product, contamination is unin-tentional and generally predictable (manufacturers areaware of potential risks that need to be controlled,though clearly a quality lapse has occurred in a contami-nation event). Economically motivated adulteration,however, involves purposeful and intentional replace-ment of the expected food substance with a cheaperone, including simply diluting the expected substancewith a solvent such as water. An important element isthat such replacement or dilution occurs without theknowledge of the seller. Consequently, this creates a sin-gularity in the food safety system, insofar as nobody(aside from the perpetrator) is able to evaluate any con-

sequences for the safety of consumersdue to the exposure to the said cheaperadulterant. Furthermore, to ensure re-peat business, economically motivatedadulteration is often designed to avoiddetection by standard QA testing.

Adulteration, however, has yet tocatch the public’s attention as a foodsafety issue. Contamination—especiallymicrobial—tends to generate the major-ity of the headlines and does, in fact,present potentially serious health conse-quences to consumers. On the otherhand, intentional adulteration can be anequally critical issue. Though it has beenaround for hundreds (perhaps thou-sands) of years, intentional adulterationhas recently been spotlighted with therelease of a report by the U.S. Govern-ment Accountability Office in Novem-ber 2011, evaluating the U.S. Food andDrug Administration’s (FDA) capacityto detect adulteration in food and drugs,the challenges the agency faces (largelyarising from globalization) and potentialoptions for preventing this threat. Thereport indicates just how far we stillneed to go in addressing this issue. Ofcourse, governments and industry havetaken other actions in the past few years,particularly in light of some high-profileadulteration episodes. FDA held its firstpublic meeting on economically moti-vated adulteration in 2009. In 2010, theGrocery Manufacturers Association re-leased a report it commissioned on thesubject. Among other findings, the re-port stated that the cost of one incidentof product adulteration runs between 2and 15 percent of yearly revenues for acompany, which could translate to a$400 million impact for a $10 billioncompany. The report also laid out a hostof deterrence strategies, including devel-oping food ingredient specifications.

Adulteration: A Long History,Modern Urgency

Adulteration is not a new threat. No-torious examples include episodes where

Ingredient Adulteration Undermines Food Safety

If the authenticity of a product’s building blocks is fraudulently altered, existingfood safety and quality systemscan be rendered useless.

By Markus Lipp, Ph.D.REGULATORY REPORT

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 16

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 17

18 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

industrial oil has been sold as cookingoil, with devastating results. Such wasthe case in Morocco in 1959, when oliveoil was adulterated with lubricating oilused in jet engines, and in Spain in 1981,when hundreds of people died fromtoxic oil syndrome that resulted fromthe sale of denatured rapeseed oil labeledas olive oil. More re-cent episodes of adul-teration have includedmelamine in pet foodin 2007 (originatingfrom China but caus-ing serious illness anddeaths of pets world-wide) and milk prod-ucts in 2008 (seriousillness and deathslargely in China of in-fants and others), diox-ins in animal feed in2011 (Germany andthroughout Europe)and waste (gutter) oilrecycled and sold ascooking oil in 2010–2011 (China).

Although it hasbeen written about extensively,melamine presents an interesting exam-ple in that the chemical, by itself, is rela-tively nontoxic. In fact, it has been usedwidely as a feed additive to boost thediet of calves. In the 2007 and 2008 inci-dents, the melamine used was likelyscrap melamine containing cyanuricacid. When combined, the two com-pounds can form a stable and insolublecomplex crystal that can block renaltubules, which was the route of harm forthousands of consumers. Had nonscrapmelamine alone been used, it likelywould have gone undetected. Herein liesthe ultimate risk of adulteration. In casesof economically motivated adulteration(as opposed to bioterrorism), the incen-tive is purely profit; there is no intent toharm. When people (or animals) are sick-ened or die, that reveals evidence of tam-pering, increasing the likelihood ofgetting caught and preventing furtherprofits—an undesirable outcome to eco-

nomic adulterers. But the perpetrators inthe melamine incidents were not awareof the serious consequences of using amixture of melamine and cyanuric acid,illustrating a central point. Adulterationputs everyone (industry, regulators, con-sumers—society as a whole) at the mercyof the adulterer’s scientific knowledge (or

lack thereof). As onlythat party knows whathas been added, adul-teration introducesnew and a priori un-known risks into thefood supply withoutany oversight by any-one, including industryand regulators.Through adulteration,the identity of the foodis altered and foodsafety collapses intothat single element: theadulterer’s knowledge. It is important to note

that most (if not all) ofthe egregious examplesabove were revealedonly by adverse reac-

tions in consumers and pets (i.e., illnessor death), as routine QA checks were un-able to detect the adulteration in thesecases. And it is likely that adulterationwill continue to slip through routine QAchecks as the adulterer aims to remainundetected. Hence, the central danger ofeconomically motivated adulteration isthat standard systems such as HazardAnalysis and Critical Control Points,Good Manufacturing Practices, ISO22000, the Global Food Safety Initiative,British Retail Consortium and similarfood safety plans and safety nets dangleempty and will not catch unexpectedrisks unless the authenticity of the foodingredient can be established and confirmed.

Establishing Authenticity: The Role of Standards

Of course, the critical nature of exist-ing quality systems should not be dis-counted; they are indispensable to

ensuring the safety and quality of ourfood. However, as we cannot test prod-ucts into safety (production processeshave to be designed for safety), we alsocannot rely only on quality systems andsafety nets built on the assumption ofpredictable threats and risks. In an in-creasingly complex and global food sup-ply chain, the collective response ofindustry, government and others mustevolve to incorporate new, undefinedthreats. An essential supplement to qual-ity and safety systems that anchors themin reality is periodic testing to verify theauthenticity of food ingredients—proofthat food ingredients are what they saythey are. Knowledge of food ingredients’authenticity—their identity, quality andpurity—should be considered fundamen-tal, yet it is often taken for granted. Thisis where public quality standards canserve both industry and consumers.

The Food Chemicals Codex (FCC),published by the U.S. PharmacopeialConvention (USP), is a compendium ofinternationally recognized standards des-ignating the identity, quality and purityof more than 1,100 food ingredients. Itsscope is broad—any food ingredientlegally marketed anywhere in the worldis eligible to be included in the com-pendium. In addition to quality specifi-cations, FCC provides test methodssuitable for the verification of these stan-dards and, in numerous cases, referencematerials as well, which allow manufac-turers or regulators to verify the appro-priate execution of the test method.These standards are developed in collab-oration with industry, under a public re-view process that invites comments fromall stakeholders to arrive at the best pos-sible specifications. Such food ingredientstandards are useful in a variety of ways,including maintaining regulatory com-pliance and conducting day-to-day busi-ness transactions as part of contractsbetween food manufacturers and ingre-dient suppliers. Overall, they can helpkeep parties honest and ensure everyoneis speaking the same language on thesame level playing field and maintainingthe same expectations regarding quality.

REGULATORY REPORT

“”

“...the critical nature

of existing quality

systems should not be

discounted; they are

indispensable to

ensuring the safety

and quality of

our food.”

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 18

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 19

In a globalized food industry where sup-pliers of varying sizes and sophisticationare relied upon forneeded food ingredi-ents, public standardsprovide real benefitand could be one ofthe cornerstones for in-dustry’s self-regulation.

Enhancing Standards: Testingfor Modern-DayRealities

One of the mostpowerful uses of qual-ity standards is in test-ing for identity. Tokeep pace with thethreat of adulteration,the development of more specific iden-tity testing for food ingredients is a cen-tral focus in USP’s efforts regarding foodingredient standards. The rationale forthis approach is as follows: Rather thanadding tests for each potential adulterantfor a food ingredient, a more efficient(and effective) approach is to better de-fine what something is (as opposed towhat it isn’t). Chasing whatever the nextfood adulterant will be always puts in-dustry, regulators and others one step be-hind unscrupulous food adulterers, whoare constantly engaged in finding newways to gain illicit profit. USP’s efforts tocombat adulteration include moderniz-ing existing FCC monographs with bet-ter identity tests, particularly for thosefood ingredients deemed to be at higherrisk of adulteration, and incorporatingmore specific tests when developing newmonographs. Particular categories offood ingredients may be at greater risk,based on such considerations as con-sumer demand, economic value and theexistence of scientific/analytical testingweaknesses that may be exploited.

USP formed a Food Ingredients In-tentional Adulterants Expert Panel in2009 to examine, among other criticalissues, food ingredients that are morevulnerable to adulteration and to de-velop work plans to address these

threats. At-risk food ingredients identi-fied by the panel include novel sweeten-

ers such asrebaudioside A (stevia),infant formula ingredi-ents, spices, cocoapowder, meat powder,rice protein isolate andothers. In many ofthese categories, USPhas proposed newfood ingredient stan-dards since the expertpanel began its work.The latest edition ofthe food ingredientcompendium, FCC 8,will be released inMarch 2012 and incor-porates much of this

work. The expert panel has also commis-sioned some exciting larger-scale proj-ects, including a Food Fraud Databasecompiling published instances of food

adulteration over the past 30 years,which will be used to guide USP’s futurework in this area and as a resource to in-dustry’s risk management efforts.

The Bottom Line: What We Don’tKnow Can Hurt Us

Economically motivated adulterationposes a host of risks—from business, legaland public health perspectives. Thesobering reality is that every safeguard inplace in our global multibillion-dollarfood industry is null and void if one can-not confirm the authenticity of the foodingredients that make up a product.Once an unknown substance enters thefood supply chain, everything we do tomanage risk goes out the window, andwe can only hope for the best. In an in-dustry that touches us all, with so muchto lose, that simply cannot suffice. n

Markus Lipp, Ph.D., is the director, food stan-dards, at USP.

REGULATORY REPORT

“”

“An essential supple-

ment to quality and

safety systems that

anchors them in reality

is periodic testing to

verify the authenticity

of food ingredients...”

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 19

20 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

We recently had a most pleasing andfulfilling experience when we visitedthe person responsible for burningregulations in Denmark’s environ-mental agency. Several efforts had

been made to burn some forms of organic waste withvarying degrees of success, but permission to intro-duce new technologies had not been achieved. Won-dering why, the applicants asked us to look into it.We started by looking at the legislation requirements(which was the last thing they had done). Naturally,everyone cannot burn everything they wish to createenergy, so their expressed disappointment over lack ofpermission was well founded.

The pleasant part of the effort came from gettingan outline about how definitions can be changed withwell-founded documentation. If things are, by defini-tion, waste, then there are prescribed handling proce-dures; if they are “value,” there are other options.Simple but straightforward.

You many feel this does not have any significancefor our dialogue related to shouting about salvationof the planet, but let us not forget, waste is big busi-ness, and in quite a number of cases, it is a mono-poly. As with all monopolies, whether political, eco-nomical or social, over time, antibodies are formedfor the protection of the organism. All monopoliesgenerate resistance over time, and so has the waste in-dustry. Western countries rely on revenue from thetax on energy. So it’s no surprise when efforts to use“waste” to create untaxed energy get slow or unenthu-siastic support.

The technical director of a small foodfactory explained to us that he did notintroduce energy-saving technology be-cause the state required the tax on en-ergy saved to be paid anyway. He waspaying as much for getting rid of organ-ics in the water as he was for buying thewater, and the state was taking a sliceequal to each of the others. That is, ap-proximately one-third of his water billwas for purchasing water, one-third wasfor the treatment of the water and one-third went to the state tax. He was usingaround 1,000 m3 water per day, whichcame into the factory at around 8 °Cand left at 28 °C—around 27,000 kW en-ergy wasted. Water cost in Denmark isaround €5/m3. If he released the waterat 8 °C by recapturing that 27,000 kW,he would pay the same for buying thewater and the same taxes. If he removesthe organics, he is able to use all or partof them by burning chicken fat for en-ergy or extracting proteins and fat forpet food. The water would then be suit-able for regaining the energy and someof the water would be suitable for reuse.Consumption could be reduced to anestimated 300 m3/day. He is currentlypaying a surcharge for organic load inthe water, which would be eliminated.He was partially reducing organic loadin his effluent through the use of haz-ardous chemicals for flocculation, creat-ing 28.8 tons/day of hazardous waste,which had to be trucked away at his ex-pense. Much of that can be changed, ifwe believe the new legislation.

During another audit, which also in-volved local government, a communeexpressed openly that the introductionof technology, which would both savethe small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs)energy and greatly reduce their organicload, would be detrimental because thecommune depends on the revenue fromwaste treatment and needs the organicsto keep the bacteria functioning well atthe wastewater treatment plant(WWTP). Their only alternative would

Supporting SustainabilityMeans an End to Waste

The entire global food supplychain shares in the challengesfacing the food industry today.

By David NapperINTERNATIONAL FOOD SAFETY

This is one in a series of“P3FC” articles (People,Planet, Prosperity and theFood Chain), essays andcomments from assortedauthors. All articles in theseries will address thechallenges of food pro-duction to communicatebest practices in the in-dustry and encouragethe adoption of sustain-able policies. All authorsare food professionalscoming from diverse employment sectors andfrom around the globe.The goal of P3FC is tohelp create a global foodsupply chain that takesinto account the well-being and prosperity ofpeople and the planet. Ifyou are interested in con-tributing an article to theP3FC series, please sendan email tokatherine.flynn@safeconsortium.org.

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 20

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 21

be to haul in molasses to feed the bacte-ria. They did not mention that the heatwaste from their factory was also of useas it increased the efficiency of theWWTP process.

In Italy, only authorized companiescan collect used fats from deep-frying,but it is not specified what the propertreatment would be to render this mate-rial safe for the environment, so a num-ber of companies have sprung up,collecting the fat for the revenue but notbothering to handle it responsibly letalone convert it into energy in any way.

We have followed many inspirationalpresentations from organizations such asCradle-to-Cradle,1,2 which offer a verygood road map for many actions to betaken, but even logical actions will notnecessarily be allowed under current lawsand may be contrary to many interests.

Now we have the “End-of-Waste” ac-tions and movements, which look quitepromising. In simple terms, EuropeanUnion Directive 2008/98/EC3 opens thedoor for taking material out of the“waste definition” with attendant obliga-tions and allowing the concept of some-thing of value, which provides anexception from “waste management”and allows value recovery. It may notsound like much, but opportunities areboundless for the food and beverage in-dustry, where more than half of materialsproduced end as a problem for the environment.

The European Commission’s JointResearch Centre in Seville, Spain has re-leased a very good report on the matter,so anyone wishing to follow the widerdiscussion can visit susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Endofwastecriteriafinal.pdf. The executive summarycovers the matter extensively, so have alook and give us feedback.

In the spirit of the efforts of theGlobal Harmonization Initiative,4 thework recognizes the necessity of stan-dardized legislation so speculation ondifferences between states can beavoided. The End-of-Waste legislationmandates harmonization, taking specialinterest decisions (whether hidden taxes

or unjustified laxity or stringency) out ofthe picture. n

David Napper is a member of the editorial team

of P3FC. He has worked extensively with European

SMEs in attempts to identify trends that could influ-

ence their economic success. The solutions can

often be implemented incrementally with as little

technology transfer and training as possible.

References1. www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm.2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_to_Cradle_ Design.3. eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0098:EN:NOT.4. www.globalharmonization.net.

INTERNATIONAL FOOD SAFETY

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 21

22 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Ihave been asked to launch this new column tocommunicate the latest advances and trends inpackaging, spoilage and stability of packaged foods.This column will typically cover trends among thesophisticated food packaging players in the devel-

oped world, primarily the U.S. and European Union(EU), and typically involve high technology. I will leavethese discussions to subsequent contributors, but I wishto present that the trend to replace absent or ineffectivepackaging with more protective food packaging is moresignificant to the growth of the packaging industry thanany particular new development. The combination ofincreased food protection and the continuing trend forproactive food processing control (maintained withpackaging) offers unprecedented potential to increaseglobal food security.

Food security is achieved by people acquiring a safe,adequate and appropriate food supply. “Safe” is absenceof hazard; “adequate” is sufficient in both calories andnutrients; “appropriate” relates to taste and ethnicity (es-pecially important when offering food aid to othercountries in response to emergencies, i.e., using readilyavailable food).

Establishing Processes for Safe FoodA significant development in the promotion of food

safety was the concept of process control versus sam-pling of finished product, that is, prevention rather thaninspection. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points(HACCP) was developed in the 1960s by NASA andPillsbury from the realization that foodborne disease in

space was to be avoided—accentuatedwith the potent image of an astronautvomiting in zero gravity. The goal, there-fore, was to eliminate potential hazardsthrough a combination of multiple bar-riers to microbial growth and careful in-process monitoring to ensure thatcritical processes remained within ac-ceptable limits. Although HACCP wasmandatory for specific sectors, it wasvoluntary for most of the food industry.

The seven principles of HACCP arelikely known to readers of this column,but are summarized here as a basis forextensions below:1. Conduct a Hazard Analysis (hazards

to consumer)2. Determine the Critical Control

Points3. Establish critical limits4. Establish monitoring procedures5. Establish corrective actions6. Establish verifying procedures7. Establish documentation procedures.

The U.S. Food Safety ModernizationAct was signed into law January 2011,with the aim to prevent contaminatedfood from entering the marketplace.HACCP programs are a central compo-nent of this approach. The goal is to pre-vent outbreaks rather than respond tothem. Since outbreaks of foodborne dis-ease impact the confidence in our entireindustry, I applaud efforts that bringproven food safety programs into morewidespread use. They have initial costsbut add long-term profitability and viability.

Where Does Packaging Fit In?Primary packaging, that is, packaging

in direct contact with the product, iscritical to the success of any food pro-cessing effort. Any processing is ineffec-tive unless appropriate packagingprotection is employed. With thermalprocessing, be it canning (filling an un-sterile metal, glass, polymer or laminatecontainer with an unsterile product, seal-ing that container and heat-processing

Packaging for Enhanced Food Security

New column focuses on criticalfood packaging safety issues.

By Kenneth S. Marsh, Ph.D., CPPPACKAGING

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 22

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 23

24 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

to commercial sterility) or aseptic pack-aging (introducing a sterile product—typically processed through high-temper-ature, short-time processing—into a ster-ile package in a sterile environment), ahermetic package is critical to foodsafety. Dried, fer-mented, natural andprocessed foods all re-quire appropriate pack-age containment andprotection.

Food safety is typi-cally defined in termsof food hazards thatresult in disease. Dis-ease resulting from nu-tritional inadequacy, ormore critically, starva-tion, is not typicallyconsidered in the foodhazard category. It isreasonable to extendthe definition of foodsafety to include ade-quacy. Packaging thatextends shelf life, helpsretain nutrients and al-lows food to be trans-ported to remote areasthen becomes an im-portant component ofboth the food safety and adequacy com-ponents of food security. We can extendthe hazard list to include:• Chemical contamination: most

feared by consumers• Physical abuse: most noticed by

consumers• Microbiological hazards: most

dangerous and already the major emphasis We can also include actions that re-

duce the food supply:• Biological attack (e.g., birds, rodents,

insects)• Biological action of product (e.g.,

senescence and sprouting)

Can HACCP Incorporate All ofThese Hazards?

I proposed a post-harvest HACCP(PHHACCP) plan in 2005 as an effec-

tive and rational means of ensuring foodprotection and delivery from harvestthrough consumption. The “Hazard”definition was extended to include any-thing that renders food unusable forhuman consumption, and therefore un-

able to sustain life. The Food Safety Al-

liance for Packaging(FSAP; a technicalcommittee of the Insti-tute of Packaging Pro-fessionals) hasdeveloped HACCPmodels for a variety ofpackaging materials.These models are avail-able on www.foodsafetyalliancefor packaging.com and extend the HACCPprinciples to the manu-facture of packagingmaterials.

The post-harvestcomponent extendshazard concerns toother components ofthe distribution envi-ronment, includingstorage facilities, han-dling, transportation

packaging (in terms of protection fromexternal forces), transportation modesand environmental realities (includingweather and fauna).

PHHACCP would add the followingto the HACCP principles:1. Include analysis for the entire

distribution chain2. Identify each mechanism of food loss

(nutrition or quantity)3. Evaluate which mechanisms can be

controlled4. Evaluate which mechanisms should

be controlled5. Establish limits6. Continue with HACCP principles

Controlling Food LossesThere is a growing realization that

handling, processing, packaging, storageand transportation (collectively, post-har-

vest) have the potential to reduce globalhunger on par with increases in globalfood production. The Food and Agricul-ture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) presented two significant reportsthat were prepared for the Save FoodCongress held in association with Inter-pack in May 2011. The first report,“Global Food Losses and Food Waste”(www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf), estimatedworld food losses at 33 percent, or 1.3billion tons per year. The second report,“Appropriate Food Packaging Solutionsfor Developing Countries” (www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/AFP_web.pdf), describedpackaging roles to reduce food losses.This was a significant change from theFAO stance at the World Food Summit:five years later (Rome, 2002) at whichmost efforts to address hunger werebased on improving agricultural produc-tion. The U.S. sponsored a symposiumat that summit in which presidents ofthree African countries presented reportsthat genetically modified seeds improvedharvest yields by up to 500 percent. Imet with the Ghana minister of agricul-ture after this symposium, and he con-firmed that Ghana’s infrastructure wasincapable of handling all of this increaseand food losses had risen. The increasedproduction, therefore, did not yield aproportional increase in the food supply.

Shelf life or usable life defines thelength of time that a product can be dis-tributed and used after distribution. Ba-nanas offer a simple example. Bananaslast for months in the green state anddays in the ripe, yellow state. Scrubbingthe growth hormone that triggers senes-cence, ethylene, maintains bananas inthe more stable state until just prior topoint of sale. Bananas are then exposed(during storage) to approximately 1 ppmethylene to resume the ripening process.The result is that we have bananas avail-able all year and those in a specific su-permarket tend to be close to the samedegree of ripeness. The shelf life is de-fined not by the primary packaging, butrather by the entire distribution chain.

PACKAGING

“”

“A significant

development in the

promotion of food

safety was the

concept of process

control versus sam-

pling of finished

product, that is,

prevention rather

than inspection.”

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 24

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 25

Transportation packaging is a criticalcomponent of food distribution. A studywas completed in Sri Lanka that demon-strated that fresh produce packaged inthe traditional burlap (jute) bags experi-enced between 22 and 28 percent loss enroute to the Colombo “green” market.This resulted from bottom bags beingcrushed, exacerbated by potholes andother road hazards. Crates restricted theforce of stacked produce and reducedthe loss to 5 percent. Programs that in-crease the amount of already producedfood that reaches consumers can be cost-effective and implemented more rapidlythan waiting for the next harvest.

Food losses occur through manymechanisms and some cannot be par-tially or fully controlled. Losses will stilloccur when products (e.g., bananas) can-not be sold after over-ripening, productis bruised and not salable, product is ac-ceptable but not salable due to over-abundance (right after harvest) or even

due to food regulations based on visual,size or shape attributes (discussed below)that are unrelated tohealth. Such fooditems cannot bebrought to market intheir existing state.

