Food Safety Magazine, June/July 2012

There’s an App for That 

Download the current issue of 

Food Safety Magazine 

from iTunes or 

Android Marketplace today. 

Food Safety Magazine is proud to have the support of 

Agilent Technologies as sponsor for the launch of our app

food science // iQ-CHECK REAl-TiME PATHOgEn DETECTiOn 

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 at 

www.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. 

To find To find your your local local sales sales office, office, visit visit www.bio-rad.com/contact. 

In the In the U.S., U.S., call call toll toll free free at 1-800-4BIORAD at (1-800-424-6723). 

Visit Visit us us at www.bio-rad.com 

at

June/July 2012 

Vol. 18, No. 3 

FEATURES 

50 Cover Story 

Crisis Management: 

How to Handle Outbreak Events 

By Benjamin Chapman, Ph.D., 

Audrey Kreske, Ph.D., and Doug Powell, Ph.D. 

54 Spotlight: Meat and Poultry 

Potential Use of Edible Nanoscale 

Coatings for Meat 

By Navam Hettiarachchy, Ph.D., and 

Madhuram Ravichandran 

58 Category: Beverages 

Safety Issues Associated with 

Nonalcoholic Beverages 

By Gordana Ristovska, M.D., Ph.D., 

Maja Dimitrovska, M.Sc., and Anita Najdenkoska, B.Sc. 

62 Consumer Trust 

Building Consumer Trust 

Requires Redefining Today’s 

Food System 

By Charlie Arnot, APR 

68 Category: Beverages 

Food Safety Systems for Low-Acid Aseptic Beverages 

By Suchart Chaven and Ana Sedarati 

DEPARTMENTS 48 Food Safety Insider 

6 Editor’s Letter 74 Product Showcase 

8 News Bites 83 Advertisers Index 

Editorial Advisory Board 

Daniel W. Bena 

PepsiCo Beverages International 

Reginald W. Bennett 

CFSAN, U.S. FDA 

Robert E. Brackett, Ph.D. 

National Center for Food Safety 

and Technology 

John N. Butts, Ph.D. 

Land O’Frost 

Brian Campbell 

Kroger Manufacturing 

Larry Cohen 

Saputo Cheese U.S.A. 

Michael M. Cramer 

Windsor Foods 

Beth Ann Crozier-Dodson, Ph.D. 

Chestnut Labs 

Jonathan W. DeVries, Ph.D. 

General Mills/Medallion Labs 

William Fisher 

Institute of Food Technologists 

Russell Flowers, Ph.D. 

Silliker, Inc. 

Veny Gapud 

Fieldale Farms 

Kathy Gombas 


Jim Gorny, Ph.D. 


Donald J. Graham 

Graham Sanitary Design Consulting 

Paul A. Hall, Ph.D. 

Flying Food Group 

Margaret Hardin, Ph.D. 

IEH Laboratories & Consulting Group 

Larry Keener 

International Product Safety Consultants 

Huub L.M. Lelieveld 

Global Harmonization Initiative 

Ann Marie McNamara, Ph.D. 

Jack in the Box, Inc. 

Martin Mitchell 

Certified Laboratories/ 

Refrigerated Foods Association 

Doug Peariso 

Contemporary Process Solutions LLC 

COLUMNS 

12 Guest Editorial 

Cutting Out the Fat 

By Eric Mittenthal, M.S. 

14 Testing 

Flavors Should Burst, Not Packages 

By Kara Baldus, M.B.A., and Virginia Deibel, Ph.D. 

18 International Food Safety 

What’s in the Best Interest 

of the Food Industry? 

By Huub Lelieveld 

20 Sanitation 

Biofilms: Impact on the Food Industry 

By Michael Cramer 

24 Focus on Traceability 

Communicating During and 

Through a Food Recall 

By Hinda Mitchell 

26 Process Control 

Shipping and Receiving for Food Safety 

By Richard F. Stier 

34 Regulatory Report 

Beverages at the Forefront of Innovation 

in Booming Functional Food Market 

By Marcus Lipp, Ph.D. 

38 Packaging 

It’s What’s on the Outside that Counts 

By Monoprix 

42 Focus on Technology 

Utilization of Steam Heat Generated 

via Microwave Energy 

By John J. Specchio, Ph.D., John P. Schrade 

and Mandy Unanski 

Robert Powitz, Ph.D., MPH, RS 

R.W. Powitz & Associates 

Scott M. Russell, Ph.D. 

University of Georgia 

Thomas M. Sauer 

Wells Enterprises 

Richard F. Stier 

Consulting Food Scientist 

Darryl Sullivan 

Covance Laboratories 

John G. Surak, Ph.D. 

Surak and Associates 

Alexandra Veiga, Ph.D. 

ITQB-UNL and EFFoST 

Don L. Zink, Ph.D. 


4 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

PCR has gone the way 

of the VCR. 

Visit www.NeogenANSR.com 

ANSR is a revolutionary new platform for rapid, DNAdefinitive 

pathogen detection that is simpler, better and 

faster than PCR and ELISA-based methods. 

• DNA-definitive results in only 10 minutes 

• Selective, sensitive, minimal matrix effects 

• Economically scalable 

• Simple to learn, easy to use 

800/234-5333 or 517/372-9200 

foodsafety@neogen.com • www.neogen.com

Editor’s Letter 

It’s All About Communication 

I’ve written before about the need for the food industry to do a 

better job communicating with consumers about food safety, 

both what the industry is doing specifically and how consumers 

can play a role in safe food handling at home. But this need 

becomes even more urgent in the world of Twitter 

and other forms of social media. How does the 

food industry stay ahead of the next negative 

campaign against an accepted method for keeping 

food safe? 