Food safety can beachieved by alteringthe product from anunacceptable (buthealthy) state into an-other form. Food itemsmay be processed ormodified to improvetheir shelf life and/orvalue. This is outsidethe normal HACCPoptions, but theHACCP principlescould be applied to thepreparation of the new products.

An innovative example of convertingfood otherwise wasted into viable prod-

ucts was developed by Dr. Alastair Hicks,senior post-harvest officer for FAO at the

Southeast Asia regionalbranch. He developeda program on eco-nomic developmentthrough village-levelfood processingthrough which ruralvillagers in less devel-oped countries weretrained in basic sanita-tion and food process-ing and offered basicequipment (e.g., dryingracks, netting, pressurecookers, fryers) to re-cover food that wouldnormally be lost anduse it as inputs forvalue-added food prod-

ucts (e.g., fried banana chips). Packagingthese products offers foods with ex-tended shelf life that provides more time

PACKAGING

“”

“Primary packaging,

that is, packaging in

direct contact with

the product, is critical

to the success of any

food processing

effort.”

Our new Autoplate® Spiral Plating System: the hot new lab accessory. Now you can spiral plate bacteria with blazing speed and performance that other platers can’t touch. Our new Autoplate delivers 35-second cycle times with three new spiral plating modes. Its innovative auto-clean capability avoids cross-contamination. And it offers a quick learning curve plus state-of-the-art ease of use via an intuitive Windows® CE touchscreen. Get automated plating productivity from Spiral Biotech that’s so hot, it’s really cool!

www.aicompanies.com +1 781.320.9000

1018002 Autoplate Food Safety.indd 1 1/15/10 5:28:55 PM

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 25

26 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

for sale, and income to build small busi-ness. This process both recovers foodnormally lost and promotes economicdevelopment in these remote regions.The key is shelf life extension and safefood products.

Effects of Restrictive RegulationsSome food losses result from food

regulations that are based on food attrib-utes unrelated to foodsafety. Regulationsbased on color, shapeand size, for example,result in the destruc-tion of tons of food.Other regulations maybe based on perceivedfood hazards that arenot scientifically estab-lished. The use of Alarthat decimated theapple industry in theU.S. Northwest andthe destruction offood that might con-tain parts-per-trillionlevels of Sudan Red inthe UK, for example,were perceived threats that seriously im-pacted segments of the food industry,but the regulatory reactions could not bejustified by a scientific risk/benefit analy-sis. Food safety is not served by such reg-ulations (or public reactions based onfear), and significant food losses can result.

The Global Harmonization Initiative(GHI; www.globalharmonization.net)was formed through a network of scien-tific organizations to facilitate the har-monization of food safety regulationsand legislation. The objective empha-sizes that food regulations should bebased on a scientific evaluation of riskand strives to harmonize rules made byindividual governments and interna-tional regulatory bodies. GHI “antici-pates that elimination of the regulatorydifferences will make it more attractivefor the private sector to invest in foodsafety R&D, consequently strengtheningthe competitiveness of each nation’s

food industry and of the industries sup-plying the food sector. Harmonizingglobal regulations will facilitate the appli-cation of new technologies, encouragingthe food industry to invest in such tech-nologies to ensure better safety and qual-ity for consumers!” The result will bemore abundance of safe food.

The FAO report on food losses pre-sented differences between food losses in

the developed and de-veloping world. Foodlosses in the developingworld tend to be re-lated to financial, man-agerial and technicallimitations of food dis-tribution between thefarmer and the con-sumer. Food losses andwaste in the developedworld mainly relate toconsumer behavior and“lack of coordinationbetween different actorsin the supply chain.” Apossibly surprising find-ing presented in theFAO study was that

“on a per capita basis, much more foodis wasted in the industrialized world thanin developing countries. We estimatethat the per capita food waste by con-sumers in Europe and North America is95–115 kg/year, while this figure in Sub-Saharan Africa and South/SoutheastAsia is only 6–11 kg/year.”

Some of the food losses in the devel-oped world are based on regulations thatare not safety-based, as mentionedabove; some result from marketing prac-tices such as refusing produce that is aless desirable size, shape or color or has aslight blemish and some are wastefulpractices. An example offered in theSave Food Congress was an EU regula-tion that banned curved cucumbers.Farmers therefore could not sell curvedcucumbers, and they were not harvested.The EU later removed that regulation,but supermarkets still refuse to buycurved cucumbers, so they are still rolledinto the soil.

Much waste is generated through avariety of practices at retail, restaurantsand hospitality entities and by con-sumers. Supermarkets, for example, stockshelves with every variety of baked prod-ucts such that customers shopping nearclosing times have a full choice. Itemsnot sold become wasted. Restaurants,banquets and hospitality often serveconsiderably more food than required.Consumers often discard food productsthat reach their “best by” date, eventhough those products are perfectly safe.The approach to reducing these losses isprimarily education and a realization oftheir magnitude. I have offered ideas toeffect this through www.ift.org/food-technology/past-issues/2011/july/features/addressing-global-food-waste.aspx.

Conclusions Promoting food safety and security

on a global basis matters greatly to sup-pliers of processing and packaging mate-rials and machinery, as well as to thepopulations their products serve. TheU.S. population is about 310 million andthat of the EU around 500 million. Ourcombined total of 810 million, com-pared with the world population of 7 bil-lion, means we constitute less than 12percent of the potential market for “ap-propriate” technologies. The remaining88 percent of the world’s population willrequire packaging materials and process-ing and packaging equipment to extendtheir food supplies. Development ofsmall-to-medium food enterprises willbegin a cycle of economic developmentthat builds resources to justify further de-velopment. The bottom line is that wecan extend safe and adequate food forhumanitarian and commercial impacts.n

Kenneth S. Marsh, Ph.D., CPP, is a consultant onfood, packaging and international trade through

Kenneth S. Marsh & Associates Ltd.

For more information on food packaging, please visit

www.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature.asp.

PACKAGING

“”

“Food safety can

be achieved by

altering the

product from an

unacceptable (but

healthy) state into

another form.”

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:01 PM Page 26

Solutions for Today,Planning for Tomorrow

ducationNetworkingExhibition HallInd utions

®

April 17-19, 2012Washington, DCwww.foodsafetysummit.com

MEDIA PARTNERS

Quality Assurance & Food Safety

GOLD SPONSORPRESENTED BY BRONZE SPONSORSILVER SPONSOR

A SUPPLEMENT TO A BNP MEDIA PUBLICATION

WELCOME WHO ATTENDS THE SUMMIT

Food Safety Vice PresidentsFood Safety DirectorsQuality Control DirectorsQuality Assurance ManagersLaboratory DirectorsLaboratory Technicians Academic/Scientifi c ResearchSanitation ManagersMicrobiologists Foodservice OperatorsFood Retail OperationsFood ScientistsOperations Managers Food TechnologistsSupply Chain DirectorsFood Safety RegulatorsCoordinators / InspectorsPlant ManagersChemists Engineering Supervisors HACCP Program ManagersLogistics Managers Policy MakersProgram DirectorsR & D Managers/TechniciansRisk ManagersSecurity DirectorsTechnical DirectorsRegulatory Affairs Directors Food & Beverage ProcessorsGovernment/ Military Restaurant ManagementCompliance AgenciesAuditors

Solutions for Today,Planning for TomorrowThe Food Safety Summit exists to meet the educational and information needs of the entire food industry. The Summit is carefully designed for growers, processors, retailers, distributors, foodservice operators, regulators and academia.

The Summit provides a 4 day comprehensive education program with expert speakers and trainers with real world experience; an expansive exhibition hall with specialized vendors demonstrating the latest technologies, products and services; and relaxed networking events to exchange valuable ideas and make meaningful connections.

®

Dear Food Safety Professional,

Soluti ons for today, planning for tomorrow.It is with this simple statement that the Food Safety Summit has carefully developed an educati onal program designed to address the criti cal issues of food producers, processors, retailers, distributors, regulators and trainers. Our goal is to advance food safety by providing relevant food safety informati on and soluti ons across the enti re food supply chain, while keeping your business safe.

The Food Safety Summit meets the needs of the enti re marketplace.The Summit includes a four day, comprehensive educati on program with expert speakers, an expansive exhibiti on fl oor where att endees will fi nd soluti ons tocurrent challenges and networking events that off er the opportunity to exchangevaluable ideas with colleagues. The Food Safety Summit is the must-att end industry gathering to focus on soluti ons you can immediately implement in your business.

The educati onal topics were developed by the 2012 Executi ve Educati onalAdvisory Committ ee and explore such ti mely issues as an update of the realiti esof the Food Safety Modernizati on Act, working with public health offi cials, strategies for pre-harvesti ng, interacti ve food safety media training, orientati onto and preparing for GFSI Audits and HAACP to Lean, Six Sigma to highlight a few.

The Exhibiti on Hall is where soluti ons are found. The Food Safety Summit att racts highly qualifi ed food safety and security soluti on providers. Nearly 150 top ti er companies show off the latest technologies,products and services. Don’t miss this unique opportunity to learn from the best and brightest the industry has to off er.

Now is the ti me for you to make a commitment to att end the Food Safety Summit.Please take a few minutes to review this comprehensive brochure and seethe valuable educati on and resources available to you at the 2012 Food Safety Summit. I encourage you to register today to take advantage of the early-bird savings and to ensure your place at the most preti gious food safety event of the year.

Scott WoltersDirectorFood Safety Summit wolterss@bnpmedia.com

April 17-19, 2012Washington DC

www.foodsafetysummit.comtwitter.com/FoodSafetySumit

2012 Food Safety Summit

www.foodsafetysummit.com

Monday, April 16

8:00a.m. – 5:00p.m. SERVSAFE® TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION • PART 1

8:00a.m. – 5:00p.m. INDUSTRY-FOODBORNE ILLNESS INVESTIGATION TRAINING (I-FIIT)

8:00a.m.– 5:30p.m. HACCP CERTIFICATION TRAINING • PART 1

Tuesday, April 17

8:00a.m. – 12:00p.m. SERVSAFE® TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION - PART 2

8:00a.m. – 5:30p.m. HACCP CERTIFICATION TRAINING • PART 2

8:00a.m. – 12:00p.m. Workshop 1 Effective Risk Communication in Order to Secure Food Safety Resources Workshop 2 Interactive Media Training Workshop 3 Pre-requisite Programs: Cleaning, Sanitizing, Pest Control

1:00p.m. – 5:00p.m. Workshop 4 Interactive Workshop: Contemporary Issues in Retail, Foodservice & Grocery Operations: Best Practices and Practical Models Workshop 5 Interactive Food Defense Workshop With Government and Industry Representatives Workshop 6 How to Protect Your Company with an Effective Food Liability Program

5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. EXHIBITION HALL OPEN / WELCOME RECEPTION ON EXHIBITION FLOOR

Wednesday, April 18

8:00a.m.– 10:00a.m. HACCP CERTIFICATION TRAINING • PART 3

8:30a.m. – 10:00a.m. Session 1 HACCP to Lean, Six Sigma Session 2 Strategies for Pre-Harvesting – Why Finished Product Testing Will Not Work Session 3 Training for Results

8:30a.m. – 4:00p.m. EXHIBITOR SHOWCASE THEATRES

10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. KEYNOTE ADDRESS: OSCAR GARRISON / NSF FOOD SAFETY LEADERSHIP AWARDS

11:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. EXHIBITION HALL OPEN – LUNCHEON ON EXHIBITION FLOOR

2:30p.m. – 4:00p.m. Session 4 Imported Products – How to Minimize Risk Session 5 Field to Fork Traceability: Tracing a Produce Item from Field to Plate Session 6 Food Safety Modernization Act Update and the Reality of Meeting the Deliverables Mandated by Congress

4:15p.m. – 5:45p.m. Session 7 How to Work With Public Health Officials (Retail, Manufacturing, Foodservice) Session 8 Food Fraud: Economically Motivated Intentional Adulteration Session 9 Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) - Then, Now, in the Future

5:45p.m. – 7:00 p.m. FOOD QUALITY AWARDS & RECEPTION – SPONSORED BY DUPONT

Thursday, April 19

7:30a.m. – 10:30a.m. EXHIBITION HALL OPEN

7:30a.m. – 8:30 a.m. CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST ON EXHIBITION FLOOR

9:00a.m. – 9:30a.m. EXHIBITOR SHOWCASE THEATRES

9:30a.m. – 11:00a.m. Session 10 Roundtable: What Happened at the Conference for Food Protection (CFP) Session 11 How to Prepare for a GFSI Audit Session 12 Q&A with the FDA and USDA

11:15a.m. – 12:45p.m. Session 13 What is Reportable and What is Not Session 14 non-O157 STEC: The Prevalence of and the Strategies and Objectives of the Industry Session 15 Transportation/Distribution – Food Safety Forensics What Can Happen During Transportation

12:45p.m. GRAB & GO LUNCH

SUMMIT AT-A-GLANCEProgram subject to change

Gary Ades, Ph.D.President,G&L Consulting Group, LLC

Will DanielsSr. Vice President, Operationsand Organic IntegrityEarthbound Farm

Oscar GarrisonAssistant Commissioner,Consumer Protection,Georgia Department of Agriculture

Peter GoodOwner, Peter Good Seminars

Craig Henry, Ph.D.ERS Director, Deloitte & Touche LLP

Hal King, Ph.D.Sr. Manager, Food Safety,Chick-fi l-A

Susan LinnDirector Quality Assurance,Sysco Corporation

Gina Nicholson, RSSubject Matter Expert FoodSafety and Quality ManagerThe Kroger Co.

Thomas PackerPartner,Gordon & Rees LLP

John Spink, Ph.D.Associate Director & AssistantProfessor of Anti-Counterfeitingand Product Protection ProgramMSU, School of Criminal Justice

Sharon WoodDirector, Food Safety and Environmental Affi ars, HEB

Providing the highestquality education and training to the industry

The 2012 Food Safety Summit wishesto thank our Executive EducationalAdvisory Committee (EEAC). With thesupport of these progressive and insightful thinkers, we are able to provide you an unequalled educational program.

Four days of unparalleled solutions based education and training Pre-Conference Training and Certifi cationThree pre-conference courses designed for all individuals who need food safety training, certi fi cati on and/or recerti fi cati on.

■ ServSafe® Training and Certifi cationNEW THIS YEAR!■ HACCP Certifi cation Training ■ Industry-Foodborne Illness Investigation Training (I-FIIT)

Tuesday Half-Day WorkshopsSix, 4-hour workshops off er att endees the opportunity to delve deeper in specifi c topics criti cal to the food safety professional.

Wednesday & Thursday Conference SessionsFift een 90-minute sessions on topics relevant to your current job challenges. Learn from experts, exchange ideas and fi nd soluti ons.

EEAC MEMBERS

®

2012 Food Safety Summit

www.foodsafetysummit.com

PRE-CONFERENCE TRAINING MONDAY, APRIL 16

MONDAY, APRIL 168:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m.

INSTRUCTOR

Ken Pearson, Ed. D. CFSP

■ Cost: $350 per personAttendees will receive the I-FIIT Course Manual, a copy of the FDA Retail Food Protection: Employee Health and Personal Hygiene Handbook as well as various handouts, forms and resources. Deadline to register for this workshop is March 2, 2012.

PART 1 ■ MONDAY, APRIL 168:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

PART 2 ■ TUESDAY, APRIL 178:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

INSTRUCTOR

Peter GoodOwner, Peter Good Seminars

■ Cost: $275 per person

PART 1 ■ MONDAY, APRIL 168:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.

PART 2 ■ TUESDAY, APRIL 178:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.

PART 3 ■ WEDNESDAY, APRIL 188:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

INSTRUCTORS

Donna F. Schaffner, Rutgers University

Christopher Doona, M.D., US Army

John Spink, Ph.D., CPPMichigan State University

Virginia Wheatley, MPHNJ Dept. of Health & Senior Services

Dallas Hoover, Ph.D.University of Delaware

Bryan DiMenna, Consultant

Steven Lyon, Ph.D., Chick-Fil-A Inc.

Will Daniels, Earthbound Farm

■ Cost: $795 per person

Industry-Foodborne Illness Investigation Training (I-FIIT)The Nati onal Environmental Health Associati on (NEHA) hasdeveloped a new training opportunity for the retail food industry. I-FIIT will provide you and your company a bett er understanding for stronger collaborati ve eff orts between you, your company and public health professionals. The bott om line is: at the end of the day, everyone wants to provide safe, wholesome and healthy food to their customers.The workshop is for retail food store/restaurant representati ves and it will bring you together with government food safety offi cials and other involved personnel to improve foodborne disease outbreak response by identi fying industry’s roles and responsibiliti es during a foodborne disease incident. This workshop is recommended for the mid-level manager and above and is composed of interacti ve group exercises, Q&A sessions, and lectures spanning the scope of an investi gati on.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Gain a bett er understanding of a food borne investi gati on process as a whole and learn the tools and insight needed to eff ecti vely handle potenti al issues

■ Certi fi cate of Completi on and 7.5 NEHA Conti nuing Credits

ServSafe® Training and Certifi cationThe ServSafe® Food Safety Training Program leads the way in providing comprehensive educati onal materials to the restaurant industry. More than 2 million foodservice professionals have been certi fi ed through the ServSafe Food Protec-ti on Manager Certi fi cati on Exam, which is accredited by the American Nati onal Standards Insti tute (ANSI)-Conference for Food Protecti on (CFP). ServSafe training and certi fi cati on is recognized by more federal, state and local jurisdicti ons than any other food safety certi fi cati on.

SESSION OBJECTIVE

■ This course qualifi es for a total of 12 hours of conti nuing educati on credit and includes the ServSafe Certi fi cati on Exam and Certi fi cate

HACCP Certifi cation TrainingThrough the growing complexity of today’s global food supply chain,each new year seems to bring a major outbreak of foodborne illness or a major food recall that undermines consumer confi dence in the safety of the food supply. To protect consumers and the nati on’s foodsupply, in 2011 the US government enacted major food legislati on reform called the Food Safety and Modernizati on Act (FSMA), which is having a major impact on the food industry supply chain.

All professionals in the industry at companies (domesti c and internati onal) that manu-facture, process, pack, or hold food will be trained to establish preventati ve controls, monitor their eff ecti veness, implement correcti ve acti ons, and maintain records. This 2.5-day course provides the informati on all professionals in the industry will need for writi ng a new Hazard Analysis Criti cal Control Point (HACCP) plan or for conducti ng the annual re-assessment of an existi ng HACCP plan.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Learn the 7 basic principles of HACCP through lectures and break-out sessions and exchange “best practi ce” advice with parti cipants and experienced instructors

■ Offi cial “HACCP Certi fi ed” Training Certi fi cate required to review documents or write HACCP plans for USDA or FDA (non-seafood) programs

2012 Food Safety Summit

WORKSHOP 1

Effective Risk Communication in Order to Secure Food Safety Resources Learn how to eff ecti vely communicate with the C level (CEO, COO, CFO, Operati ons) management in your company to get the resources (people, money, departmental cooperati on) needed to miti gate food safety risks.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Learn eff ecti ve language used in the C-Suite for making strategic decisions■ Learn what the C-Suite will use to monitor the fi nancial health of their organizati on■ In-depth discussion on the impact of allergens on risk management

WORKSHOP 2

Interactive Media Training The session will provide a comprehensive overview of best – and worst – practi ces,and will help sharpen your media relati ons skill set. Experts will off er criti cal thinking atcriti cal ti mes and will off er sound informati on on how to protect both brand and fi nancialrisk while off ering strategy for communicati ons with consumer – what to say, how to positi on your brand, how to prepare the CEO for a crisis.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Learn an innovati ve approach to food safety-related media training by looking at it from all sides

■ Investi gate what works best to protect your brand in the midst of a crisis

WORKSHOP 3

Pre-requisite Programs: Cleaning, Sanitizing, Pest ControlStarti ng the producti on day with clean equipment and faciliti es remains the cornerstone of producing safe, high-quality foods. Pests must also be controlled in and around food plants. Att endees will be reminded of the importance of verifying the eff ecti veness of pest control and sanitati on programs and the techniques, records and correcti ve acti ons expected by customers.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Understand the latest thinking applied to equipment and facility design necessary to support an eff ecti ve sanitati on program.

■ Get refreshed on basic knowledge for selecti ng and applying cleaning and saniti zing chemicals while protecti ng the sanitati on worker

■ Learn from experts in the industry about the latest research as it relates to cleaning and saniti zing

SPEAKERS

John Spink, Ph.D.Associate Director and Assistant Professor of Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection Program, MSU, School of Criminal Justice

Gary Ades, Ph.DPresident, G&L Consulting Group, LLC

SPEAKER

Mary Katherine CovertFTI Consulting

SPEAKER

Warren StoneDirector of Science Policy, Compliance and Inspection, Grocery Manufacturers Association

SPONSORED BY

Network and conduct business on the Exhibition fl oor at the Opening Night Reception Tuesday from 5:00p.m.-8:00p.m. The Exhibition Hall will be open for business with nearly 150 leading companies while you enjoy food, drink, entertainment and more!

WELCOME RECEPTION ON THE EXHIBITION FLOOR

WORKSHOPS TUESDAY, APRIL 17 8:00 AM – 12:00 PM

5:00 PM – 8:00 PM

SPONSORED BY

www.foodsafetysummit.com

WORKSHOPS TUESDAY, APRIL 17 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM WORKSHOP 4

Interactive Workshop: Contemporary Issues in Retail, Foodservice & Grocery Operations: Best Practices and Practical Models Good science and broad research is key to sound practi ces. However, the age old questi on sti ll remains regarding the successful executi on of best practi ces by the actual operators. High turn over and a range of age and experience can lead to inconsistent executi on of food safety practi ces on a daily basis. This interacti ve roundtable session will focus on sharing of best practi ces and strategies for sustainment and maintenance and will apply to those who want to take practi cal applicati ons back to apply to their unique operati ons.There is much science, research and emphasis on the “farm to fork” food safety applicati ons, however, the concentrated eff orts up stream in the food supply can be negated by improper executi on at the retail level. Parti cipate in breakout stati ons focused on Time and Temperature, Training and Tools, Root Cause Analysis and Correcti ve Acti on and Behavior Modifi cati on Techniques.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ An interacti ve presentati on of best practi ces as well as practi cal, innovati ve and effi cient tools to reduce risk and assist in maintaining proper executi on

■ Presentati ons by academic and industry experts as well as break out visits to “stati ons” in the room off ering tools and informati on, and fi nishing up with a powerful sharing session

WORKSHOP 5

Interactive Food Defense Workshop With Government and Industry RepresentativesIndustry and government food defense representati ves will provide insights on food defense that are sure to compliment current industry based food defense planning eff orts, and, at the same ti me, sati sfy the appeti tes of those att endees that are in the process of developing a food defense program. The fi nal segment of this workshop will be an interacti ve facilitated exercise that will off er a glimpse into the functi on and uti lity of a recently completed food defense exercise program – the FDA’s FREE-B - that was developed in collaborati on between the government and industry food defense experts.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Conduct a high level overview of the various food defense tools and resources that have been developed by government

■ Provide known industry leaders in the food defense arena an opportunity to share their stories on how these Food Defense tools and resources have been incorporated into existi ng operati ons

■ An 'update' of the current status of the various food defense elements of the FSMA

WORKSHOP 6

How to Protect Your Company with an Effective Food Liability ProgramCreati ng a successful food liability program can be extremely diffi cult if you aren’t knowledgeable about where to start or what to do. Learn about the best way to prevent company liability through a thorough risk assessment, the proper crisis-management team you must have in place, and most importantly, how to resolve any claims that are made, including how to work with your insurance carrier.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ This is a must-att end session for anyone involved with corporate liability issues

■ Learn from professionals from the food, legal and insurance industries

SPEAKERS

Sharon WoodDirector, Food Safety & Environmental Affairs, HEB

Peter GoodOwner, Peter Good Seminars

Benjamin ChapmanAssistant Professor and Extension Food Safety Specialist, NC State University

Linda Gilardi, RSVice President Quality Assurance, Compass Group North America

Peter Hibbard REHS (invited)Senior Manager - Total Quality, Red Lobster - Suncoast Division, Darden Restaurants Inc.

O. Peter Snyder, Jr., Ph.D.Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management

SPEAKERS

USDA and FDA RepresentativesUSDA/FSIS; FDA, Food Defense Oversight Team

Hal King, Ph.D.Sr. Manager, Food Safety, Chick-fi l-A

Richard RyanAssistant Deputy Director, ADM Corporate Security

Bill RamseyDirector of Corporate Security,McCormick & Company, Inc.

Randy GordonVice President, Communicationsand Government Relations,National Grain and Feed Association

Craig Henry Ph.D.ERS Director, Deloitte & Touche LLP

SPEAKERS

Tom PackerPartner, Gordon & Rees LLP

Jerry BlackwellFounding Partner and Chairman, Blackwell Burke, PA

KEYNOTE PRESENTATIONWEDNESDAY, APRIL 1810:00 AM – 11:00 AM

Oscar GarrisonAssistant Commissioner, Division Director, Consumer Protection, Georgia Department of Agriculture

President of the Association of Food & Drug Offi cials(AFDO)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18 8:30am – 9:00am

Education Floor

9:00am – 9:30am

Education Floor

9:30am – 10:00am

Education Floor

11:00am – 11:30am

Theatre 2

11:30am – 12:00pm

Theatre 1

12:00pm – 12:30pm

Theatre 2

12:30pm-1:00pm

Theatre 1

1:00pm – 1:30pm

Theatre 2

1:30pm – 2:00pm

Theatre 1

2:00pm – 2:30pm

Theatre 2

2:30pm – 3:00pm

Theatre 1

3:00pm – 3:30pm

Theatre 2

3:30pm – 4:00pm

Theatre 1

THURSDAY, APRIL 19

8:45am – 9:15am

Theatre 1

9:30am – 10:00am

Theatre 2

10:00am – 10:30am

Theatre 1

2012 Food Safety Summit

Food

IFS

international featured

standards ®

Building an Integrated Food System:How the Food Industry and Public HealthOffi cials Must Collaborate to Succeed Oscar Garrison is a leading, soluti ons oriented, forward thinking regulator who is a vigorous proponent of food safety. Mr. Garrison is the Assistant Commissioner, Division Director, Consumer Protecti on, Georgia Depart-ment of Agriculture and President of the American Associati on of Food & Drug Offi cials (ADFO). Mr. Garrison will present a compelling commentary about the challenges and implicati ons to the food industry and regulators onthe implementati on of the Food Safety Modernizati on Act (FSMA). Learn fromone of the country’s leading Public Health Offi cials on how they will need to work with the federal and private sectors on the four key parts of FSMA:

■ Produce Safety■ Preventative Control■ Import Regulations■ New GMPs (Good Manufacturing Practices)You will not want to miss Mr. Garrison’s direct evaluati on of what regulators and the industry can learn from each other and how ulti mately both will needto work in unison to properly implement the Food Safety Modernizati on Act.

The Exhibitor Showcases are specialized, vendor-produced learning areas that provide the Summitatt endee with valuable informati on on food safety and off er soluti ons you can use today from these leading companies. Hear from Subject Matt er Expertsand learn about new and exciti ng technologies in food safety and security.FREE to all registered att endees. Plan on att endingthese informati ve and valuable sessions during your visit to the Summit’s Exhibiti on Hall!

EXHIBITOR SHOWCASETHEATRES

®

SPONSORED BY

www.foodsafetysummit.com

CONFERENCE SESSIONS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM SESSION 1

HACCP to Lean, Six Sigma Lean, Six Sigma or process improvement is typically done by business professionals whereHACCP is conducted by food safety professionals. This session will helping food scienti sts speak in Lean, Six Sigma language so they can be part of the process improvement methodology conversati on. Hazard Analysis & Criti cal Control Points (HACCP) is amanagement system in which food safety is addressed through the analysis and control of biological, chemical, and physical hazards from raw material producti on, procurementand handling, to food producti on, distributi on and consumpti on of the fi nished product. Lean, Six Sigma is a methodology that provides businesses with the tools to improve the capability of their business processes.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Food scienti sts will learn how to take HACCP language and turn it into terms of Lean, Six Sigma

■ What are criti cal diff erences and benefi ts to a food safety professional

SESSION 2

Strategies for Pre-Harvesting – Why Finished Product Testing Will Not Work The majority of food processors apply food safety interventi ons duringprocessing and verify the eff ecti veness of their programs through fi nished product testi ng. The goal of implementi ng pre-harvest food safety interventi ons and testi ng is to minimize opportuniti es for the introducti on, persistence, and transmission of human pathogens earlier in the food-supply chain.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Att endees will learn the benefi ts of addressing food safety interventi ons and testi ng at the pre-harvest level

■ What professionals should know about fi nished product testi ng

SESSION 3

Training for Results Completi ng a well-executed, detailed and comprehensive needs analysis, using proven adult learning techniques in the design and development of training programs, and linking training program results to business objecti ves and sound delivery techniques are criti cal when training for results.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ An invaluable guide through the process of assessment

■ Learn how to develop and deliver training programs designed to achieve real and measurable results

SPEAKER

Gina R. Nicholson, RSFood Safety & Food Quality SubjectMatter Expert, The Kroger Co.

SPONSORED BY

SPEAKERS

Susan LinnDirector Quality Assurance,Sysco Corporation

Will DanielsSr. Vice President, Operations and Organic Integrity, Earthbound Farm

Guy Loneragan (invited) Epidemiologist, Texas Tech University

SPONSORED BY

SPEAKERS

Peter GoodOwner, Peter Good Seminars

Victoria Griffi thPresident, Griffi th Safety Group

Bob Custard, REHS, CP-FSEnvironmental Health Manager, Alexandria Health Dept, VA

Clay HoshSenior Instructional Designer, National Restaurant Association

SPONSORED BY

Recognizing individuals and companies that have demonstrated excellence in the foodservice industry. Winners are recognized in one of eight awards categories including the major award category of lifetime achievement, which is an award for contributions of more than 20 years in advancing foodservice food safety.

NSF FOOD SAFETY LEADERSHIP AWARDS 10:00 AM – 10:15 AM (Immediately preceeding Keynote presentation)

2012 Food Safety Summit

CONFERENCE SESSIONS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18 2:30 PM – 4:00 PM SESSION 4

Imported Products – How to Minimize RiskA panel of experts will present case studies and experiences in an open dialogue on how to minimize risk with imported products. Panelists will include a member of Retail Industry Leaders Associati on, a food customer broker, a large food importer and specialtyproduct importer.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Hear from Subject Matt er Experts who will provide real world case studies on minimizing risks associated with importi ng foods

■ How to ensure foreign companies register their foods and what US foodservice companies should look for and ask companies looking to import food products

SESSION 5

Field to Fork Traceability: Tracing a Produce Item From Field to PlateTraceability remains an important initi ati ve for food companies and a key element of a comprehensive food safety program. Get the latest developments in traceability from food companies leading their segment of industry with the newest innovati ons.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Learn where the regulati on is taking traceability, how industry segments are dealing with it and novel approaches to meeti ng the demand

■ Att endees will follow food items from producti on through to consumpti on and learn how the informati on is transferred from company to company in a comprehensive system

SESSION 6

Food Safety Modernization Act Update and the Reality of Meeting the Deliverables Mandated by Congress Foodborne illness outbreaks, major food recalls and declining consumer confi dence in the US food supply is debatably the foundati on of the newly passed 2011 Food Safety Modernizati on Act (FSMA). Consumer advocates have long awaited the passage of the FSMA so att endees will hear more about how consumers view the impact of the monumental piece of legislati on as it transiti ons into regulati ons and ulti mately a safer food supply. This session will off er a congressman, a state regulator, an FDA regulator, a consumer advocate and an industry representati ve on the stage for a roundtable to discuss how FSMA will be funded and the reality of meeti ng the deliverables as mandated by Congress.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Speakers will provide a clear insight as to how Congress will address the challenge of fi nding the esti mated $3 billion required to properly implement all components of the Food Safety Modernizati on Act

■ Learn about how federal and state regulators will manage the inspecti onal requirements of FSMA as the new regulati ons addressing preventati ve controls, performance standards, traceability requirements and user fees begin to emerge

■ The food industry stakeholders will be signifi cantly impacted by the FSMA. Att endees will hear the latest industry concerns and recommendati ons to FDA during what is expected to be a spirited open discussion panel

SPEAKERS

Sharon WoodDirector, Food Safety & Environmental Affairs, HEB

Jody HallDirector Global Sourcing, HEB

Deb WhiteEVP and General Counsel at Retail Industry Leaders Association

Margaret EckertPresident, Eurofoods Regulatory Advisors, LLC

Marian RowdenPresident & CEO, American Association of Exporters and Importers

SPEAKERS

Will DanielsSr. Vice President, Operations andOrganic Integrity, Earthbound Farm

Susan LinnDirector Quality Assurance,Sysco Corporation

Shane SampelsDirector Quality Assurance, FreshPoint

SPEAKERS

Craig Henry Ph.D.ERS Director, Deloitte & Touche LLP

Congressman John Dingell (invited)

Michael TaylorDeputy Commissioner for Foods, FDA

Caroline Smith De Waal, Esq.Director, Food Safety, Center forScience in the Public Interest

Oscar GarrisonAssistant Commissioner, DivisionDirector Consumer Protection, Georgia Department of Agriculture

George Dunaif Ph.D.Vice President, Food and Consumer Products Safety, Grocery Manufacturers Association

SPONSORED BY

www.foodsafetysummit.com

The 11th annual Food Quality Award, sponsored by DuPont Qualicon and presented by Food Quality magazine, honors the dedication and achievement of a North American Quality Assurance/Quality Control team that has made exceptional contributions to food safety and consumer satisfaction with a positive impact on business results. This gala event, which begins with refreshments and networking followed by a ceremony to honor this year’s winner, is open to all registered attendees of the 2012 Food Safety Summit.

FOOD QUALITY AWARDS AND RECEPTION 5:45 PM – 7:00 PM

CONFERENCE SESSIONS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18 4:15 PM – 5:45 PM SESSION 7

How to Work with Public Health Offi cials (Retail, Manufacturing, Foodservice) This session will bring together public health offi cials and industry leaders as a means to benchmark successful relati onships that ensure food safety and regulatory compliance at the state and local jurisdicti on.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Learn how to work with public health offi cials for building consensus and promoti ng uniformity on public health and consumer protecti on issues related to the regulati on of foods and other consumer products

■ The session will also be an extension of the Keynote Presentati on to enable discussion of the important need and benefi ts of partnerships in food safety

SESSION 8

Food Fraud: Economically Motivated Intentional AdulterationThe FDA defi nes Economically Moti vated Adulterati on as the fraudulent, intenti onal substi tuti on or additi on of a substance in a product for the purpose of increasing the apparent value of the product or reducing the cost of its producti on, i.e., for economic gain. Learn what has prompted the FDA to study parameters that could be used to pre-dict and thus prevent future situati ons of economically moti vated adulterati on (EMA).

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Join a focused discussion about ways in which the food, drug, medical device and cosmeti c industries, regulatory agencies, and other parti es can bett er predict and prevent economically moti vated adulterati on

■ Hear from experts in the industry who will discuss the legal ramifi cati ons

SESSION 9

Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) - Then, Now, in the FutureThe speakers will review the history of the Global Food Safety Initi ati ve, discuss its membership, present case studies that show its impact on the global food community and review its strategy for the future. They will also discuss the need for collaborati on between stakeholders at all levels of the food system which include government, academia, accreditati on and certi fi cati on bodies, the media and consumers.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Learn about the internati onal, multi -stakeholder platf orm that GFSI provides for bridging the gap between public and private requirements by defi ning the best food safety practi ce and the way it is transparently applied in the food chain

■ Parti cipate in an interacti ve platf orm for Q&A between the audience and speakers

SPEAKERS

Oscar GarrisonAssistant Commissioner, DivisionDirector, Consumer Protection, Georgia Department of Agriculture

Hal King, Ph.D.Sr. Manager, Food Safety, Chick-fi l-A

SPEAKER

John Spink, Ph.D.Associate Director and AssistantProfessor or Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection Program, MSU, School of Criminal Justice

SPONSORED BY

SPEAKERS

Gary Ades, Ph.D.President, G&L Consulting Group

Yves ReyCorporate Quality General Manager, Danone and Chairman of GFSI

Claudine MusitelliVice President, Ethical Sourcing and Food Safety Initiatives, GFSI

SPONSORED BY

2012 Food Safety Summit

2012 Food Safety Leadership AwardsWednesday, April 18 • 10:05a.m.–11:00a.m.A continental breakfast will be served on the Exhibition Hall Floor on Thursday morning while the Exhibition Hall

is open. It’s a great time to wrap up business and network with friends and colleagues in a relaxed, informal setting.

CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST ON THE EXHIBITION FLOOR

CONFERENCE SESSIONS THURSDAY, APRIL 19 7:30 AM – 8:30 AM

SESSION 10

Roundtable: What Happened at the Conference for FoodProtection (CFP) The Conference for Food Protecti on will be taking place in Indianapolis immediately preceding The Food Safety Summit. The Conference seeks to balance the interests of regulatory, industry, academia, and consumer groups while providing an open forumfor the considerati on of ideas from any source. Though the Conference has no formal regulatory authority, it is a powerful organizati on that profoundly infl uences model laws and regulati ons among all government agencies and minimizes disparate interpretati onsand implementati on. Representati ves who att end CFP will provide a recap of the emergingissues of food safety that were addressed and recommendati ons of changes for the FDA model food code.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Hear from council members who att ended the CFP and get a fi rst hand recap of the conference

■ Recap of emerging issues that were addressed and recommendati ons of changes

SESSION 11

How to Prepare for a GFSI Audit The GFSI initi ati ve has become the recognized global benchmarking standard for conducti ngfood safety audits around the world. During this session you will hear from organizati onsthat have completed the GFSI Audit process. They will share their experiences during the preparati on, audit and post-audit phases. The organizati ons will discuss expectati ons vs. actual experience and things you “need to know” when preparing for the audit.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ What is a GFSI Audit

■ What auditi ng companies comply with the standards

■ How you can most eff ecti vely plan for this type of audit

SESSION 12

Q&A with the FDA and USDA Michael R. Taylor was named deputy commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administrati on (FDA) in January 2010. He is the fi rst individual to hold the positi on, which was created along with a new Offi ce of Foods in August 2009. Mr. Taylor is leading FDA eff orts to develop and carry out a preventi on-based strategy for food safety; plan for new food safety legislati on and ensure that food labels contain clear and accurate informati on on nutriti on.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Hear from the top government offi cial whose agency is responsible for the implementati on of the Food Safety Modernizati on Act

■ Submit a questi on for the Commissioner on www.foodsafetysummit.com so Mr. Taylor can address the needs of the audience

SPEAKER

Gina Nicholson, RSFood Safety & Food Quality SubjectMatter Expert, The Kroger Co

SPEAKER

Dennis KolsunFormer Director of Regulatory Affairs,Heinz

SPONSORED BY

SPEAKERS

Michael TaylorDeputy Commissioner for Foods, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Elisabeth Hagen, M.D. (invited)Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

9:30 AM – 11:00 AM

www.foodsafetysummit.com

CONFERENCE SESSIONS THURSDAY, APRIL 19 11:15 AM – 12:45 PM

SPEAKERS

Craig Henry, Ph.D.ERS Director, Deloitte & Touche LLP

Faye FeldsteinSenior Advisor, Deloitte Consulting,previously Offi ce Director, Emergency Response for the FDA.

Ted ElkinDirector, Offi ce of Food Defense, Communication and Emergency Response, CFSAN/FDA

Clay DetlefsenVice President & Counsel, International Dairy Foods Association

John W. BodePrincipal, John Bode LLC

SPEAKERS

Will DanielsSr. Vice President, Operations andOrganic Integrity, Earthbound Farm

Emilio Esteban, DVM, MBA,MPVM, Ph.D.Scientifi c Advisor for LaboratoryServices, USDA/FSIS/OPHS

Rajal Mody, M.D. MPH, LCDRUS Public Health Service, Epidemiologist, Enteric Diseases Epidemiology Branch, DFWED/NCEZID/CDC

Mansour Samadpour, Ph.D.Principal, IEH Laboratories

SPEAKERS

Susan LinnDirector Quality Assurance,Sysco Corporation

Ryan FriedmanFood Project Team Manager,Sensitech, Inc – Professional Services

Erik LiebermanRegulatory Counsel, Food Marketing Institute

SESSION 13

What is Reportable and What is Not Industry is required to submit mandatory food safety reports to the FDA Reportable Food Registry (RFR). Since 2009, when the RFR was launched industry has been required to comply anyti me there is reasonable probability that an arti cle of food will cause serious adverse health consequences. Many industry stakeholders have not taken advantage of the 2010 FDA RFR annual report which provides excellent insight on products presenti ng food safety risk. FDA is directed to work with their regulatory partners and industry to investi gate and address these reports. Signifi cant guidance has been provided by the FDA related to the interpretati on and specifi c situati ons that qualify a reportable food. Industry should take heed to the Food Safety Modernizati on Act which directs FDA to enhance the RFR to provide consumer oriented informati on on each report, as needed, and to require the grocery stores who sold the reported food to prominently display the informati on in a conspicuous locati on.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ This session will provide the latest insight into how FDA is proceeding with the implementati on, modifi cati ons, and public health benefi t of the RFR.

■ Industry representati ves will provide their perspecti ve on the impact of the RFR on business and improving food safety.

SESSION 15

non-O157 STEC: The Prevalence of and the Strategies andObjectives of the Industry non-O157 STEC’s are emerging as a potenti al threat to consumers and regulatoryagencies are taking a hard look to ensure public health. Learn from regulatory agencies how they are viewing non-0157 STECs in the face of the FSMA, escalati ng outbreaks and pressure from legislators. Learn from industry their approach to non-0157 STEC’s and the changing regulati on that will shape the future.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Provide att endees with an overview of the organisms called non-O157 STECS ■ Provide an update from the USDA on how the new regulati on on non-O157 STECS will be enforced ■ Provide att endees with some strategies for managing new regs and the organisms

SESSION 15

Transportation/Distribution – Food Safety Forensics What Can Happen During Transportation Secti on 111 of the Food Safety Modernizati on Act addresses the sanitary transportati onof food. In order to prepare for this new regulati on, industry must understand the impactof temperature control during the shipment of perishable products on the safety of the products. An overview of key, but oft en overlooked factors in refrigerated transportati on,insights on how to use cold chain data eff ecti vely and results from recent studies conductedon shipments of temperature sensiti ve food products will help att endees understand the variables they need to consider when evaluati ng temperature control during transit.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ Ensure your company is ready when the FSMA regulati ons are enacted ■ Speakers will explain the importance of monitoring temperatures during transit and understand how to maintain appropriate temperature control

2012 Food Safety Leadership AwardsWednesday, April 18 • 10:05a.m.–11:00a.m.Grab a boxed lunch and enjoy it in our Keynote Theatre or take it with you to the airport, it’s travel friendly!

GRAB & GO LUNCH

12:45 PM

2012 Food Safety Summit2012 Food Safety Summit

®

2012 Food Safety Summit

Where Solutions Are FoundAntimicrobialAuditingBacteriological TestingBird ControlCleaning SuppliesComputer SoftwareContract LaboratoriesConveyor Belting & Food Processing Equip.Data Collection & ReportingE.Coli TestingEnvironmental MonitoringFiltration And Filtration EquipmentFood Allergen TestsFood ForensicsFood Rotation Systems & LabelsHACCP ConsultingHygiene MonitoringIdentifi cation ProductsInformation Management SystemsIrradiationLaboratory Accreditation & ValidationLaboratory Information Mgmt SystemsLaboratory Instruments & SuppliesLiquid Filtration & Straining EquipmentListeria TestingLubricants, Food GradeMaintenance SoftwareMetal Detectors/X-Ray Inspection Equip.Pasteurization SystemsPathogen Control & DetectionPest ControlPlant AutomationPlant Ventilation & SecurityProduct Inspection EquipmentProduct RetrievalQuality Control Software (Spc)Rapid Microbiological TestingRegulatory SupportSalmonella TestingSanitation Supplies & ServicesShelf Life ExtensionSpecialized IngredientsSwabs & SamplingTemperature MeasurementTraceback SystemsTracking Services/SoftwareTransportation SecurityUltraviolet Units…And More!

Opening Night Reception • 5:00pm-8:00pmNetwork and conduct business on the Exhibiti on Hall Floor at the OpeningNight Recepti on. The Hall will be open for business while you enjoy food,drink, entertainment and more!

Luncheon • 12:00pm – 1:00pmConnect with new contacts and strengthen old relati onships while you enjoy lunch on the Exhibiti on Hall Floor.

Breakfast • 7.30am – 8.30amStart the day off right with breakfast served in this casual and relaxed setti ng on the Show Floor.

Food Factor CompetitionThe First Lego League is a program for middle school aged children to solve real world problems using science and technology.This year’s challenge is “Food Factor”, designed to highlight diff erent aspects of food handling and processing. Stop by the First Lego League competi ti on area in Aisle 600 to join in celebrati ng these team’sachievements and learn from their discoveries.

Passport to Food SafetyTAKE THE TOUR…AND REGISTER TO WIN!As you Tour the Exhibiti on Hall stop by parti cipati ng exhibitor boothsto collect a passport stamp and qualify for our prize drawing.

Expanded Exhibition Hall Hours!

SPONSORED BY

SPONSORED BY

SPONSORED BY

Opening Night ReceptionOn The Exhibition Hall Floor!

EXHIBITION HALL EXHIBITION HALL HIGHLIGHTS

www.foodsafetysummit.com

PRE-CONFERENCE TRAINING & CERTIFICATION COURSESThese training courses are not included in any other conference packages.You may purchase these individually or in addition to any full conference package.

ServSafe® Training and Certification $275

Industry-Foodborne Illness Investigation Training (I-FIIT) $350

HACCP Training & Certification $795

Includes: Opening Night Reception, sessions, exhibition hall, networking, meals

FULL CONFERENCE PACKAGESIncludes: Keynote, Sessions, Workshops (depending on package type), Exhibition Hall access, Networking and meal functions.

NON-PROFIT FOR-PROFIT Before After Before After March 2 March 2 March 2 March 2

3-Day Package $750 $825 $875 $975

Tuesday –Thursday

2-Day Package $550 $625 $775 $850

Tuesday/Wednesday or Wednesday/Thursday

1-Day Package $350 $425 $575 $650

EXHIBITION HALL ONLYAccess only to Exhbition Hall during scheduled hours. Excludes lunch served on Exhibition Hall.

Before March 2 After March 2

Retailers, Academia, Government/Military, FREE $150

Trade Associations and Foodservice

personnel/companies

All other Industry suppliers and those $250 $250

allied to the trade

HOTEL INFORMATION REGISTRATION

Embassy Suites DCFrom $286

900 10th Street, NW

Distance: 1.5 blocks

Henley Park HotelFrom: $259

926 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Distance: 1 block

Four Points by SheratonFrom: $235

1201 K Street, NW

Distance: 4 blocks

Washington Plaza HotelFrom: $259

10 Thomas Circle, NW

Distance: 5 blocks

Hamilton Crown PlazaFrom: $269

1001 14th Street, NW

Distance: 5 blocks

Doubletree HotelFrom: $239

1515 Rhode Island Ave.

Distance: 8 blocks

Book Your Hotel Now!

The Food Safety Summit has secureddiscounted room rates at the following hotels, conveniently located near the Washington DC Convention Center:

REGISTER TODAY!www.foodsafetysummit.com

Buy 2 Get 50% off all Additional RegistrationsTo qualify for the group rate:

• All registrations must be made together with the same method of payment (to do this, have 1 person register the entire group together)• All registrations must be for the same package-type *Excludes Add-on Workshops• 50% off discount applies starting with the third attendee

• Does not apply to Pre-Conference Training & Certifi cation Courses

Have Questi ons?Please contact: Tracy Kraft , 847-405-4124 or kraft t@bnpmedia.com

HOW TO REGISTER

Visit www.foodsafetysummit.com

Register Onlinewith credit card payment

Download the Registration Formand mail or fax with form of payment

EARLY-BIRDPRICING ENDS

MARCH 2

To book your hotel and for complete travel and housing information, please visit:www.foodsafetysummit.comor call 800-221-3531.

®

Solutions for Today,Planning for Tomorrow

April 17-19, 2012Washington, DCwww.foodsafetysummit.com

155 N. Pfi ngsten Rd., Suite 205Deerfi eld, IL 60015

EARLY-BIRDPRICING ENDS

MARCH 2

OWNED AND PRODUCED BY

Special advertising supplement presented by Food Safety Magazine n February/March 2012 n www.foodsafetymagazine.com

FSM2312pg27-35_Layout 1 2/1/12 5:27 PM Page 27

28 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Several industrial applications of ATP bioluminescence have been de-veloped since the 1970s. These have largely been non-specific appli-cations used primarily for the direct objective assessment of cleaning

verification and as a gross monitor of microbial biomass. Over the past 5years, significant developments have been made, leading to the first spe-cific test for the detection of low numbers of pathogenic and indicator or-ganisms in 7 hours.

The most widely used application of ATP bioluminescence is for surfacehygiene monitoring. This test is very rapid, giving results in seconds andproviding a direct objective test for cleaning verification. However, becausethis type of test looks for ATP, a universal energymolecule that is abundant in most organic materials,the test cannot differentiate between ATP from dif-ferent sources. Recently, Hygiena has developed anovel reagent technology to make an ATP test that isboth specific and sensitive to microorganisms, whilereducing the total test time to 7 hours or less. Thenew test platform is called MicroSnap™.

New Bioluminogenic AssayMicroSnap uses a novel reagent formulation where some of the essen-

tial cofactors of the standard luciferase reaction are immobilized onto aspecific substrate that can only be released inthe presence of specific enzymes. Light gen-eration will only occur if the substrate is uti-lized. The enzyme activity and copy numbersare greater than microbial numbers, thus pro-viding an early amplified signal such that oneorganism can be detected in 7 hours or less(Table 1).

The test is dependent only on the specificenzyme-substrate reaction so there is little in-terference from the sample, which has histor-ically limited the applications of ATP

bioluminescence for the detection of microorganisms. This allows for awide range of products to be tested.

A Quick and Easy-to-Use TestThe MicroSnap system consists of two easy-to-use components:

• Sample collection and an enrichment device • MicroSnap end detection deviceThe first two MicroSnap tests that have been launched and are expected tohave AOAC-RI approval in the second quarter of this year are for coliformsand E. coli. Tests for Listeria monocytogenes and total viable count are ex-pected to be launched by the end of 2012.

The sample collection and enrichment device is fitted with a swab fortesting. Alternatively, a liquid sample (1 ml) can be added directly to theswab tube. The liquid can be a suspension of solid sample prepared in thesame way and with the same materials as traditional microbiological meth-ods. After adding or collecting the sample, the device is activated by break-ing the patented Snap-Valve™ and squeezing the bulb to mix the sample

with the enrichment broth. The whole de-vice is then incubated for up to 7 hours at37 °C. At the desired time points, analiquot (0.1 ml) of enrichment culture istransferred to the device. The device is ac-tivated by breaking the valve and is incu-bated for 10 minutes at 37 °C; and thenplaced in the Hygiena hand-held lumi-nometer. Results are generated in 15 sec-onds and are displayed in relative lightunits (RLUs). Pass/fail levels can be set for"go" or "no go" decisions or enumerationcan be done.

The MicroSnap has been independ-ently verified by a leading food safety andquality laboratory and shown to have asensitivity of 89 percent and a specificity of99 percent, which is better than alternativeculture method (Table 2).

For low numbers of organisms (1-5),the detection time was confirmed as 7hours (Table 1) in both pure culture andinoculated foodstuffs, even where the tar-get organism was outnumbered morethan 10,000:1 by competing natural mi-croflora. The traditional method detected95 percent of samples, whereas MicroS-nap detected 99 percent of samples. Thespecification for many industrial applica-tions for coliforms and E .coli is lessthan10 per gram, which is effectively apresence/absence test for a 1 in 10 dilu-tion of a solid sample (<1 colony perplate). Therefore, MicroSnap gives equiva-lent results to traditional methods but in afraction of the time.

Quantitative results for contaminationgreater than 100 CFU/g are directly relatedto RLU values and obtained in 4-6 hours.Large volume liquid samples (~100 ml)such as water and beverages can also betested using MicroSnap.

Modern technology has delivered im-provements in reagent performance andinstrumentation to produce small, low-cost ATP detection systems with improvedsensitivity and repeatability. Further devel-opments of this very rapid and sensitivetechnology have now made it possible todetect specific bacteria and deliver thesame shift test results on the same instru-ments.

FOOD SAFETY INSIDER

Novel Developments in ATP Bioluminescence

ww

w.h

ygie

na.n

et

Table 1: Detection Limit of MicroSnap

Incubation Lowest time inoculum

(37 °C/hours) detected

1 500,0002 100,0003 10,0004 1,0005 1006 107 1-5

Table 2: Specificity and Sensitivity of MicroSnap

Testing methods for E. coli detectionDry media Dry media MicroSnapformat 1 format 2 E. coli

Sensitivity (%) 40 33 89

Specificity (%) 91 79 100

FSM2312pg27-35_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:04 PM Page 28

FSM2312pg27-35_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:04 PM Page 29

30 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Sanitation efforts will/can be very challenging as the “quiet assassin”biofilm forms in the environment of the food processing facility. Al-though at times the sanitation team feels like they have a “thankless

job,” they are a key component of biofilm prevention.Biofilm is composed of a complex aggregation of microorganisms that

grows on a solid sub-strate. Biofilms affectmany parts of everydaylife. People experiencebiofilm on a regularbasis: plaque that formson your teeth, causingtooth decay, the “gunk”

that clogs drains or if you walk in a stream or river, you may slip onbiofilm-coated rocks.

Sanitation ControlsAs for sanitation, biofilm can be a challenge to hinder the production

of the quality/wholesome products you plan to deliver to the consumer. Biofilms form when a bacterium adheres to surfaces in an aqueous

environment. They begin to excrete a slimy, glue-like substance (polysac-charides) that anchor them onto surfaces. Biofilms may be present onfloors, walls, pipes and drains and surfaces on equipment, including ma-terials such as stainless steel, aluminum, nylon, Teflon, etc. Food contactsurfaces such as conveyor belts, gaskets, dead spaces, as well as areasthat are hard to clean may harbor biofilms. Biofilm-forming bacteria in-clude Listeria, Salmonella, Campylobacter, Escherichia coli andPseudomonas, which may occur as mixed cultures, but often, one specieswill dominate.

Prevention of biofilms may be accomplished by avoiding conditions thatlead to cell attachment and selecting conditions that make the environ-ment unfavorable for microbial growth. However, as we typically know insanitation, this is often not possible. Proper cleaning and sanitation workbest for biofilm prevention. These processes lead up to making sure yoursanitarians are properly trained to “fight back” the bacterial culprits.

Let’s use Listeria as our example. Does your sanitation crew know thatthe size of Listeria, measured in microns, is so small compared to moldor mildew that it is like finding “a needle in a haystack?” Do they knowthat bugs multiply every 20 minutes—one bug at noon will multiply toover 2 million by 7 pm? Do they know that bacteria like to “hitchhike”around the building? Or have they heard the story of FAT TOM—Food, Acid(bugs grow at a pH range of 4.1–9.6), Time, Temperature, Oxygen, Mois-ture—these are what bacteria need for growth. Thus, the better they thinklike a “bug,” the more aware and prepared they will be to efficiently dotheir job. In addition, do they know that Listeria has the capability to“layer up” (view this as a “building block” process, one on top of theother), which implies that sanitation crews must be very disciplined withtheir scrubbing processes.

Controlling biofilm formation will take a dedicated team effort toavoid cell attachment and the “slimy, gooey like substance” that adds to

the challenges with sanitation. The tradi-tional way to assist with biofilm control isthe following:• Use a proper cleaner, such as a high

alkaline and/or high alkaline, chlori-nated cleaner

• Allow the product to have sufficientcontact time on the surface (5–10minutes)

• Agitate using mechanical/physical ac-tion

• Rinse using the proper rinse watertemperature

• Select the proper sanitizerQuaternary ammonium (quat) sanitiz-

ers are most popular, but depending onthe product you produce and other con-cerns you may have, peracetic acidand/or chlorine dioxide can be accept-able alternatives. Today’s technology con-tinues to change in order to adequatelyaddress biofilm removal. There are com-panies that supply alternative options: atwo-part system that has a quat propertyas one part and hydrogen peroxide asthe other has been proven to be success-ful. Chlorine dioxide is another viable al-ternative option. Some of these productsare specifically targeted to drains, as theyare often the most difficult to clean.

ConclusionsIn closing, the solution to biofilm con-

trol will be “your choice.” As you haveread, there are very good options avail-able, but it all comes back to the basics:understand biofilm and the areas inwhich it is prone to grow. Teach and trainyour employees so that they are moreaware of what they are looking for andwhy their responsibilities are so impor-tant to the process. Importantly, selectthe right cleaner/sanitizer program thatfits your needs and expectations. In addi-tion to using a traditional/fundamental“cleaner,” there is no substitute for thescrubbing action needed to disrupt thebiofilm. However, today’s new technologycertainly challenges that thought processand can provide alternativeproducts/processes.

As we have all come to learn, thereare no shortcuts to administering an ef-fective sanitation program. It is all aboutmaking “the right choice” in taking own-ership of your program. We are confidentthat with your knowledge and the re-sources available to you, the “rightchoice” becomes easier.

FOOD SAFETY INSIDER

Public Enemy #1: Biofilm

ww

w.s

part

anch

emic

al.c

om

FSM2312pg27-35_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:04 PM Page 30

Who can streamline your sanitation chemicals?… Customize and simplify your training procedures?… And reduce your overall production costs?

If you’re in the food industry, you want to get to knowChris Celusta, the Manager of Spartan’s Food Processing Division.

Why call Chris? He has many, many years of practical, hands-onexperience working with Food Safety and Quality Professionalslike you – in Commercial, Institutional, Industrial and Governmentsectors throughout the U.S. Chris understands what you need to make your job easier!

Chris CelustaFood Processing ManagerSpartan Chemical Company, Inc. www.spartanchemical.com

© SCC 12/11

SPARTAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. 1110 Spartan Drive Maumee, OH 43537Toll-free 1 (800) 537-8990 www.spartanchemical.com

FSM2312pg27-35_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:04 PM Page 31

32 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Today’s food and beverage processors face increasing operationalchallenges. Conserving water and energy and improving efficiencywhile protecting food safety and quality are major priorities for

many processors. To succeed, you need to

take a proactive approachand scrutinize your entireplant operations. A partnerthat understands your oper-ation and can tailor solu-tions to take advantage ofhidden opportunities be-tween interconnected sys-tems is the key to achievingmeasurable results thattranslate to a significant,sustainable business value.

Do not underestimatethe impact of taking a com-prehensive, systematic ap-proach to improving plantoperations. One global foodand beverage processor ison track to save an esti-mated 29 million gallons ofwater annually—the equiva-

lent of 3.8 billion glasses of drinking water—as a result of its partnershipwith Ecolab and Nalco, an Ecolab company. Nalco (the world’s largestsustainability services company focused on industrial water, energy andair applications) recently merged with Ecolab (a global leader in cleaning,sanitizing, food safety and infection prevention products and services) tocreate a global company that leads the way in water, hygiene and energysolutions.

Measurable Results in Sanitation ProgramTo optimize clean-in-place (CIP) system water usage, Advantis® 330, a

hot CIP program for beverage processing, helped reduce CIP water usageby 45 percent while reducing CIP labor cost by 48 percent. The innova-tive, three-step system eliminates two water-intensive CIP steps to reducethe amount of water and energy needed for cleaning and rinsing.

The processor also used several other Ecolab sanitation solutions toachieve measurable improvements, including Surpass® 100, an EPA-regis-tered product that provides bacteria and fungi control in bottle and canwarmers so warmer water does not have to be dumped daily. The antimi-crobial additive provides water, time and utility savings while reducingmicroorganism risk. The DryExx® Conveyor Management System saved 3million gallons of water annually for a five-line plant location; it also elim-

inated excess water and foam on plantfloors, thereby creating a safer workplace.Exelerate® HS liquid pretreatment re-duced cleaning time and saved water infryer boil-out cleaning while helping pro-tect workers through lower operatingtemperatures.

Cooling Water ManagementAs is common in beverage plants, the

manufacturer uses two evaporative con-densers for cooling and HVAC. By imple-menting the innovative 3D TRASAR®

cooling water automation, Nalco enabledthe systems to operate at a lower blow-down rate, thereby conserving 24 milliongallons of water per year.

Water Treatment ProcessesThe manufacturer’s water pretreat-

ment system was plagued by a numberof issues, including oxidized membranes,poor reverse osmosis (RO), excessivewater consumption and high operatingcosts. 3D TRASAR® Technology for Mem-branes provided superior dosing control,which reduced chemical use and de-creased RO reject water by 27 percent.The company saved 2 million gallons peryear while reducing its energy consump-tion (by significantly lowering operatingpump pressure).

After Nalco conducted an extensiveaudit of the wastewater treatmentprocesses, the manufacturer was able toreduce its sludge hauling by 90 percent,saving more than 1,000 million metricBritish thermal units of energy and avoid-ing 100 tons of carbon dioxide emissionsper year. The plant’s initial aeration tankflow was re-engineered and a belt presschemical approach and feed system wastailored to increase production of prof-itable animal feed sludge.

Proactive PartnershipFor companies looking to achieve

measurable results and optimize opera-tions, it pays to take a proactive approachand examine all plant processes. Byworking with the combined Ecolab-Nalcoteam, you can have confidence that everypart of your operation is protected. Ourunique Total Plant Assurance approachhelps ensure you meet your goals in foodsafety and quality, sustainability and op-erational efficiency, while providing con-sistency across your operations.

FOOD SAFETY INSIDER

Integrated Plant Approach Provides Sustainable Improvements

ww

w.e

cola

b.co

m

FSM2312pg27-35_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:04 PM Page 32

©2012 Ecolab USA Inc. All rights reserved.

Our integrated approach examines the complex connections between your systems, and then tailors solutions to help you take advantage of hidden opportunities across your entire operation. Learn how Ecolab service, solutions and expertise can help you gain a competitive advantage.

Ecolab. Everywhere It Matters.™

Discover a million reasons Total Plant Assurance pays.

Call 1 800 392 3392 or your Ecolab representative to learn what happens when expert solutions meet your business needs.

FSM2312pg27-35_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:04 PM Page 33

34 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

While food safety is the obvious goal of every food safety pro-gram, protecting your company’s assets is another essential re-quirement. The strength of your brand relies on your company’s

ability to produce a quality product—and you are on the front line.Food safety professionals have a

unique approach to their HazardAnalysis and Critical Control Points(HACCP) program; however, one thingis constant: If you don’t start with aclean plant, eventually, your foodsafety program will fail. To establish agood basis for quality food processing,a complete sanitation program—con-sisting of both cleaning and monitor-ing—must be established and regularly reviewed to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.

How to CleanA primary tool in the effective

cleaning of a food plant is the correctconcentration of cleaners and sanitiz-ers. While titration kits and chemicalstrips provide indications of chemical

concentration, neither is ideal. Titration kits are very dependent upon theuser’s training and can be time-consuming to use. Conversely, chemicalstrips are easy to use and provide quick results, but are also relatively in-accurate and have intrinsic variability of 25 to 33 percent. Additionally,neither provides a strong audit trail requiring users to manually recordtime and concentration data.

The LIGHTNING MVP from BioControl Systems, Inc. offers a more ad-vanced method for determining chemical concentrations, combining theaccuracy of titration kits with the ease of use of chemical strips. Bestknown for its accuracy in ATP detection, it also offers a reusable probethat accurately measures and automatically records the concentration ofcleaners and sanitizers. This unique method, based on the principle ofconductivity, is a fast and reliable way to measure chemical concentra-tions to ensure your cleaners and sanitizers are always mixed correctly.Users can enter the target concentrations of their chemical solutions intothe MVP software, which will provide a clear pass or fail determinationwhen these solutions are tested throughout the manufacturing process.Finally, the concentration values are saved with a time-and-date stamp inthe system’s software and can easily be downloaded into reports, ensur-ing a strong audit trail.

Did It Work?Once cleaning has been completed,

monitoring to ensure it was accom-plished properly is the next step sinceeveryone knows that, “What gets moni-tored gets done.” Changes in cleaningstaff, raw materials, chemicals, seasonal-ity and many more variables impose chal-lenges on any sanitation program andtimely and reliable feedback on its effec-tiveness is vital.

ATP monitoring using the LIGHTNINGMVP provides that immediate feedback,allowing timely intervention if the dailycleaning was ineffective. The systemmeasures the amount of ATP in organicresidue on equipment and other surfacesafter cleaning. The higher the readings, thegreater the amount of organic residue onthe surfaces that can lead to growth of mi-croorganisms. By monitoring in this fash-ion, requirements of vendors, governmentauditors and your HACCP plan are met,protecting your company’s brand.

Reporting and periodic review of asanitation program is one of the mostoverlooked yet vital aspects of any moni-toring system. While monitoring allowson the spot decisions without looking attrends, a large part of the value of anymonitoring system is lost. Trend reportingprovides insight into effectiveness ofchemicals, impact of wear and tear onequipment and trouble spots that requirea closer look.

If monitoring multiple plants, BioCon-trol’s system provides a unique service.Results from multiple plants can be sub-mitted to the company where databaseexperts compile a confidential report,compare plants and provide benchmarksagainst others in the food processing in-dustry. Without requiring busy quality as-surance departments to do complexcomputer work, multi-plant sanitationprograms can be both compared andcontrasted, allowing for optimization ofthe program and a safe, high-qualityproduct.

When it comes to protecting yourcompany’s assets, the effective imple-mentation and monitoring of a HACCPplan is critical. Behind every successfulHACCP program are effective tracking andmonitoring systems that ensure qualitycontrol criteria are consistently beingmet. Tools, like the LIGHTNING MVP pro-vide accurate and convenient monitoringand assurance that your company’s brandis protected.

FOOD SAFETY INSIDER

Monitor Sanitation and HACCPPrograms with the LIGHTNING MVP®

ww

w.b

ioco

ntro

lsys

.com

FSM2312pg27-35_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:04 PM Page 34

control your

WOrLdOne instrument. Multiple tests. One report.

Monitor hygiene and QA programs with unmatched accuracy and efficiency.

The LIGHTNING MVP offers real-time monitoring for ATP, chemical

concentration, pH, conductivity, and temperature with a single instrument,

providing everything you need to make informed quality control decisions.

Results can be viewed on screen or uploaded to a PC for reporting and

recordkeeping to ensure GMP and HACCP compliance.

Find out how the LIGHTNING MVP can streamline your testing program,

saving you money.

Visit us at www.biocontrolsys.com or contact us at 1.800.245.0113.

PATHOGEN TESTING • HYGIENE AND HACCP MONITORING • QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING

•ATP

•Concentration

•pH

•Conductivity

•Temperature

with LIGHTNING MVP®

FSM2312pg27-35_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:04 PM Page 35

36 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Antibiotics1 are drugs capable of killing bacteria

or disrupting their reproduction without harm-

ing their host, and have been used for more

than 70 years to treat people with infections and for

more than 50 years in veterinary medicine. They have

undoubtedly saved millions of lives, but the establish-

ment of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is jeopardizing

their effectiveness. Misuse, overuse and injudicious

use of this important class of drugs are being debated

by academics, veterinarians, regulators and con-

sumers alike. What all parties can agree upon is that

antibiotic resistance is a complicated issue that needs

urgent attention and continuing dialogue, as the poli-

cies of food production begin to shift to protect these

essential drugs from losing their effectiveness.

The need to promote the judicious use of antibi-

otics in human medicine has long been underway.

Many patients are now aware or are being advised by

their physicians that antibiotics will not treat viruses,

and much public information2 has been made readily

available to thwart the overprescribing of antibiotics.

Similar discussions are happening in the veterinary

By Susan Vaughn Grooters, M.P.H.

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 36

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 37

community, which is heralding more veterinary over-

sight in the treatment of food animals.

Antibiotic resistance emerges through evolution-

ary pressure. Genetic mutations are expected as bac-

teria constantly evolve to inhabit their surrounding

environments. Reservoirs for many foodborne bacte-

ria are often the gastrointestinal systems of animals.

How and what we treat animals with, be it for growth

promotion, disease treatment, disease prevention or

disease control, can help tip the selection pressures

and render chosen antibiotics useless in animal and,

ultimately, human medicine.

The emergence of antibiotic-resistant foodborne

pathogens is inherently linked to how antibiotics have

been used in food animal production. Every time an

antibiotic is used, its efficacy diminishes. Once bacte-

ria develop resistance to a given antibiotic, they often

lack susceptibility to other antibiotics that share a

similar mode of action or coexist on the same bacter-

ial plasmid. Creating policies, both in human medicine

and animal husbandry, which will minimize the over-

use and misuse of antibiotics is essential.

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 37

38 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Antibiotics are given to food animals for many reasons, such as for infectious dis-ease treatment and control, and for disease prevention before a herd- or flock-wideoutbreak of disease occurs. During the 1950s, antimicrobial use for growth promotionwas widely advocated. The practice enhanced the feed-to-weight ratio for poultry,swine and beef cattle. This buoyed the economic incentive for using subtherapeuticquantities of the antibiotics tetracycline and penicillin in dosages from a tenth to ahundredth of a therapeutic dose, and the use of antibiotics in food animal productionfor feed efficiency took root.

A Tale of Two AntibioticsIn August 1977, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) examined new evi-

dence showing that subtherapeutic use is not safe for humans, and FDA proposed towithdraw approval for all use of penicillin in animal feed. That same year in October,evidence surfaced that subtherapeutic useof tetracycline in animal feed is not safefor humans, and FDA proposed to with-draw its approval as well. Much of this thinking may have been

sparked by a study published in the NewEngland Journal of Medicine by Levy et al. in1976: “Changes in the intestinal flora offarm personnel after introduction of atetracycline-supplemented food on afarm.”3 This study tested isolates fromchickens and people on a farm and foundlow initial levels of tetracycline-resistant in-testinal bacteria. As expected under thepremise of selective pressure, within 2weeks after the chickens were fed tetracy-cline-supplemented feed, 90 percent of thechickens were excreting tetracycline-resis-tant bacteria. Yet the problem wasn’t isolated to tetracycline; many of the bacteria de-veloped resistance to four antibiotics despite their exposure to tetracycline only.Within 6 months of the administration of tetracycline-spiked feed to chickens, a ma-jority of the people from the farm were excreting antibiotic-resistant bacteria as well.Significantly, when these same persons were tested 6 months after the tetracycline-sup-plemented feed was discontinued, no detectable tetracycline-resistant organisms werefound in the majority of the farm participants. This study showed that the resistantbacteria contained transferable plasmids that conferred multiple antibiotic resistances,not just resistance to tetracycline. The evolutionary pressure imposed by the tetracy-cline-supplemented feed for multiple drug resistance in chickens extended to humansin contact with the chickens and the feed, but luckily not in statistically significantamounts to their neighbors. (Comparatively, 7 of 11 farm residents compared withonly 3 of 24 neighbors, p < 0.01, during the 5- to 6-month feeding period showedfecal samples with greater than 80% tetracycline-resistant coliforms.) The 1977 Bureau of Veterinary Medicine (today’s equivalent of the Center for Vet-

erinary Medicine—CVM—of FDA) concluded that growth-promotion uses of peni-cillin and tetracycline (two human medicines) in animal agriculture cause theemergence of resistant strains of bacteria, which can move from agriculture onto thedinner plates of the American public through contaminated food, and thus threatenthe health of the general population. For those reasons, they sought, through two No-tices of Opportunity for a Hearing (NOOH) published in the Federal Register, to re-voke approvals for penicillin and tetracycline.4 This serves to underline the fact thatFDA has consistently believed, for several decades now, that there are human healthrisks in using subtherapeutic doses of medically important antibiotics in animal agriculture.

Let’s now jump to December 22,2011, when FDA withdrew the two 1977NOOHs to reverse its approval to ad-minister penicillin and tetracycline infeed.5 Instead, FDA stated that they areclosing the dockets because they are en-gaging in other ongoing regulatorystrategies developed since the publica-tion of the 1977 NOOHs to address mi-crobial food safety issues. Although not explicitly stated, this

leads one to the conclusion that FDA isturning to the food animal agriculturalindustry to enforce judicious use itself,and asking that forthcoming voluntaryguidance 209 and its companion docu-ment 213 be followed. The FDA states in its recent decision

that it “intends to focus its efforts fornow on the potential for voluntary re-form and the promotion of the judicioususe of antimicrobials in the interest ofpublic health. Importantly, this strategyleaves open the possibility of pursuingwithdrawal proceedings at a later time ifFDA’s proposed strategy does not yieldsatisfactory results.”5

Reading Tea LeavesSo what does the future look like?

Based on the timeline provided (see “ATimeline of Antibiotic Regulation,” p.40), anything is possible. What can be as-certained is that using medically impor-tant antimicrobial drugs to increaseproduction in food animals is not con-sidered by FDA to be judicious use.Guidance 209 has not been formally is-sued. However, according to 209, theDraft Guidance “The Judicious Use ofMedically Important AntimicrobialDrugs in Food-Producing Animals” givesvast insight into what can be expected. FDA defines judicious use as “using an an-timicrobial drug only when necessaryand appropriate.” The effects of med-ically important antibiotics used asgrowth promoters in food animals andtheir effects on increasing antibiotic re-sistance are clear, and FDA makes somestrong statements in the guidance draftto tackle this practice. “Antimicrobial drugs that are impor-

tant for treating infectious diseases inpeople, particularly infections caused bybacteria” are considered the working def-

“The emergence of

antibiotic-resistant

foodborne pathogens is

inherently linked to how

antibiotics have been

used in food animal

production.”

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/2/12 2:49 PM Page 38

Together, we can reduce E.coli O157.

*This product license is conditional. Efficacy and potency test studies are in progress.1 Thomson DU, Loneragan GH, Thornton AB, Lechtenberg KF, Emery DA, Burkhardt DT, Nagaraja TG. Use of a siderophore receptor and porin proteins-based vaccine to control the burden of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2009;6:871-877.

All brands are the property of their respective owners. ©2011 Pfizer Inc. All rights reserved. SRP11028

For the first time, a vaccine can help reduce the prevalence and shedding of Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157 much earlier in the chain — in the cattle — creating a way for cattle producers and veterinarians to team up with packers, retailers and consumers. Escherichia Coli Bacterial Extract vaccine* with SRP® technology, used at the feedlot, has been shown to reduce the number of cattle entering the plant with E. coli O157 by 85 percent.1 Less E. coli O157 entering the plant enhances your efforts to help eliminate foodborne pathogens. To learn more, visit www.SRPEcoli.com.

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 39

40 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

inition in the draft of medically important antimicrobial drugs. An excerpt from the“Questions and Answers on FDA’s Draft Guidance on the Judicious Use of MedicallyImportant Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals” clears up any miscon-ceptions of FDA’s position on growth promotion:

“Is using medically important antimicrobial drugs to increase production in food-producing animals a judicious use?

No. FDA thinks that using medically important antimicrobial drugs to increase productionin food-producing animals is not a judicious use.”

It is therefore reasonable to infer that the FDA is looking to industry to rein in theuse of medically important antibiotics for growth promotion/feed efficiency purposes.To evaluate antimicrobial resistance associated with antimicrobial drugs used in food-producing animals, FDA relies on the current approach outlined in the Guidance forIndustry (GFI) 152, “Evaluating the Safety of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs withRegard to Their Microbiological Effect on Bacteria of Human Health Concern.” GFI152 recommends several measures to reduce the risk of antibiotic resistance.

Risk Analysis—Lack of Resources Guidance 152 lays out a risk analysis methodology and the recommended process

for evaluating antimicrobial drugs for use in food animals as they have the potential tocause antibiotic-resistant illnesses in humans. Considered in the risk-ranking schemesare food consumption and food contamination data, as well as the duration of druguse and its intended administration, be it on individual, select or entire flocks or herdsof animals. Out of scope of the guidance are the concerns over residues in food of ani-mal origin.6 Instead, it focuses on the potential that antimicrobials used in food ani-mals contribute to the emergence of antibiotic strains of foodborne bacteria. “TheFDA believes that human exposure through the ingestion of antimicrobial-resistantbacteria from animal-derived foods represents the most significant pathway for human

exposure to bacteria that have emergedor been selected as a consequence of an-timicrobial drug use in animals.”7

Perhaps the most important compo-nent of GFI 152 is found in the Appen-dix, where antimicrobial drugs areranked Critically Important, Highly Im-portant or Important, according to theirsignificance in human medicine.7 An-timicrobial drugs that are approved foruse in animals are marketed as prescrip-tions (Rx), over the counter or under vet-erinary feed directive. FDA asserts thatfor certain antimicrobial drugs, veteri-nary supervision is essential in ensuringjudicious, and safe, use.

The guidance describes some exam-ples of risk management steps, and howsteps might be applied to manage esti-mated risk levels. Three categories (1, 2and 3) are given to associate the overalldrug risk estimation (high, medium orlow). In general, Category 1 includesthose drugs ranked “high” in the risk es-timation, Category 2 includes thoseranked “medium” and Category 3 as“low.”

A Timeline of Antibiotic Regulation

Researched & designed by Stanley E. Rutledge fromSTOP based on information compiled by KAW.

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 40

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 41

Important along with cephamycins, and all other fourth-generation cephalosporins aredeemed Highly Important. Cephalosporins are among the most significant antibioticsin human medicine. Two populations that are most at risk of foodborne illness arechildren and immune-compromised individuals, and they are also the patients most inneed of an effective antibiotic treatment for salmonellosis with minimal side effects.Indeed, ceftriaxone or cefotaxime, third-generation cephalosporins, are often the treat-ment of choice for severely complicated pediatric salmonellosis because unlike otherantibiotics, such as fluoroquinolones and tetracyclines, there are no warnings for usein children. Cephalosporins are part of the broader group of antibiotics known as b-lactams. Other b-lactams include penicillins as well as tetracyclines, and all work to de-

What GFI 152 has done is pave theway for recent and future FDA actions.As illustrated in the guidance, drugs inCategory 1 are subject to the most re-strictive use conditions as they are asso-ciated with a high-risk ranking. For drugsthat are to be marketed as Rx only, ex-tralabel use restrictions would exist, aswell as postapproval monitoring by theNational Antimicrobial Resistance Mon-itoring System (NARMS). GFI 152 alsooutlines that certain Category 2 drugs(medium risk) may be restricted by limit-ing extralabel use. “Drugs considered tobe of high concern (with regard to po-tential human health impact) would typ-ically be associated with more restricteduse conditions.”

Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regu-lations permits FDA to prohibit the ex-tralabel use of an approved new animaldrug or class of drugs in food-producinganimals if they determine that “the ex-tralabel use of the drug or class of drugspresents a risk to the public health.”

However, every page of Guidance 152cautions that it “Contains Non-BindingRecommendations” and further statesthat “guidances describe the Agency’scurrent thinking on a topic and shouldbe viewed only as guidance, unless spe-cific regulatory or statutory requirementsare cited. The use of the word ‘should’ inAgency guidances means that somethingis suggested or recommended, but notrequired.” Given such ambiguities, it islittle wonder that advocates for reformshave long been frustrated. FDA has triedfor years to rein back what it deems inap-propriate usage. Fluoroquinolones aside,the agency’s initiatives seem to fail togain sufficient support to achieve mean-ingful regulations. Lack of funding or re-sources, or pressures external to theagency, may all be stymieing forces.

History in the MakingRecently, a breakthrough and a show

of consistent concern came when FDAissued an order prohibiting certain ex-tralabel uses of some cephalosporin an-timicrobial drugs in production of majorspecies of food animals. In GFI 152,third-generation cephalosporins are clas-sified as Critically Important, while first-and second-generation are classified as

Silliker, Inc.111 E. Wacker DriveSuite 2300Chicago, IL 60601 / USAemail. info@silliker.com

www.silliker.com email. info@silliker.com

Advancing Food Science Throughout the Global Food Chain

Silliker is dedicated to helping companies worldwide !nd practical solutions to food safety and quality challenges throughout the supply chain.Our commitment to helping processors, retailers and distributors !nd workable solutions has made us the trusted food safety and quality resource of companies around the globe. As the leading international network of accredited laboratories, we deliver fast and reliable results.Email us today to receive our “Food Safety Modernization Act: Marking a New Era in U.S. Food Safety” white paper.

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 41

42 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

stroy bacteria in a similar fashion. The World Health Organization considers bothpenicillins and tetracyclines to be Critically Important in human medicine, unlike theFDA, which considers them only Highly Important. Another drug class, fluoro-quinolones, considered Critically Important by FDA, was successfully banned for ex-tralabel use in food animals and any use was banned in poultry over concerns ofantibiotic resistance.

Antibiotic resistance impacts public health when people consume food contami-nated with antimicrobial-resistant bacteria resulting from the exposure of food animalsto antimicrobials, including cephalosporins. Gram-negative bacteria acquire or haveinnate resistance to cephalosporin through b-lactamases, which inactivate the drug it-self.8 CMY-2, a type of AmpC enzyme, and the extended-spectrum b-lactamases(ESBLs) are found on the chromosomes ofmost Enterobacteriaceae and on plasmids inSalmonella, Escherichia coli and other Enter-obacteriaceae. CMY-2 and ESBLs provide resistance to first-, second- and third-gener-ation cephalosporins. CMY-2 is the b-lac-tamase most associated with Salmonellafrom isolates that display resistance to cef-tiofur and increasing resistance to ceftriax-one.9–11 ESBLs present in bacteria ofhuman concern include CTX-M, which isplasmid-mediated and has the potential toprovide resistance to all cephalosporins.Although now dominant only in Europeancountries, CTX-M enzymes are gaining afoothold in the United States but do notyet predominate.12, 13 When mobilized,CTX-M enzymes often can be found onlarge multidrug-resistant plasmids. FDA isconcerned that cephalosporin resistancemay escalate as CTX-M becomes morewidespread. Severe bacterial infections resistant to cephalosporins, without FDA’s con-tinued action, may face treatment failures from ineffective antibacterial regimens, in-creasing the likelihood of death.

Of particular concern is the evidence of cross-resistance among drugs in the broadcephalosporin class and the increase in reports of CMY-2 and CTX-M b-lactamases,which transfer cephalosporin resistance between enteric bacteria.9 The surveillance ef-forts of both the NARMS as well as the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicro-bial Resistance Surveillance have noted both in animal and human isolates theacquired resistance to b-lactams. Resistance to ceftiofur corresponds with resistance toceftriaxone, conferred by CMY-2, and provides resistance to first-, second- and third-generation cephalosporins. Resistance to ceftiofur compromises the efficacy of ceftri-axone, a first-line therapy for treating human salmonellosis. CMY-2, in addition toproviding ceftiofur and ceftriaxone resistance, conveys resistance to many other b-lac-tams, including ampicillin and amoxicillin.14 The concern over the pervasiveness andrange of CMY-2 in the ceftiofur and ceftriaxone surveillance data helps provide thebasis for FDA’s action as it supports the findings that cephalosporin use in food ani-mals is contributing to an upsurge in cephalosporin-resistant pathogens.15

The recent issuance is not an all-out prohibition of cephalosporin use in food ani-mals. Many have complained that it is watered down compared with what was putforth in 2008, while some former critics now indicate that it is more reasonable.

Prohibition in the 21st CenturyAs stated in the prohibition issuance, and in many agency documents in regard to

the use of antimicrobial drugs in animals, “When considering the foodborne pathway,

the potential for human exposure to an-timicrobial-resistant pathogens is signifi-cantly less for food derived from minorspecies than it is for food derived fromthe food-producing major species. Theexposure potential is less in part becausethe amount of food derived from cattle,swine and poultry is much greater thanthe amount of food derived from sheep,goats and aquaculture, the minor speciesfrom which the most food is derived.”Minor species are defined as animalsother than cattle, swine, chickens,turkeys, horses, dogs, cats and humans.At this time, FDA is not planning toprohibit extralabel use of cephalosporinsin food-producing minor species becausethey do not believe that this use repre-sents a significant risk to the publichealth, since these species are consumedless frequently.16 Also, becausecephalosporins are approved for use insheep and goats, there is less potentialfor extralabel use in these species, ac-cording to the agency. Although peoplemay consume these animal species lessoften, any practice that selects for resist-ance genes is concerning.

The ban is slated to officially take ef-fect on April 5, 2012. Under Title 21 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations, parts530.21 and 530.25, the FDA order ofprohibition applies to certain extralabeluses of the cephalosporin class of antibi-otics in food animals. This is a result offindings that such uses are likely to causean adverse event. The order of prohibi-tion states that excluding cephapirin,cephalosporins are prohibited from ex-tralabel use in cattle, swine, chickens andturkeys for disease prevention purposes.Cephapirin is one of two cephalosporindrugs approved for use in food animals.Prohibition in the major species of foodanimals prevents using cephalosporins atunapproved doses. The ban prohibitsusing cephalosporins at unapproved fre-quencies and durations, and for unap-proved routes of administration. Alsoprohibited is use of cephalosporins whenthe drug is not approved for a particularspecies and production class. Said an-other way, since ceftiofur is the onlyother cephalosporin drug approved foruse in food animals, extralabel use ofceftiofur is permitted in food-producing

“...FDA has consistently

believed, for several

decades now, that there

are human health risks in

using subtherapeutic

doses of medically

important antibiotics in

animal agriculture.”

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/2/12 12:58 PM Page 42

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 43

more recent media coverage and public meetings, food safety concerns over antibioticresistance are increasing. We are beyond the hypothetical “if” people contract antibi-otic-resistant foodborne infections. As recent outbreaks prove, we are in a crisis.

Outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant infections occurring from food products in 2011brought the concern again to the forefront of consumers’, and food companies’,awareness as regulators modified their recall notices to alert the public to the dangersof antibiotic resistance in meat and poultry products.

Notable recalls of 2011 include the following: • December’s “Northeastern Grocery Chain Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to

Possible Salmonella Contamination,” in which we learn that the outbreak strain ofSalmonella Typhimurium initially tested resistant to multiple commonly prescribedantibiotics, including drug classes such as b-lactams, aminoglycosides andcephalosporins. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and In-spection Service (FSIS) along with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC) also noted that the strain’s resistance can “increase the risk of hospitaliza-tion or possible treatment failure in infected individuals.”17

• September’s “Arkansas Firm Recalls Ground Turkey Products Due to Possible Sal-monella Contamination,” which noted in an update on the 27th that the sample ofground turkey referenced in the September 11 recall was confirmed as the Salmo-nella Heidelberg outbreak strain (XbaI PFGE pattern 58/BlnI pattern 76) and FSIShad lab results that indicated the isolate is resistant to ampicillin, gentamicin, strep-tomycin and tetracycline. FSIS noted that “this antibiotic resistance may be associ-ated with an increased risk of hospitalization or possible treatment failure ininfected individuals.”18

• The August 3 recall “Arkansas Firm Recalls Ground Turkey Products Due to Possi-ble Salmonella Contamination,” which stated that 36 million pounds of ground

major species to treat or control an ex-tralabel disease indication, but onlywhen it is approved for and labeled foruse in that particular species and produc-tion class. Prophylactic use of ceftiofur istherefore not permitted in major speciesof food animals. Additionally, ceftiofuris to be administered only at dose levels,frequencies, durations and routes of ad-ministration that are clearly stated on ap-proved labeling for that particularspecies and production class. Othercephalosporin drugs, apart from ceftio-fur and cephapirin, are prohibited for alluses in the major species of food ani-mals.

It is hoped that the ban will have apositive public health impact and helpend the use of cephalosporins that areproven to cause resistant infections inpeople.

In the Midst of OutbreaksThe warnings and calls for action

have been coming for years. From theSwann Report issued in 1969 to the

Engineered Metal Detection

You have a lot on your mind when it comes to plant fl oor safety. A compromised quality control program can cause costly downtime and jeopardize worker safety - adding up to big fi nes.

Find out why leading food processors are switching to Lomont’s new signage options. Contact Carl,

carlf@lomont.com or call 800.776.0380, ext. 1589.

LomontI M T

IN-MOLD TECHNOLOGIESA PRODUCT OF LOMONT MOLDING, INC.

www.lomontimt.com

Detectable: compound is molded into plastic for detection by metal and X-ray inspection machines

Durable: substrate-imbedded solid injection molded graphics last longer than standard materials

Proven: 4,000 hrs. of exhaustive fi eld testing; QUV accelerated weathering and liquid penetrant inspection

Customized: fl exible graphic capabilities optimize visual management and compliance programs

Compliant: engineered to comply with your food safety programs

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 43

44 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

turkey products may have been contaminated with a multidrug-resistant strain ofSalmonella Heidelberg and followed a July 29 FSIS Public Health Alert initiated dueto concerns about illnesses caused by Salmonella Heidelberg.

• The April 2011 recall “Minnesota Firm Recalls Turkey Burger Products Due to Pos-sible Salmonella Contamination.” Implicated in this recall was Salmonella serotypeHadar. Although not noted in the FSIS recall, CDC in its outbreak reportingnoted, “The outbreak strain of Salmonella Hadar is resistant to many commonlyprescribed antibiotics, which can increase the risk of hospitalization or possibletreatment failure in infected individuals.” Salmonella Hadar was resistant to at leastampicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, cephalothin and tetracycline. This recallsparked much consumer concern be-cause of the labeling “All Natural.” Thevast majority of the consuming publicdoesn’t recognize that the definition of“natural” would exempt antibiotics.19

Therefore going against most con-sumers’ logic, the routine use of antibi-otics is a “natural” way to raise foodanimals. The time to address the problem of an-

tibiotic-resistant foodborne infections islong overdue. How many more cases areneeded before the federal government im-poses stricter regulations?

The U.S. government can take immedi-ate steps to help further protect the publichealth. Draft Guidance for Industry 209should be finalized and issued by FDA toprotect against the inappropriate use of an-tibiotics as growth promoters or for feedefficiency in food animals; not doing so ina timely manner gives the impression toconsumers that the Obama administrationis not interested in addressing this public health emergency.

How many more hospitalizations from antibiotic-resistant foodborne infectionsdoes it take before large numbers of industry leaders proactively work to protect theirbrands and the consumers who trust in the safety of their purchase?

Brand Protection and Practices: A Way Forward Consumers are showing more interest in the source of their food and, in the case

of food animals, how they are raised. The food industry is now, more than ever, recog-nizing that “food safety” means more than just microbiological control—it also incor-porates consumer perceptions of what is considered safe.

Rather than enduring lawsuits and the pitiless media, meat and poultry industryleaders can proactively adopt practices and publicly declare their intentions to reduceuse of medically important antibiotics. Industry leaders who take responsibility andpride in their products should declare their policies and make consumers aware of thepractices they employ. Corporations should publish on their websites and in printedmaterials their policies on antibiotic usage, state support for judicious use and high-light that antibiotics are not being used for growth promotion. Knowing that the mostimportant antibiotics should be preserved for human medicine, industry leaders maywant to voluntarily restrict use of classes of antibiotics—tetracycline, penicillin,macrolide, lincosamide, streptogramin, aminoglycoside and sulfonamide—except forthe treatment of sick or diseased animals.

The outlined principles come from legislation introduced by Congress’s only mi-crobiologist, Representative Louise Slaughter of New York. The Preservation of Antibi-

otics for Medical Treatment Act(PAMTA) has historically received bipar-tisan support, yet has not been able togain enough traction to make its waythrough a divided Congress.

A novel idea would be for industryleaders, many of whom read this publica-tion and who are concerned about theinjudicious use of antibiotics, to adoptthe principles of PAMTA well in advanceof any forthcoming government regula-tions. This enlightened self-interest mayimprove their market base, public per-ception and ultimately their product. n

Susan Vaughn Grooters, M.P.H., serves as direc-

tor of research and education at STOP Foodborne

Illness (formerly S.T.O.P. Safe Tables Our Priority)

and is an executive committee member for the

coalition Keep Antibiotics Working (KAW). She

holds a B.S. in food sciences and nutrition from the

University of Vermont and an M.P.H. in epidemiol-

ogy from the University of Massachusetts–

Amherst. An inducted member of Delta Omega,

the National Honorary Society for Public Health,

Grooters was also recently appointed by USDA

Secretary Tom Vilsack as the consumer representa-

tive for the National Advisory Committee on Micro-

biological Criteria for Foods.

References1. “Antibiotic” is the commonly used term to de-scribe antibacterial drugs and will be used assuch in this article. However, the author wouldlike to acknowledge the more strict definition of“antibiotic” as being a compound that is natu-rally produced or derived from a fungus orother microorganism that has the ability to in-hibit bacterial reproduction that causes illnessesin humans and animals. However, some anti-bacterial drugs may be synthetically producedand derived compounds (e.g., not “naturally”occurring, or produced by a fungus, etc.) andtherefore would not meet the strict definition ofthe term “antibiotic.”2. www.cdc.gov/getsmart.3. Levy S.B., G.B. FitzGerald and A.B. Macone.1976. Changes in intestinal flora of farm person-nel after introduction of a tetracycline-supple-mented feed on a farm. N Engl J Med 295(11):583–588.4. Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing (NOOH)that the agency published in the Federal Regis-ter on Tuesday, August 30, 1977, for penicillinand a companion NOOH revoking approval fortetracycline (published in the Federal Register

“Antibiotic resistance

impacts public health

when people consume

food contaminated with

antimicrobial-resistant

bacteria resulting from

the exposure of food

animals to

antimicrobials...”

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 44

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 45

Recall_100_2011_Release/index.asp.18. www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_071_2011_Release/index.asp.19. According to the FSIS, “natural” is defined as: “A product containing no artificial ingredient oradded color and is only minimally processed. … The label must include a statement explaining themeaning of the term natural (such as ‘no artificial ingredients; minimally processed’).”

For more information on FDA food safety legislation, please visit

www.foodsafetymagazine.com.

Friday, October 21, 1977).5. Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246(Thursday, December 22, 2011), 79697–79701.6. Residue vs. resistance. This article purpose-fully did not address drug residues that may bepresent in foods of animal origin. The residue vi-olator list, kept by the USDA, records both pro-ducers and violations. This helps not only tokeep a public record, but also to prevent actualdrugs showing up in the food that the publicconsumes. Although this might elicit the “yuck”factor, withdrawal times and other practices thatare in place help mitigate the risk that someonewould actually “eat” antibiotics in any givenmeal.7. www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/ucm052519.pdf. 8. Livermore, D.M. 1995. Beta-lactamases in lab-oratory and clinical resistance. Clin MicrobiolRev 8:557–584.9. Li, X.Z. et al. 2007. b-lactam resistance and b-lactamases in bacteria of animal origin. Vet Mi-crobiol 121:197–214.10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC). 2010. National Antimicrobial ResistanceMonitoring System for enteric bacteria(NARMS): Human isolates final report, 2008. At-lanta, Georgia: U.S. Dept. of Health and HumanServices.11. Glenn, L.M. et al. 2011. Analysis of antimicro-bial resistance genes detected in multidrug-resis-tant Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimuriumisolated from food animals. Microb Drug Resist17:407–418. 12. Lewis, J.S. et al. 2007. First report of theemergence of CTX-M-type extended-spectrumbeta-lactamases (ESBLs) as the predominantESBL isolated in a U.S. health care system. An-timicrobial Agents Chemother 51:4015–4021.13. Sjolund-Karlsson, M. et al. CTX-M–producingnon-typhi Salmonella spp. isolated from hu-mans, United States. Emerg Infect Dis 17:97–99.14. Zhao, S. et al. 2009. Beta-lactam resistance inSalmonella isolated from retail meats in theUnited States: NARMS: 2002–2006. Appl EnvironMicrobiol 75:7624–7630.15. Zhao, S. et al. 2001. Identification and expres-sion of cephamycinase blaCMY genes in Es-cherichia coli and Salmonella isolates from foodanimals and ground meat. Antimicrobial AgentsChemother 45:3647–3650.16. Minor species of food animals include deer,bison, elk, rabbit, duck, goose, quail, pheasant,partridge, pigeon, ostrich and emu. 17. www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/

AIB

The AIB Food Protection Advantage

Leverage the synergies of the best global Food Protection products and services to lower your risk and protect your company’s brands

Let AIB provide the INTEGRATED single-source solution

to your Food Protection needs.

800-633-5137 www.aibonline.org

AIB Inspection

AIB FoodProtection Education

GFSIAudit

Schemes

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 45

46 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

FFieldale Farms is a privately held, family-owned company whose corporate headquartersis in Baldwin, GA. The company is a private-label poultry products manufacturer and sup-plier to various foodservice companies.

The fully integrated company operatesthree hatcheries, two feed mills, two slaughterfacilities, one further processing plant, one cen-tralized laboratory, three water treatment facilitiesand two rendering plants. Fieldale Farms is the first poultryproducer to have its own microbiology and chemistry labora-tory certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).The centralized laboratory accreditations are ISO 17025 for bi-ological testing, USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service(FSIS) Laboratory Accreditation Program on Food Chemistryand Residue Chemistry and the Agricultural Marketing ServiceLaboratory Program. In this laboratory, approximately 25,000tests are performed monthly. The samples range from feeds,water, waste water, raw poultry, further processed, fully cooked,mechanically separated chicken, diagnostic cultures from field,environmental samples such as sponges, swabs, litter, dragswabs, chick box liners, air settling plates from hatchery, con-

tact plates from hatchery environment andblood samples for antibody titers.

As the company contracts with over 1,300broiler houses, employs around 4,400 person-nel and slaughters approximately 3 millionchickens per week, the need to control andoversee the safety and quality of the productsis paramount.

Best Practices GoalsFieldale Farms has instituted the following above and be-

yond best practices into their everyday operations with the fol-lowing goals:• Mitigate food safety risks• Ensure high quality products• Meet customer specifications• Exceed customer expectations• Grow business

Achieving Best PracticesOur management is seriously committed to the hiring of

competent quality and food safety personnel and puts these in-

Best Food Quality and Safety Practices for Poultry

SPOTLIGHT: MEAT AND POULTRY By Veny Gapud, M.S.

A look at

Fieldale Farms, a

poultry products

manufacturer and

supplier.

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 46

• make bold progress • thermoscientific.com/foodsafety

A simple sandwich reflects the complexity of ensuring food safety. Even the healthiest food can contain

pathogens, veterinary drug residues, adulterants and pesticides. A favorite combination of meats

and produce presents difficult matrices, requiring fresh solutions, and a more effective approach to

analysis. Count on us for the experience, research methods and range of technologies to target food

safety threats inside and out.

Complex threats

complete solutions

© 2

012

Ther

mo

Fish

er S

cien

tific

Inc.

All

right

s re

serv

ed. C

opyr

ight

s in

and

to th

e fo

od s

afet

y im

age

are

owne

d by

a

third

par

ty a

nd li

cens

ed fo

r lim

ited

use

only

to T

herm

o Fi

sher

Sci

entifi

c by

iSto

ck.

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 47

48 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

dividuals in charge of food safety. Managing risk is part of man-aging the business.1 These individuals are therefore responsiblefor seeing that best practices are both successfully implementedand achieved.

CertificationAll Fieldale Farms’ processing facilities are USDA-inspected

facilities. In addition to meeting the USDA performance stan-dards to ensure safe and wholesome products, the company iscommitted to continuous improvement to meet their cus-tomers’ specifications and exceed their expectations. To do this,the company has all its processing plants Safe Quality Food(SQF) certified. More retailers and foodservice operators are re-quiring their suppliers and distributors to have certifications todemonstrate their compliance with food safety regulations at allstages of the supply chain in both domestic and global markets.SQF, British Retail Consortium (BRC) or Food Safety SystemCertification (FSSC) 22000 are all recognized by the GlobalFood Safety Initiative.2

SQF is a comprehensive quality management and foodsafety certification system for food processors, wholesalers anddistributors. The BRC Global Standard for Food Safety is de-signed for companies supplying retailer-branded food products.BRC is a Hazard Anaylsis and Critical Control Points(HACCP)-based system and requires senior management com-mitment and continual improvement. FSSC 22000 is a com-plete food safety certification system for the foodmanufacturing industry that is based on ISO 22000, PAS 220and ISO 22003.3

Cold-chain ManagementAdditionally, the company works continuously with its cus-

tomers to execute an effective cold-chain management pro-gram. An effective partnership between supplier and customeris vital for program success. Regardless of the level of integrityof finished products leaving a manufacturing facility, failure tostore at the warehouse or transport on trucks within the correct

temperature range will compromise both safety and quality es-pecially if the product is refrigerated or frozen.4 Investment intemperature recorders that monitor the shipping condition ofproducts in transit is becoming a common partnership practicefor customers. Currently, Fieldale Farms randomly monitorsthe shipping temperatures of products in transit to our cus-tomers. Our cold-chain management program promotes cus-tomer satisfaction by ensuring that products are shipped at theproper temperature; ensuring that monitors are retrieved so thatrecorded data are reviewed in a timely manner to facilitateprompt action and corrective measures; ensuring effective tem-perature record keeping and documentation; and mitigatingfood safety risks. By integrating monitoring and tracking withan emphasis on driving meaningful and measurable process im-provements, the right product can be in the right place at theright time under the right conditions. An example of FieldaleFarms’ program/process flow chart can be seen in Figure 1.

Product EvaluationAnother practice implemented for best practices is the evalu-

ation of customer products. Every Friday, Fieldale personnelfrom upper management, the quality and food safety team,production from all processing plants, sales and marketing andR&D gather and evaluate products produced during the weekprior to shipping to customers. This is in addition to the on-line evaluation performed during the actual processing of theproduct. Products are randomly selected and evaluated forphysical and sensory attributes. Proper packaging and labelingare also verified. Product evaluation session schedules are ro-tated weekly to allow night shift quality control and productionpersonnel to participate in the evaluation sessions. The qualityand food safety team believes that when both day and nightshift personnel are involved in the evaluation process, opportu-nities for improvement can be better identified and addressed.

Such an evaluation allows the company to be familiar withcustomer product specifications and expectations, identify op-

portunities for improvement anddemonstrate team efforts to con-sistently uphold quality and de-liver safe products to customers.

Label AuditingIn the first 6 months of 2011,

there were 27 recalls nationwidefor undeclared ingredients; 20were the results of undeclared al-lergens. In the preceding 2 yearscombined, FSIS issued recalls for32 undeclared allergens. Mislabel-ing for one of the eight main aller-gens (i.e., wheat, Crustaceanshellfish, eggs, fish, peanuts, milk,tree nuts and soybeans) typicallyresults in a Class 1 recall becauseof the associated public healthrisk.5

SPOTLIGHT: MEAT AND POULTRY

Figure 1: Fieldale Farms’ Program/Process

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 48

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 49

Unlike ready-to-eat (RTE) food prod-ucts, which are safe to consume regard-less of the form when purchased bycustomers, not-ready-to-eat (NRTE)products require cooking by consumersfor safety. While most RTE meat andpoultry products are covered by specificlethality performance standards in FSISregulations, NRTE products are not,since they contain at least one ingredientfor which the elimination of vegetativepathogens such as Listeria monocytogenesand Salmonella cannot be assured.6 It iscritically important that products are la-beled correctly to prevent foodborne ill-ness outbreaks.

Labels must be checked to ensure ac-curacy of the following:• Calculation of all marination and in-

gredients (must add up to 100%)• Ingredient declaration including

allergens• Nutrition labels• Cooking and handling instructions• All product claims, that is, gluten

free, antibiotic free, all vegetarian diet,etc. (process controls are required toverify accuracy of claims).Shelf Life StudiesConducting shelf life studies helps

validate the length of time that a productwill remain safe and wholesome for con-sumption. It must have “acceptable qual-ity” level or have no change in desiredsensory characteristics over the entire lifeof a product. Storage of products atproper temperatures at all times is a keyin extending product shelf life. Using athird-party laboratory to perform shelflife studies helps determine the properstorage temperature and shelf life ofpoultry products. Customers expect sup-pliers to provide accurate informationwhen it comes to shelf life.

Education and TrainingQuality and food safety, production

and maintenance personnel are encour-aged to attend training sessions, work-shops and conferences on food safety,that is, HACCP, SQF, Labeling, etc. Keypersonnel of the quality and food safetyteam must attend organizations’ tradeconferences and workshops, participatein committees and network with other

SPOTLIGHT: MEAT AND POULTRY

nt

food safety colleagues and leaders in the field to deepen their knowledge of new tech-nologies, emerging trends, issues, solutions and evolving public concerns. This helpsimprove corporate knowledge and decision-making effectiveness.1

Visiting Customer EstablishmentsQuality and food safety personnel must regularly visit their customers’ establish-

ments as patrons to better understand the experience of consumers. Key quality assur-ance team members and the sales team must regularly visit their customer facilities toassist with efforts to identify opportunities for improvement. Teamwork and strongpartnerships with customers are essential to business success. (continued on page 65)

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 49

50 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

DDespite solid scientific evidence supportingtheir safety, food ingredients have been thesubject of myths and misperceptions fordecades. In recent years, however, the in-creased interest by consumers in “sustainable,”organic and “natural” foods seems to have hadan equal and opposite effect on foods per-ceived to be “processed.” Perhaps no other as-pect of food is more highly associated withprocessed foods than foods containing “artifi-cial” ingredients. In addition, the benefits of food ingredients

for food safety, nutrition and health are oftenoverlooked, or aren’t even considered. Foodingredients perform a variety of useful func-tions in foods that are often taken for granted, such as to main-tain or improve food safety, freshness and nutritional value andto improve taste, texture and appearance.

Consumer Awareness Is DecreasingConsumer research on perceptions of processed foods finds

that 43 percent of consumers are unfavorabletoward this category of foods. Most consumersassociate processed foods with containing arti-ficial colors and flavors (76 percent), as well aschemicals with long names (68 percent).1

In addition, there is decreased consumerawareness of the functions and benefits offood ingredients. For example, the 2011 Inter-national Food Information Council (IFIC)Foundation Food & Health Survey found thatfewer consumers agree that low-calorie sweet-eners can play a role in weight loss/manage-ment (29 percent) or can be part of an overallhealthful diet (24 percent) than in 2010 (38percent and 29 percent, respectively). At the

same time, an increasing percentage of Americans (34 percent)report a lack of knowledge about low-calorie sweeteners com-pared with previous years (27 percent in 2010).2

Similarly, awareness of functions and regulation of food col-ors is low. Only one in three Americans agrees that food colorsadd to the appearance of foods; just over half of consumers are

Communicating Food Ingredient Safety in a Fear-Driven Environment

CATEGORY: INGREDIENTS By Lindsey Loving

Ingredient safety is

a hot-button issue

for consumers; the

food industry needs

to be aware of

perceptions to

drive consumer

confidence.

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 50

®

Food Safety SummitApril 17-19, 2012Washington DC

www.foodsafetysummit.com

Industry SolutionsEducationNetworkingExhibition Hall

Your Summit Education Does Not End at the Session DoorAttend the informative Exhibitor Showcase Theatres.Two days of specialized, vendor-produced education that offer solutions youcan use today. Learn about new and exciting food safety technologies directly from leading company Subject Matter Experts. FREE to all registered attendees.

The Exhibition Hall is where solutions are found.The Summit attracts highly qualified food safety and security solution providers.More than 150 companies show off the latest technologies, products and services.

The Summit offers plenty of networking opportunities.The OPENING NIGHT RECEPTION allows you to enjoy food and drink whileyou network and conduct business on the Exhibition Hall Floor.

The NSF FOOD SAFETY LEADERSHIP AWARDS precede the Keynote presentation and recognize those that have demonstrated excellence in the foodservice Industry.

The FOOD QUALITY AWARDS AND RECEPTION begins with refreshments and networking followed by a ceremony to honor this year’s winner.

Solutions for TodayPlanning for Tomorrow

GOLD SPONSOR BRONZE SPONSORSILVER SPONSOR MEDIA SPONSORS

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 51

52 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

aware that both natural and artificial food colors must be la-beled on food packages and nearly half agree that food colorsmust be reviewed and approved by the U.S. government beforebeing added to food products. However, fewer than one in fiveconsumers thinks that most government and health authoritiessay there is no link between food colors and hyperactivity inchildren. This general lack of awareness indicates an opportu-nity to provide education about the roles, regulation and po-tential benefits of food ingredients.Despite concerns and negative sentiments about ingredients

and processed foods, when it comes to food and beverage pur-chase decisions, taste prevails, with 87 percent of consumersranking taste as an important factor. Foods with a more health-ful nutrition profile must still taste good to make it into con-

sumers’ shopping carts. Food ingredients such as low-caloriesweeteners, fat replacers and other ingredients have helpedmake possible the availability of foods with lower fat, sugar andsodium content to improve the healthfulness of favorite foods,while maintaining the taste consumers expect. Healthfulness isincreasing in importance as a factor in consumers’ food pur-chasing decisions, with 66 percent ranking it as having an im-pact on their decisions. In addition, these safe ingredients arecost-effective, helping keep food affordable for consumers, 79percent of whom say price is important in their food and bever-age purchases, a 15 percent increase over the past 6 years.The food label provides information on ingredients for con-

sumers’ use. Nearly half of all consumers say they look at theingredients list on food packaging when making food and bev-erage choices. However, they are primarily looking for foodcomponents such as sodium, type of fat/oil and sugars. Lessthan half (44 percent) of those consumers who are looking atthe ingredients list report looking for “artificial ingredients,”and only 21 percent look for food colors. Just 18 percent areconcerned with being able to pronounce the ingredient names.2

It is important to make the public aware of the availabilityof information about food ingredients, whether it is on thelabel or through science-based information on the Internet andin doctors’ offices, or through contacting the U.S. Food andDrug Administration (FDA) or the product manufacturer, all ofwhich can provide information to help consumers make in-formed decisions.

The Next Frontier: Values-BasedCommunications It has always been difficult to translate scientific information

for the public, but new challenges—including increased adop-tion of the precautionary principle, the proliferation of socialmedia, as well as the release of popular books and movies onfood-related issues—have added to the complexity, as society re-

acts to images and hypothetical scenarios that spur fear of theunknown, including what we don’t know about our food.3

With never-ending communications taking place in the blo-gosphere and online communities, we have seen an increase ininformation on all fronts, including misinformation, whichcontributes to conflicting and inconsistent information that isdifficult for consumers to interpret. When communicating withconsumers about food ingredients, the facts are important, butperhaps equally important these days is the consideration ofconsumers’ values, lifestyles and beliefs. Food is a very personalthing for consumers, and is usually connected to family andtradition. In particular, moms—who tend to do the majority ofthe grocery shopping for their households—are concerned withproviding safe and nutritious meals for their families.

Foods containing ingredients commonly consumed by chil-dren can create anxiety for moms, who want to protect theirchildren and themselves and may not be exposed to both sidesof the issue when reading about food ingredients in the media.For example, there has been renewed interest in the perceivedlink between consumption of artificial food colors and hyperac-tivity in children among media and advocacy groups, and inturn, some moms and mommy bloggers. The most recent studyto indicate a link4 has been the basis for the voluntary removalof select artificial food colors in Europe and petitions to re-move artificial food colors from the food supply in the UnitedStates, despite decades of safe use and significant limitations ofthe study identified by scientists, academics and regulatoryagencies such as the FDA and the European Food Safety Au-thority (EFSA).5

FDA revisits ingredient approvals as necessary and if a con-cern is raised, as evidenced by its recent review of all existing re-search on food colors and hyperactivity, in which it upheld itsconclusion that food colors do not cause hyperactivity in chil-dren.6 In addition, FDA and EFSA found the study by Mc-Cann et al. (i.e., the Southampton study)4 to be limited by themethodology used, as well as the combination of colors andadditives and the use of anecdotal reports from parents andteachers.5 In addition, a study of Irish children showed thatdaily consumption of food colors did not reach the amountstested in the Southampton study and that the combination ofcolors tested would not exist in the real world.3,7

The public hears about risks and wants to take action. How-ever, it is important to put studies and perceived risks into con-text for consumers to avoid unintended consequences, such aseliminating foods and food groups that offer important sourcesof nutrients, or taking on comparably greater food safety risks.In the case of food colors, some children who have been diag-nosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder may be sen-sitive to certain foods and food ingredients, including food

“...the benefits of food ingredients for food safety, nutrition and healthare often overlooked, or aren’t even considered.”

CATEGORY: INGREDIENTS

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 52

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 53

colors. However, this unique intolerancedoes not indicate a food safety issue andrepresents a very small portion of thepopulation.6 Information about the spe-cific population that may be affected isimportant for consumers to be able todetermine whether there is a risk to themor their family, and if that risk outweighsother risks they may be taking on bychanging their consumption.8

Telling consumers how they can takecontrol—for example, by reading labelsand providing more fruits and vegeta-bles—is helpful, while also preservingchoice for those consumers who are notconcerned and do not wish to reducetheir consumption of food ingredients.Explaining the similarities and differ-

ences between food ingredients andfoods that are perceived to be more fa-miliar and therefore safer in consumers’minds can also be effective. For example,every food we eat—even those that arenaturally occurring—is made up of chem-ical compounds that determine flavor,color, texture and nutrient value.9 Freshfruits and vegetables are not required tolist nutrition and ingredient information,but if they were, the list of chemicalscomposing them would rival foods con-taining added ingredients.

Is the Latest Always theGreatest?Food additives and “generally recog-

nized as safe” (GRAS) ingredients aresome of the most studied componentsof our food supply. However, new stud-ies that dispute the larger body of re-search are often deemed more crediblebecause they are the latest research onthe topic. It is important when lookingat food ingredient research to emphasizethat, while it may be tempting to viewthe most recent study as the best andmost reliable, this is not always the case. When communicating a study’s find-

ings, it should be placed into the propercontext, including acknowledging thelimitations of the study, such as:• The study’s original purpose• Shortcomings in the study’s methodology

• Ingredient amounts used

CATEGORY: INGREDIENTS

• Sample size • Application of the findings to a specific subsegment of the population It is also important to acknowledge what the weight of the evidence tells us, and to

recognize past research when a study disputes previous findings.8

For example, recent epidemiological studies showing greater overweight or obesityin consumers of low-calorie sweeteners do not demonstrate a cause-and-effect relation-ship. Other factors that could be contributing to the results should be considered, aswell as the original hypothesis/purpose of the study. Many well-done studies con-ducted have found that consuming low-calorie sweeteners (continued on page 66)

Food Safety Regulation Compliance Resources

METTLER TOLEDO has long been the product inspection industry leader in food safety education with our Safeline metal detection and x-ray inspection brand. We have launched a year-long initiative to provide you with the right training,

educational materials and product solutions that will enable you to navigate the food

Visit www.mt.com/PINA-FoodSafetyResources to learn more!

CheckweighingHI-SPEEDMetal Detection & X-ray Inspection SAFELINE

Vision InspectionCI-VISION

Contact us for more information at 800-221-2624 or visit www.mt.com/pi

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 53

54 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

MMicrobiological cross-contamination has beena contributing factor to several well-docu-mented outbreaks of foodborne illness.1,2 Inmost Hazard Analysis and Critical ControlPoints (HACCP) or other hazard analysis-based food safety systems, cross-contaminationis controlled and managed predominately byprerequisite programs (PRPs). PRPs can be de-fined as the measures that provide the basic environ-mental and operating conditions in a food operationthat are necessary for the production of safe andwholesome foods,3 such as cleaning and disinfec-tion, and personnel hygiene. The implementa-tion of an appropriate PRP is also seen as thefoundation on which a good HACCP plan isbuilt; there are many examples of best prac-tices to follow for PRPs at an international level,4 via retailers’requirements5 or from recognized food research bodies6–8 ortrade associations.9,10

There is little information, however, on how to align the useof specific PRPs to control actual routes of cross-contaminationin food processing plants. The concept of a ranking system forPRPs has been addressed by ISO 22000,11 which differentiatesoperational PRPs (OPRPs) from PRPs. An OPRP is defined as

a PRP identified by the hazard analysis as essentialin order to control the likelihood of introducing foodsafety hazards to and/or the contamination or prolif-eration of food safety hazards in the product(s) orprocessing environment. In other words, ISO22000 suggests that a hazard analysis mayidentify some routes of cross-contaminationthat are so important to the safety of the foodproduct that their control is essential and arethus elevated to a higher classification of PRP,that is, an OPRP. It is also interesting to notethat ISO 22000 recognizes that it is importantto not only control cross-contamination offood safety hazards into the product, but alsoto control cross-contamination within the pro-cessing environment. No guidance has been

provided, however, as to the hazard analysis steps to be under-taken to determine OPRPs from PRPs. This article explores two critical concepts of microbial cross-

contamination: sources and vectors. It also presents a methodfor identifying and risk-ranking sources and vectors of contami-nation, which builds upon previous work described by Smith.12

Finally, the potential use of OPRPs for control and manage-ment of cross-contamination to the product is discussed.

Identifying and Controlling Microbiological Cross-Contamination

MICROBIOLOGY By John Holah, Ph.D., Edyta Margas, Robert Hagberg,Benjamin Warren, Ph.D., Judy Fraser-Heaps and Sara Mortimore

This article introduces

concepts and ideas

about the nature and

potential control of

microbiological cross-

contamination in a

food manufacturing

environment.

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 54

MORE

world-class education from renowned meat and poultry experts, offered at no additional charge, for

every AMI Expo attendee.

SAFETY. RESEARCH. TRENDS. MANAGEMENT. OPERATIONS.

SUSTAINABILITY.

MORESearch the complete education schedule and register at www.amiexpo.com

APRIL 30–MAY 3, 2012 • DALLAS CONVENTION CENTER • DALLAS, TEXAS, USA

CO-LOCATED WITH:

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 55

56 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Cross-Contamination Concepts: Sources & Vectors Pathogenic microorganisms can enter food processing areas

from several main routes: the external environment, raw materi-als, people, equipment and in-plant microbiology laboratories.Once inside, pathogens can be temporary or sporadic visitors(present until they lose viability or are removed via cleaningand disinfection procedures) or they may persist for long peri-ods. When pathogens persist in the environment, they gener-ally survive in harborage sites, which can be defined as physicalareas in which pathogens can lodge and be protected from

cleaning and disinfection actions, for example, poor hygienicdesign features of processing equipment or damaged areas ofthe plant’s building structure. When a harborage site also pro-vides an environment suitable for growth, it can be considereda growth niche. Both harborage sites and growth niches are po-tential sources of contamination within the processing environ-ment. For a pathogen to move from a source within the processing

environment to other locations (and perhaps even into prod-uct), a vector is required. A vector can be defined as anything(air and other gases, water and other liquids, physical objects or people)that carries or transfers a pathogen from one place to another. Vectorsmay be further described as those that carry a pathogen from asource to another location within the processing environment,that is, an environmental vector, or those that carry a pathogenfrom a source to the product or product ingredients, that is, aproduct vector (Figure 1). It should be noted that cross-contami-nation usually occurs as an event in which a number of vectorsmay be involved. For example, collecting a product samplefrom an enclosed process line for quality control analysis by in-serting a sampling bag into the product stream by hand mayhave potential product vectors of the operator’s hand (orglove), the operator’s sleeve, the sampling bag and the air. Inanother example, a line mechanic may contaminate his or her

hands through interaction with a source, subsequently transferthe contamination to a tool and then contaminate a productcontact surface with the tool while performing simple mainte-nance on the line. In this example, the mechanic’s hands maybe considered an environmental vector while the mechanic’stool may be considered a product vector. In other circum-stances, a cross-contamination event may have only a singlevector, for example, contaminated water droplets from a com-pressed air line entering a product stream.The type of vector affects the potential for actual transfer of

a pathogen into a product. For example, if a pathogen is being

carried in a liquid vector, the liquid may be absorbed into an-other surface or food completely, which would increase the po-tential for transfer to be nearly absolute. Conversely, if apathogen is being carried on a solid vector, such as a me-chanic’s tool, the potential for transfer to a secondary surface,including a food product, depends on the physical propertiesand interaction between the pathogen and the surface as well asthe interaction of the vector with the surface. Smith12 demon-strated that the transfer of microorganisms from one surface toanother on contact can be approximated to 50 percent for prac-tical purposes. For stationary air, transfer of microorganismsfrom the air via sedimentation, which has defined rates for par-ticles of a given size and buoyancy according to Stokes’ law,13

and the number of microorganisms transferred depends on themicrobiological loading of the air and the exposure time. Whenproduct is transported via air, or when air is blown over a prod-uct for cooling or drying, microorganisms can enter the prod-uct via impingement in addition to sedimentation, and thenumber of microorganisms transferred may be related to thevolume of air to which the product is exposed.

Identifying Potential Sources and Vectors ofContamination Potential pathogen sources and cross-contamination vectors

in a processing plant can be determined by a physical examina-tion of the processing environment and may include microbio-logical sampling. Sources and vectors may be associated with aspecific process step or may affect the processing line in gen-eral. For example, contaminated air in the production environ-ment might affect many processing steps within a productionline, whereas vectors associated with a specific line proceduremay be associated solely with a specific process step. In an exercise similar to determining the product process

flow within the HACCP plan, a cross-functional team (com-prising personnel knowledgeable about plant operations, sanita-tion, hygienic design, microbiology and engineering) can beassembled to identify potential sources by walking the line andexamining the processing equipment and environment. Poten-

MICROBIOLOGY

“Microbiological cross-contamination has been a contributing factorto several well-documented outbreaks of foodborne illness.”

Figure 1: Transfer of pathogens from likely sources directly to foodproducts or their ingredients via product vectors or indirectly to secondary or temporary sources.

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 56

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 57

tial sources can be determined by numerous means, includingdismantling equipment to identify potential harborage sites andniches, as well as an inspection of the environment and build-ing structures. A review of data collected as part of an environ-mental monitoring program may help identify potentialsources in the production environment. However, a history ofnegative results for a particular pathogen on an environmentalsite does not indicate that the site is not a potential source forother pathogens, or that the site could not become a source inthe future, especially when the construction of the site is notconsistent with accepted hygienic design principles. The observation of all potential sources should be recorded,

for example, as indicated in Table 1. In these examples, meatresidues were seen inside a meat slicer on/off switch and fluidwas seen oozing from underneath a meat slicer equipment footsupport plate. If observational and/or microbiological data identify likely

pathogen sources, all potential environmental cross-contamina-tion vectors from this source should be determined to identifythe potential to create secondary or temporary sources. Usingthe equipment foot plate example in Table 1, liquid oozingfrom under the plate was transferred throughout the processarea on an operative’s shoes and equipment wheels and was re-deposited at random sites on the floor to act as potential tem-porary or short-term sources.

The same cross-functional team described above should per-form a comprehensive review of the process and environmentfor potential product cross-contamination vectors. The processand processing environment should be observed during allshifts, when all types of products are produced and when infre-quent procedures are performed. In some cases, all personnelmay not perform the same task in the same manner. Therefore,interviews of line operators, maintenance staff and quality andsanitation personnel may also help determine potential cross-contamination vectors. Vectors may occur at either fixed anddefined time intervals, or randomly. Observations for potentialcross-contamination vectors should be made independently ofknown or likely pathogen sources, as contamination could arisefrom temporary sites and be transferred to other sites and/orthe product stream. It is unlikely that microbiological samplingof vectors would be helpful, as the likelihood of observing apathogen on a potential vector would be very small.Observational data for vectors should also be recorded, for

example, as indicated in Table 2 for two theoretical spray dryerinterventions in a milk-spray drying operation.

Addressing Cross-Contamination Controlwithin a Food Safety ProgramThe assessment, management and ultimately control of

cross-contamination sources and vectors will likely include

MICROBIOLOGY

For validation and verification of processes and instruments

35 CRM strains available

Traceable to reference culture

Easy-to-use KWIK-STIK™ format

Certificate of Analysis

* Look for the ATCC Licensed Derivative emblem for products derived from ATCC® cultures.www.microbiologics.com

Reference Material Producer CERT # 2655.02

QUALITY CONTROL MICROORGANISMS AS CERTIFIED REFERENCE MATERIAL FOR USE IN ISO 17025 ACCREDITED LABS

9:09 AM

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 57

58 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

both the HACCP plan and its foundational PRPs. For example,the cross-functional assessment of the processing environmentcould be drafted within the plant’s environmental monitoringprogram. The identification and assessment of product vectorscould be incorporated into the HACCP plan. This approach isconsistent with established HACCP models, in which hazardsthat may be introduced at a process step should be considered inthe process hazard analysis. Regardless of how the identification and assessment of cross-

contamination sources and vectors are incorporated into a foodsafety plan, efforts to control them should include reducing thenumber of possible sources and vectors within a processing en-vironment and developing specific measures to reduce the riskassociated with those that remain or are intrinsic to the foodproduction process. For example, the usage of water in certainprocessing environments may be significantly reduced or elimi-nated in an effort to control the establishment, growth andmovement of pathogens (sources and vectors).When observing and identifying potential contamination

sources and vectors, any current direct controls of observedsources and vectors should be recorded as illustrated in Tables 1and 2. For vectors, subsequent controls at the process step mayhave an effect on the hazard that could be transferred by thecross-contamination event, and these should also be recorded.

Practical Application of Risk-Ranking Toolsfor Sources and VectorsAlthough many potential sources and cross-contamination

vectors may be identified during the assessment of a processing

environment, the degree of control necessary for each sourceand vector may be determined using risk analysis tools, such asrisk ranking. A familiar approach to risk analysis is to considerthe likelihood and severity of a hazard on a three-point scale[e.g., LMH (low, medium and high) risk]. A risk analysis for acontamination source may be similar and can be described asthe likelihood of a pathogen being present at the potentialsource and the ability of a pathogen to transfer from this sourcevia an environmental and/or product vector. A risk analysis forcross-contamination vectors may be more complex as it in-volves three factors: the likelihood of a pathogen being trans-ferred by the vector, the frequency of the event and the severityof the illness if the target consumer ingested the pathogen. To provide a quantitative approach to evaluate significance,

rankings of low, medium or high may be replaced with valuesof 1, 2 or 3, respectively. These numerical rankings can then bemultiplied together to result in an overall risk score associatedwith a source or vector. Risk scores should always be assessed inthe absence of control. In the example provided, this would re-sult in a score range of 1–9 for sources and 1–27 for vectors. Risk ranking of sources and vectors should be recorded as il-

lustrated in Tables 1 and 2. Undertaking a risk analysis beforeand after the application of any controls can help identifywhether controls are necessary and/or whether current or in-tended controls are sufficient to reduce either the risk of thesource or the contamination event. At a minimum, this allowsconsideration of the adoption of controls for the uncontrolledsources and vectors identified, which may have an immediateimpact on improved food safety. If current controls are not suf-

MICROBIOLOGY

Table 1: Example record of a potential pathogen source associated with a cooked meat slicer on/off switch and a foot support plate.

Process step or processing area

Observation

Likely hazard

Source risk assessment without controlsLikelihood of hazard presence: LMHPotential to spread via environmental vectors: LMH

Risk score

Current or intended control

Source risk assessment with controlsMicrobial source presence: LMHPotential to spread via environmental vectors: LMH

Risk score

Meat slicing

Meat residues were seen on the inside of a switchthat operated the slicing machine. When theswitch was pressed to start the machine, the

movement of the switch into the switch holder ex-truded meat residues onto the operative’s finger.If Listeria was present in the switch (which is arecognized possibility with switches of this de-sign), it could be transferred to the meat by the

operative’s finger. Microbiological sampling in theswitch was always negative.

Listeria

MediumLow

2

Switches routinely cleaned as part of the end ofproduction sanitation practice

LowLow

1

Meat slicing

Fluids were seen oozing out from below themeat slicer equipment foot plates securingthem to the floor. The immediate floor area

around the plates is a heavy traffic area for per-sonnel and vehicular traffic. Environmental

monitoring occasionally picks up Listeria spp.in this area.

Listeria

HighHigh

9

Every shift, hypochlorous acid is sprayedaround the equipment support plates

MediumHigh

6

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 58

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 59

ficient to adequately control the hazard risk, additional controlsmust be undertaken. To illustrate this and using the foot platesource as described in Table 1, the frequent use of chlorine dis-infectant may not be a sufficient control, and it may be neces-sary either to lift the equipment, decontaminate the area underthe foot plate and then reseal the foot plate to the floor or pur-chase new foot plates or equipment supports of a more hy-gienic design.Subsequent controls should also be considered when assess-

ing the risk of a cross-contamination event. In the theoreticalexample in Table 2, operatives must insert a guillotine or spraycap into the powder line to prevent clean-in-place (CIP) fluidsentering sensitive areas during the dryer CIP program, for ex-ample, the bag house where powder is removed from the air-flow exiting the dryer. Any microbial contamination enteringthe dryer, particularly during the removal of the guillotines,would then be subjected to the dryer start-up procedure, whichcould include the circulation of heated air for several hours(e.g., 205 °C/400 °F for 2 hours).In the second dryer intervention example in Table 2, the re-

moval, cleaning and insertion of the milk spray nozzles couldoccur a number of times between CIP events of the dryer, suchthat any microorganisms entering the dryer during these poten-tial cross-contamination events would not be subjected to aprocess control step. In this example, it is possible to do a risk

assessment on the cross-contamination event (particularly if thecross-contamination event results in a high-risk score) or indi-vidual vectors related to the event to determine which vectorsare most important to control. In this case, entry of air hasbeen identified as a vector and the risk assessment for the air in-dicates that other vectors associated with the cross-contamina-tion event may be more important. Higher risk scores for sources may be used to help prioritize

resource allocation, identify where additional control measuresare needed and/or to justify capital expenditure. Likewise,higher risk scores for vectors may help prioritize actions takento reduce the frequency of the vector, identify where additionalcontrol measures can lower the risk associated with the vectorand/or to eliminate the vector altogether. The risk analyses as described in Tables 1 and 2, for sources

and cross-contamination event vectors, respectively, can furtherbe developed by considering the risk scores for the sources andvectors without controls. For the maximum risk scores associ-ated with the meat slicer foot plates (Table 1) or the removal,cleaning and reinstallation of the spray nozzles (Table 2), thesescores indicate that if these sources or cross-contaminationevents were uncontrolled, or more practically, if the requiredcontrols failed, there could be a significant risk of pathogensbeing present in the processing environment (meat slicer footplate) or product (spray nozzles).

MICROBIOLOGY

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 59

60 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

OPRPs as a Control for Product VectorsSince the control of significant product vectors is especially

critical to product safety, these controls could be described asOPRPs. An OPRP requires the establishment of operating lim-its (or control limits), monitoring activities, corrective actionsfor when a control limit is not met, verification activities andrecord-keeping procedures. Table 3 describes the controls associated with the theoretical

milk spraying nozzle removal and reinsertion procedure de-scribed in Table 2. The hazard is that Salmonella could be takeninto the dryer on the nozzle and supporting wand, and via theair surrounding the top of the dryer. The nozzle and wandcould be cross-contaminated from the operative’s hands andclothing and from the tools used. Control measures could in-clude changing into clean clothing at the point of nozzle re-moval and reinsertion, using dedicated tools and cleaningequipment, decontaminating wands and nozzles and all sur-faces touched prior to reinsertion and tamperproof tagging ofthe wands so that they cannot be unintentionally removed. Bymicrobiologically filtering environmental air surrounding thedryer, contamination from the air at routine dryer interventionswould be controlled.ATP testing prior to entry could apply an operating limit to

an assessment of the cleanliness of the wands, nozzles and

tools, and verification of cleanliness could be periodically un-dertaken by microbiological sampling. During the nozzle re-moval procedure, observations could be made to ensure theprocedure was being done correctly and that there were no ex-trinsic factors that could act as additional cross-contaminationvectors. Records would be kept of all interventions into thedryer, whether removal and reinstallation procedures had beencorrectly followed, ATP and microbiological counts and tam-perproof tag numbers. Corrective actions would review thetraining of the staff against removal and reinstallation proce-dures and the effectiveness and validation of the tools andcleaning equipment decontamination programs.In the same manner as CCP records, the records of an

OPRP should be incorporated into a food safety plan to ensureall essential conditions were met during the manufacture of aproduct. If a deviation in an OPRP were to occur, then the af-fected product should be placed on hold while a cross-func-tional team is assembled to review the associated risk and makea decision on product disposition. The management strategy described above for OPRPs is es-

sentially the same as for CCPs as defined under HACCP. Sothen what is the difference between a CCP and an OPRP?CCPs are generally described for specific steps in the manufac-turing process to eliminate or reduce a significant hazard to an

MICROBIOLOGY

Table 2: Theoretical observational record of potential cross-contamination vectors associated with two spray dryer intervention procedures.

Process step or process activity

Observation

Likely hazard

Contamination event vector(s)

Product vector risk analysis without controlsPotential presence of hazard on vector: LHMFrequency of event: LMHSeverity of hazard: LMH

Risk score

Subsequent control step?

Current or intended vector controls

Product vector risk analysis with controlsPotential presence on vector: LHMFrequency of vector: LMHSeverity of hazard: LMH

Risk score

Milk spray drying

Guillotines or spray covers areinserted into the dryer to

separate the dryer from the baghouse during CIP cleaning

of the dryer

Salmonella

Contamination on the reverseside of the guillotine entering

the dryer on guillotine removal after CIP

MediumHighHigh

18

Prior to start-up, the dryer surfaces are subjected to hot air

at up to 205 °C/400 °F for 2 hours

Not necessary due to subsequentcontrol step

Milk spray drying

Approximately once per shift, milkinjectors are removed from thedryer, cleaned and reinstalled

Salmonella

Dryer nozzles touch hands, clothing and tools prior to entry

HighHighHigh

27

None

Gloves are worn and nozzles and tools are decontaminated

with alcohol prior to dryer entry

LowHighHigh

9

Milk spray drying

Approximately once per shift, milkinjectors are removed from thedryer, cleaned and reinstalled

Salmonella

Air can enter the dryer during the nozzle removal and

installation process

LowHighHigh

9

None

None

LowHighHigh

9

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 60

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 61

acceptable level, for example, cooking of a meat patty, coolingof a sauce or running a liquid product through a screen of de-fined particle size. On the other hand, OPRPs are generally de-scribed for procedures or programs that address some aspect ofthe processing environment or the interaction of the processingenvironment with the process, for example, the manual re-moval, cleaning and reinsertion of milk spray nozzles into thespray dryer during a production run.

A Developing StudyThe concept of identifying sources and vectors of cross-con-

tamination, assessing their risk and managing their risk throughOPRPs in a fashion similar as CCPs is a developing study. Elevating the control of sources and vectors to the level of

OPRPs and managing them similar to CCPs focuses attentionon the control of what is thought to be the highest risk of cross-contamination from the processing environment to the product.Controlling sources and vectors by developing and document-ing OPRPs as discussed in this article may provide a means todemonstrate increased confidence in product safety should apathogen be found in the manufacturing environment.

Taken beyond microbiological hazards,the same source-and-vector approach may beused to evaluate and control nonmicrobio-logical hazards, such as allergens or foreignmaterial. As these are developing concepts,comments are welcomed as to how they canbe improved. n

John Holah, Ph.D., is an applied microbiologist working

both in food factories and the laboratory and is responsi-

ble for food hygiene at Campden BRI.

Edyta Margas is a hygiene and novel technologiesspecialist at Campden BRI.

Robert Hagberg is the director of QA technical serv-ices at Land O’Lakes, Inc.

Benjamin Warren, Ph.D., is the director of productsafety & regulatory affairs at Land O’Lakes, Inc.

Judy Fraser-Heaps is the senior manager of QA, mi-

crobiology & food safety at Land O’Lakes, Inc.

Sara Mortimore is the vice president of quality & reg-ulatory affairs at Land O’Lakes, Inc.

References1. www.cdc.gov/print.do?url=http%3A//www.cdc.gov/salmonella/agona.2. Jackson, K.A., M. Biggerstaff, M. Tobin-D’Angelo,D. Sweat, R. Klos, J. Nosari, O. Garrison, E. Boothe, L.Saathoff-Huber, L. Hainstock and R.P. Fagan. 2011.Multistate outbreak of Listeria monocytogenes asso-ciated with Mexican-style cheese made from pasteur-ized milk among pregnant, Hispanic women. J Food

Prot 74: 949–953.3. Gaze, R. 2009. HACCP: A practical guide (fourth edition). Campden BRI,Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, UK.4. www.codexalimentarius.net.5. www.mygfsi.com.6. Middleton, K.E. and J.T. Holah. 2008. Cleaning and disinfection of foodfactories: A practical guide. Campden BRI, Chipping Campden, Gloucester-shire, UK.7. George, R.M. 2004. Foreign bodies in foods: Guidelines for their preven-tion, control and detection (second edition). Campden BRI, Chipping Camp-den, Gloucestershire, UK.8. Smith, D. 2009. Hand hygiene: Guidelines for best practice. CampdenBRI, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, UK.9. www.bcas.org.uk.10. www.cieh.org.11. Anon. 2005. ISO 22000:2005 Food Safety management systems — Requirements for any organization in the food chain.12. Smith, D. 2007. Ranking of cross-contamination vectors of ready-to-eatfoods: A practical approach. Campden BRI, Chipping Campden, Gloucester-shire, UK.13. Lamb, H. 1994. Hydrodynamics (6th edition). Cambridge UniversityPress.

MICROBIOLOGY

Table 3: Operational prerequisite program (OPRP) managementtable as adapted from classical CCP management.

Process step or area

Likely hazard

Source or contaminationevent/vector(s)

Control measure(s)

Operating limit(s)

Control measure(s)

Control verification(s)

Corrective action(s)

Records

Milk spray drying

Salmonella

Removal, cleaning and reinsertion of milk spraying nozzles

• Dryer processing area air filtered to 95% removal of 1.0-µm particles• Gloves are worn by operative to remove nozzles

• Nozzles and support wand removed and replaced by alcohol-decontaminated blanking plate

• Nozzles cleaned and kept in QAC until reuse• Glove and sleeve change by operative at point of insertion

• Nozzle wand CIP process• ATP assessments of wand and/or nozzle cleanliness

• Use of dedicated tools• Alcohol decontamination of gloves, blanking plate and wand

• Blanking plate removal and nozzle insertion• Tamperproof tag installed

ATP < 150 RLU

Visual assessment of the removal and reinsertion operation ATP assessment of the cleaned wand and nozzle

Occasional microbiological verification of wand and nozzle cleaning

• Put on hold any potentially affected product. • Determine the need for spray dryer to be decontaminated.

• Investigate the cause of the problem and take appropriate action. • Staff retraining

• Review of wand and nozzle decontamination procedures

• Dryer intervention record including correct observation of removal and insertion procedure

• Post-decontamination ATP and microbiological records• Tamperproof identity tag number

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 61

ProfessionalThermocouple

ThermoWorks has intro-duced its splash-proofThermapen™, a professionalthermocouple with a fold-away design that replacesbulky hand-held thermome-ters for use in restaurants,labs and food processing

plants. TheThermapenhousing is madeof molded plas-tic embeddedwith Biomaster,which inhibitsthe growth ofcommon bac-teria, such asE. coli, Listeria and Salmonella,among others. Each thermo-couple is traceable to the Na-tional Institute of Standardsand Technology and includesa certificate of calibration withactual test data.

ThermoWorks, 800.393.6434www.thermoworks.com

62 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Product Showcase

Antibiotic DetectionIn anticipation of the new antibiotic rule from the U.S. Food

and Drug Administraion (FDA), Neogen developed its BetaStarPlus lateral flow system with a separate ceftiofur detection line.This system offers a three-line test for beta-lactam antibioticresidues in milk. The primary detection line detects the five beta-lactam drugs as outlined in the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance,while a special secondary line uses antibody detection specifi-cally for ceftiofur and its metabolite. BetaStar Plus has been vali-dated through the AOAC, FDA and the National Conference onInterstate Milk Shipments.

Neogen, 800.234.5333 • www.neogen.com

Nitrogen Generator

Parker Hannifin’s Filtrationand Separation Divisionhas introducedthe NitroFlow60 MembraneNitrogen Gener-ator, a self-con-tained generatorthat producesup to 60 litersper minute ofpure liquid chro-matography/mass spectrome-try (LC/MS)-grade nitrogen atpressures of up to 110 psi. Thesystem is ideal for multipleLC/MS and new LC/MS in-struments requiring high flow.

Parker Hannifin Corporation,800.343.4048

www.labgasgenerators.com

Vapor Sorption AnalyzerThe AquaLab Vapor Sorption Analyzer

(VSA) by Decagon Devices allows scientiststo better understand moisture in prod-ucts and pinpoint quality control is-sues. The way a product isinfluenced by temperature andhumidity changes can reveal im-portant details about physical andchemical changes that end shelf life.VSA technology tracks changesin the amount of moisture ina product as the water activitychanges. This VSA is the only moisturesorption analyzer to combine both dynamic andtraditional isotherm methods in one instrument.

Decagon Devices, 800.755.2751 • www.aqualab.com

Spiral OvensUnitherm Food Systems has introduced smaller spiral ovens

into the hands of small and midsize producers of ready-to-eatfrozen and chilled foods. The “micro” spiral, the smallest of its

kind on the market, is nominally 5 feet wide by 7 feetlong by 7 feet tall and has over 60 linear feet of belt. Asingle micro spiral oven has the equivalent throughputof approximately three batch ovens. The company’s minispiral oven is slightly larger at 8 feet by 8 feet by 8 feetand has over 180 linear feet of belt with throughput of up to 1,500 pounds per hour.

Unitherm Food Systems, 918.367.0197 • www.unithermfoodsystems.com

Porcine Detection Kits

PerkinElmer Inc. has an-nounced the introduction ofPorcine Detection Kits for therapid detection of porcinemeat traces by the halal foodcertification industry. The newsolution will make it easier,faster and more cost-effectiveto provide confidence in theintegrity and authenticity offood products for global markets that require halal certification.

PerkinElmer, 877.754.6973www.perkinelmer.com

Pumps for Juice ProcessingWith quick unloading time and ease of maintenance, MasoSine pumps are the ideal solu-

tion in both the fast-growing ready-to-pour and frozen concentrate market segments. Thehighly economical and reliable pumps offer superior speed of transfer, powerful suction, lowshear and low pulsation. The pumps are used in several phases of juice processing, includingloading and unloading of takers that transport the concentrate, pumping concentrate to ablending process and pumping concentrate to fillers for packaging as frozen concentrate.These pumps are capable of being cleaned in place (CIP), and various CIP modifications areavailable, depending upon the product being pumped and the cleaning protocol used.

MasoSine Process Pumps, 800.282.8823 • www.masosine.com

FSM2312pg3-11,62-63_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:20 PM Page 62

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 63

Weigh Belt FeederThayer Scale offers the new MWF-SGSP-OS Ultra-Sani-

tary Open Construction Weigh Belt Feeder for processing offoods and any other application where cleanability, reliabil-

ity and weighing performance are important. The feeder canprovide either a “closed loop” gravimetric control of material feedrate or an “open loop” control for precise convey rate output.

Thayer Scale, 781.826.8101 • www.thayerscale.com

Sample Prep InstrumentInnovaPrep LLC has launched their latest collection of

sample prep instruments. The Concentrating Pipette is an au-tomated microparticle concentrator developed to replace anti-quated, time-consuming and labor-intensive sample prepmethods, such as culture enrichment, filtration and centrifuga-tion. The automated one-pass system can rapidly reduce sam-ple volume while removing matrix-associated inhibitors,enabling the latest detection systems to quickly identifypathogens at previously undetectable levels.

InnovaPrep LLC, 816.619.3375 • www.innovaprep.com

Vertical Bagging SystemM-TEK has introduced the V60 vertical

bagging system, which offers in-creased production efficienciesand easier maintenance. Thesystem includes value-addedfeatures that maximize flexibilityand performance, such as high-pressure, wash-down design,without removing or coveringmachine parts; robust stainless-steel construction; cycle speedsover 100 per minute and innova-tive, linkage-free seal and film advance

systems.M-TEK, 847.741.3500 • www.mtekcorp.com

Grill Surface ThermometerDeltaTRAK’s Grill Surface Thermometer

(model 29010) is the ideal device for moni-toring the temperature of cooking sur-faces, such as flat-top grills, griddles andbarbecue grills. It can also be used onhot-holding tables and carving-stationwarmers. The thermometer is a dual-scaleNSF-certified thermometer with an easy-to-read dial. This durable thermometer ismade of heavy-duty stainless steel and has atemperature range of 100 °F to 500 °F (38 °C to 260 °C).

DeltaTRAK, 800.962.6776 • www.deltatrak.com

6:06:40 PM 6:06:40 PM

FSM2312pg3-11,62-63_Layout 1 2/1/12 2:20 PM Page 63

64 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Deciding to Use a Laboratory This is arguably one of your most im-

portant decisions in testing. The decisionto outsource or not, followed by select-ing the preferred lab with whom to es-tablish a long-termworking relationshipwill influence yourother decisions relatedto method selection.Your laboratory partnershould be a resource,able and willing tohelp you evaluate op-tions and make deci-sions (see the sidebar,below). You maychoose to associatewith a reputable third-party lab for all or justa portion of your testing.

Outsourcing bringsmany advantages, in-cluding:

Independence in Reporting Results. A third-party lab bringsan expectation of impartiality to yourcertificate of analysis (CoA) and relievesdirect employees from being responsiblefor defending positive results when theydo arise.

Employee Training. Running a labora-tory requires hiring and training labora-tory personnel to perform the analyticalwork required. Working with a third-party lab that is experienced in hiring

and developing these specialized skills al-lows you to focus on efficiency in yourcore business of food production.

ISO 17025 Accreditation. Laboratoryaccreditation is an important assurance

that analytical methodsare performed properlyand results are repro-ducible. LIMS Database. In ad-

dition to providing aCoA, your third-partylab may provide accessto a database programthat allows you to cre-ate reports and observetrends in your data.Automation of thesecapabilities can savesignificant labor costsassociated with creat-ing reports manuallywithin your organiza-tion.Costs. You may find

that outsourcing yourtesting is economically favorable whenyou add up all the costs associated withrunning an on-site laboratory, includingthe hidden costs of labor, systems, train-ing, documentation, accreditations andoverhead.

SummaryIn 2011, an outbreak of cantaloupe-

associated listeriosis resulted in 30deaths, 146 infections and 1 miscarriage

over a 28-state distribution—one of theworst foodborne disease outbreaks inU.S. history. The Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention investigation ofthis outbreak revealed the disturbing fail-ure of a food safety system that couldhave prevented this catastrophe. Previ-ous listeriosis outbreaks are remarkablysimilar to the events of the 2011 out-break—L. monocytogenes in a food produc-tion environment went undetected foran extended period, eventually resultingin product contamination and subse-quent human health consequences.

As an industry, we have the tools todetect and prevent outbreaks of listerio-sis and other foodborne disease. One es-sential element of a well-designed foodsafety program is adequate and appropri-ate testing of both the environment andproduct. I have attempted to highlightthe emerging developments in Listeriatesting and the fundamentals of choos-ing the most appropriate testing approach for your business. n

Jim Byron shares his extensive knowledge and di-

verse experience gained as an executive in the

water, chemicals, food testing laboratory and test

kits business. With over 20 years of successful sales

and marketing leadership in the energy and chem-

icals industry, he was recruited to a leadership role

in biotechnology and food safety in 2005. His sci-

entific work in close association with food industry

leaders, exposure to production systems and

strong business foundation allow Byron to provide

clear and useful information about Listeria testing

to managers in today’s food production environ-

ment. He can be reached at 484.356.7283,

www.linkedin.com/in/jimbyron828 or

jb@xgenex.com.

For more information on Listeria test kitsand the AOAC methods used, please seewww.foodsafetymagazine.com/article.asp?id=4446&sub=sub1.

For more information on testing for Listeria and other foodborne

illness-causing microorganisms, please visit

www.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature.asp.

TESTING

More Information about LaboratoriesAPI Test Data: The American Proficiency Institute (API) provides a service

that quantifies laboratory performance at accurately achieving the correct re-sult for tested parameters on supplied samples. While API data are importantin evaluating the performance of a laboratory to accurately determine the sta-tus of a supplied sample, it is improper to use these data to form a judgmentabout the overall sensitivity and specificity of a particular test method.

ISO 17025 Laboratory Accreditation: This is your assurance that the labora-tory you are considering to perform your testing has demonstrated proficiencyperforming the analytical method listed on the scope of accreditation. Yourlaboratory should be accredited to perform the testing that your business re-quires. As part of your review process, verify that the selected Listeria testmethod to be used is included in the current laboratory scope-of-accreditationdocument.

“”

“One essential

element of a well-

designed food safety

program is adequate

and appropriate

testing of both the

environment and

product.”

(continued from page 15)

FSM2312pg12-26,64_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:02 PM Page 64

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 65

Serious Commitment byManagement to Food Safetyand Quality is Essential forBusiness Growth andSuccess

The food supply and service industrycurrently is faced with several importantchallenges to business growth and suc-cess. The media recently has focusedheavy coverage on foodborne illness out-breaks and allergen-related product re-calls, and this increased attentionunderscores the need for effective andproactive food safety and quality controlpractices to protect the viability of ourbusiness enterprises. Furthermore, withthe current economic situation, suppliersand processors must continue to identifyopportunities and implement best prac-tices that are above and beyond their cus-tomers’ specifications and expectations inorder to continue growing as businesses.The ability to effectively meet theseevolving industry demands requires thata food safety consciousness be part of thecorporate culture all the way throughfrom the upper management to the pro-duction level. Otherwise, food establish-ments that cut corners on food safety riskdevastating economic consequences andirreparable harm to their businesses. n

Veny Gapud, M.S. is the corporate food safetyand quality assurance officer for Fieldale Farms

Corporation. She was the recipi-

ent of the 2011 International As-

sociation for Food Protection

(IAFP) Harold Barnum Industry

Award that recognized her out-

standing service to IAFP, the

public and the food industry. She is also a current

member of the USDA FSIS National Advisory Com-

mittee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI),

former chairperson of the Retail Food Safety and

Quality PDG of IAFP, a former President of the

Georgia Association for Food Protection and a cur-

rent member of the Food Safety Magazine Editorial

Advisory Board. Gapud can be reached at

venygapud@fieldale.com.

References1. Marler, W. 2007. Food Safety & the CEO-Keys to Bottom Line Success. Food Safety Maga-zine. October/November.

SPOTLIGHT: MEAT AND POULTRY

2. Gapud, V. 2009/2010. Food Safety Trends in Retail and Foodservice. Food Safety Magazine. December/January.

3. www.aibonline.org/auditservices/GFSI_CertSchemes.html.4. Gapud, V. 2006. Driving Best Practices in Distribution. Food Safety Magazine. August/September.5. Flynn, D. 2011. Allergens Have Caused Most Meat Recalls This Year. Food Safety News. July 8.6. The Association of Food, Beverage and Consumer Product Companies (GMA). 2008. Guidelines for

Validation of Consumer Cooking Instructions for Not-Ready-To-Eat (NRTE) Products.For more information on meat and poulty safety, please visit

www.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature.asp.

(continued from page 49)

US MANUFACTURED

800-321-2313 • puritanmedproducts.com Puritan Medical Products Company LLC, Guilford, Maine 04443-0149 USA

An affiliate of Hardwood Products Company ISO 9001:2008

Is your surface testing

all it’s cracked up

to be?

You can’t afford even a twinge of doubt when it comes to uncovering any hidden contaminants. Get cracking with Puritan environmental swabs — known to deliver superior collection for reliable results. Our top-quality swabs come in various sizes, shapes, and tip fibers, with and without

media. To request free samples of environmental swabs, scan the code at left or visit our website at puritanmedproducts.com/enviro.

FSM2312pg36-49,65_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:03 PM Page 65

66 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

in place of caloric sweeteners can lead to weight loss and/orweight management. A few recent studies on this relationshipin mice and rats indicating a link have had small sample sizesand may not be applicable to humans. These studies should beevaluated within the context of the overall body of evidence onthis topic.

Our Work Is Never DoneAs ingredients and technologies become integrated into the

food supply, consumers will continue to have questions about

their purpose and safety. Therefore, constant communicationabout the safety of approved food ingredients is critical tomaintaining consumer awareness and confidence. Future gener-ations will not have benefited from educational efforts con-ducted when the ingredient or technology was new, validatingthe need for consistency in communication efforts. For exam-ple, some consumers have questioned the importance of foodprocesses such as pasteurization and have opted to consumeraw milk—which poses clear food safety risks—rather than con-sume milk that has been “processed.” Education around foodprocessing, its safety and benefits, including the role of food in-gredients, will be critical to maintaining the high food safetystandards achieved in the U.S.

Communications about food and nutrition must be posi-tive—the Food & Health Survey consistently shows that mostAmericans would rather hear positive messages about what toeat, rather than negative messages about what not to eat.2 In ad-dition, communicators must meet consumers where they are(e.g., in online venues) and provide simple, practical tips theycan use in their everyday lives. For example: • Use a low-calorie sweetener in place of sugar in beverage

selections to reduce calorie intake throughout the day. • Enjoy a 100-calorie pack of a favorite snack or dessert to

keep portions and calories in check.

Do Science and Emotions Go Together?In this environment driven by emotions and fear, it will be

important to acknowledge concerns and reassure the public ofthe safety and efficacy of approved food ingredients, whilepromptly communicating with the public when a legitimateconcern, such as a food safety recall, arises. Equally important,it will be critical to provide consumers with information forthem to understand the direct benefits they receive from foodingredients, and tips for how they can incorporate food ingredi-ents into a healthful diet. Too much of anything can have ad-verse effects; therefore, providing clear, concise informationabout the food supply and food choices will ensure that con-sumers can enjoy an abundant variety of safe, good-tasting,

healthful and affordable food in a manner that promotes variety and moderation.

As obesity and prevalence of other diseases increase, thesafety of food ingredients, and other aspects of our food, willcontinue to be questioned regarding their role in our health.Our food supply is safer than ever before; however, there is al-ways opportunity for improvement. Regulators, scientists, acad-emicians and industry stakeholders should continue to worktogether to improve the safety and transparency of the foodsupply. n

Lindsey Loving is the senior director, food ingredient & technology communica-

tions for the IFIC, a nonprofit agency in Washington, DC, whose mission is to ef-

fectively communicate science-based information on food safety and nutrition to

health professionals, journalists and consumers. She is a member of the Ameri-

can Association of Diabetes Educators and the Institute of Food Technologists

(IFT), and has given recent presentations at the annual meetings of the Ameri-

can Dietetic Association, School Nutrition Association and IFT. She received a

bachelor’s of business administration in 2000 from James Madison University in

Harrisonburg, VA.

References1. www.foodinsight.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=IMLgAIWA7wA%3d& tabid=1399.2. www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=2011_Food_Health_Survey_Consumer_Attitudes_Toward_Food_Safety_Nutrition_Health.3. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01722.x/abstract.4. www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2961306-3/abstract.5. www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/660.htm.6. www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeeting Materials/FoodAdvisoryCommittee/UCM248549.pdf.7. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19440040903470718.8. jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/3/194.full.pdf+html?sid=26258160-b66e-4739-a888-e042a351bebd. 9. www.fda.gov/food/foodingredientspackaging/ucm094211.htm.

Additional Resourcesonlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00127.x/pdf.

www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietaryguidelines.htm.

www.foodinsight.org/understandingourfood.aspx.

For more information on ingredient safety,

please visit

www.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature.asp.

CATEGORY: INGREDIENTS

“As ingredients and technologies become integrated into the foodsupply, consumers will continue to have questions about their purposeand safety.”

(continued from page 53)

FSM2312pg50-61,66_Layout 1 2/1/12 1:04 PM Page 66

Advanced Instruments, Inc..............................25781.320.9000 • www.aicompanies.com

AIB International..............................................45800.633.5137 • www.aibonline.org

AMI International Expo ...................................55www.amiexpo.com

Bia Diagnostics, LLC..........................................17802.540.0148 • www.biadiagnostics.com

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc..................................3800.4BIORAD • www.bio-rad.com

BioControl Systems, Inc...................................35800.245.0113 • www.biocontrolsys.com

Ecolab ................................................................33800.392.3392 • www.ecolab.com

EMD Millipore ....................................................9www.emdmillipore.com/biomonitoring

EtQ Management Consultants ..........................5800.354.4476 • www.etq.com/foodsafety

Foreign Trade Service Corp. (FTS) ..................21888.387.5227 • www.ftslabs.com

Food Safety Connect ..........................................2www.foodsafetyconnect.com

Food Safety Summit .........................................51www.foodsafetysummit.com

Hygiena, LLC .....................................................29805.388.8007 ext 300 • www.hygiena.com

Lomont IMT ......................................................43800.776.0380 ext 1589 • www.lomontimt.com

Marel Inc. ..........................................................49888.888.9107 · www.marel.com

Mettler-Toledo, Safeline, Inc ...........................53800.221.2624 • www.mt.com/pi

Michelson Laboratories, Inc............................63888.941.5050 • www.michelsonlab.com

Microbiologics Inc ............................................57www.microbiologics.com

National Registry of Food Safety Professionals.....................................................59

www.nrfsp.com

Neogen Corp.....................................................68800.234.5333 • www.neogen.com

Pfizer Animal Health........................................39www.SRPEcoli.com

Pickering Laboratories, Inc .............................63www.pickeringlabs.com

Precision Microslides, LLC ...............................15855.649.9008 • www.precisionmicroslides.com

Puritan Medical Products Co, LLC..................65800.321.2313www.puritanmedproducts.com/enviro

Q Laboratories, Inc...........................................19513.471.1300 • www.qlaboratories.com

Roka Bioscience, Inc ..........................................7855.ROKABIO • www.rokabio.com

Romer Labs Inc.................................................23636.583.8600 • www.romerlabs.com/glutenG12

Silliker, Inc.........................................................41www.silliker.com

Spartan Chemical Company, Inc.....................31800.537.8990 • www.spartanchemical.com

TandD US, LLC...................................................67518.669.9227 • www.tandd.com

Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc............................47www.thermoscientific.com/foodsafety

3M Food Safety.................................................13www.3M.com/3MMolecularDetectionSystem/FSA

Weber Scientific ................................................11800.328.8378 • www.weberscientific.com

F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 67

Advertisers Index

TandD US, LLC.inquiries@tandd.com (518) 669-9227 www.tandd.com

TandD US, LLC.inquiries@@@@tattandd.com (518) 669-9227 www.tandd.com

Wireless Monitoring!

Refrigerators

Cellular

Data Loggers from TANDD

Monitoring Via

For bulk reprints of 500 ormore copies from

Food Safety Magazine,contact Betsy White

at The Reprint Outsource717.394.7350

reprints@foodsafetymagazine.com

Customized Quality Reprints

Valuable for a variety of uses:• Trade shows • Conferences

• Seminars • Public relations

• Media kits

FSM2312pg1-2,67-68_FSM230pg1-2,93-94 2/1/12 2:11 PM Page 67

800/234-5333 (USA/Canada) or 517/372-9200 www.neogen.com

To learn more about BetaStar Plus use the QR code or call your Neogen Representative below

Detecct beeettaa--laaacttaamm aaanttibbiiootiic reeessiddues in 5 mminnuuutees

Neogen has developed a better method of accurately detecting beta-lactam residues in milk: BetaStar Plus. Unlike competitor methods, BetaStar Plus utilizes a critical initial step that ensures the binding of any present beta-lactam residues in the sample test vial

— greatly reducing the risk for either false positive or false negative results.*

BetaStar Plus. The Science is Simple. The Choice is clear.*Performing the association and separation (test strip) steps simultaneously increase the risk of false results.

Neogen has developed a better method

Better Brand Protection.Quicker Results.

A 3 minute incubation provides a greater chance that any resi-dues present in the sample will bind to the signaling molecules.

An independent signaling molecule serves as a control, binding to the control line and verifying the device is working properly.

4:42:44 PM

FSM2312pg1-2,67-68_FSM230pg1-2,93-94 2/1/12 2:11 PM Page 68