Mainstream media stirs the proverbial pot 

by sensationalizing consumer reactions without 

emphasizing scientific fact. Why is it so difficult for these 

outfits to not only report the reaction, but also take a step back 

to research what is factual and then provide that important 

information as well? I’m guessing that this approach does not 

pique the interest of the primary targeted audience, but it would 

go a long way in grounding discussions about how our food 

safety system works. 

In this issue, American Meat Institute’s Eric Mittenthal writes 

about the increased media attention given recently to lean finely 

textured beef and the unfortunate fallout that this additive to raw 

ground beef has had on the meat industry. The market response 

has been swift and decisive, but it has not been based on fact or 

science. While consumers report that having safe food is the top 

priority driving their food choices (see “Building Consumer Trust 

Requires Redefining Today’s Food System” by Charlie Arnot, 

APR, of the Center for Food Integrity, p. 62), they appear to 

not understand or appreciate that, according to Mittenthal, “the 

number of U.S. Department of Agriculture ground beef samples 

testing positive for E. coli O157:H7 dropped 55 percent between 

2000 and 2010. Lean finely textured beef products have been a 

part of that success story.” 

How then does the food industry counter the often-negative 

influence of social media? Arnot maintains that “food producers 

and processors can help secure the support of customers by 

working to build consumer trust and understanding of today’s 

production and processing systems. Research indicates consumers 

want permission to believe the food they eat is safe and produced 

in a responsible manner.” 

In the current social media environment, trust is built 

on transparency and an open conversation with consumers. 

Companies can no longer hide and hope that a problem will go 

away. With the door of communication now open, the time to 

build trust and foster an understanding of today’s food industry is 

now. 

Best Regards, 

Barbara VanRenterghem, Ph.D. 

Editorial Director 

CEO, The Target Group Inc. Don Meeker 

Publisher Stacy Atchison 

Derby Winner 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) 210-3149 

Fax (508) 210-3139 

barbara@foodsafetymagazine.com 

Production Office 1113 Ellis Street 

Ft. Collins, CO 80524 

Phone (970) 484-4488 

craig@foodsafetymagazine.com 

Advertising Sales 

Bobby Meeker (818) 842-2829 

bobby@foodsafetymagazine.com 

Adam Haas (321) 804-4319 

adam@foodsafetymagazine.com 

Food Safety Magazine (ISSN 1084-5984) is published bimonthly by 

The Target Group Inc., 1945 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201; 

(818) 842-4777; Fax (818) 769-2939; E-mail info@foodsafetymagazine.com. 

Periodicals Postage Rate paid at Glendale, CA, and 

additional mailing offices. Subscriptions: Free to qualified subscribers 

as defined on the subscription card; $85.00 per year for nonqualified 

subscribers. Back Issues: $10.00 per copy, prepaid. Change of 

Address: Notices should be sent promptly; provide old mailing label 

as well as new address. Allow two months for change. Editorial 

Contributions: Unsolicited manuscripts should be submitted to: Food 

Safety Magazine, 1945 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201. Notice— 

Every precaution is taken to ensure accuracy of content; however, the 

publishers cannot accept responsibility for the correctness of the information 

supplied or advertised or for any opinion expressed herein. 

Postmaster: Send address changes to Food Safety Magazine, 1945 

W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201. ©2012 by The Target Group 

Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without written 

permission is strictly prohibited. The publishers do not warrant, 

either expressly or by implication, the factual accuracy of the articles 

or descriptions herein, nor do they so warrant any views or opinions 

offered by the authors of said articles and descriptions. 


pathogen testing 

that’s a piece of cake 

We understand that ensuring your products are pathogen-free, quickly and 

accurately, is vital to you. But if the thought of PCR gives you a headache, then 

think again. The BAX ® System Q7 is easy to use. Sample prep couldn’t be 

simpler with no centrifugation or washing steps. PCR reagents are tabletted 

and preloaded, meaning minimal pipetting steps. Intuitive user interface software 

means test set up and reading couldn’t be easier. To see for yourself just how 

simple PCR can be, contact us today.* 

protect consumers, 

and protect your reputation 

*Contact your local representative for further information or email 

oxoid.food@thermofi sher.com 

© 2012 Thermo Fisher Scientifi c. All rights reserved. Copyrights to photographs 

held by third parties, email oxoid.info@thermofi sher.com for details. 

Assays for the BAX ® System 

Q7 include: 

Salmonella 

Genus Listeria 

Listeria monocytogenes 

Escherichia coli O157:H7 

STEC screening assay 

& identifi cation panels 

Staphylococcus aureus 

Campylobacter coli/jejuni/lari 

E. sakazakii (Cronobacter) 

Vibrio cholerae/ 

parahaemolyticus/vulnifi cus 

Yeast and Mould 

The DuPont Qualicon BAX ® System Q7 is 

available in Europe, Canada, Australia and New 

Zealand from your local Oxoid representative. 

BAX ® is a trademark or registered trademark of 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company or its 

affi liates. All rights reserved. 

Oxoid is part of Thermo Fisher Scientifi c

News Bites 

FDA Announces 

Final Strategic 

Plan for the 

Foods and 

Veterinary 

Medicine 

Program 

The U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) announced 

the release of 

the final Strategic Plan for 

the Foods and Veterinary 

Medicine Program (FVM) 

for 2012–2016. The plan 

addresses the responsibilities 

of the Center for 

Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition and the Center 

for Veterinary Medicine 

while including activities 

supported by the Office 

of Regulatory Affairs. The 

plan illustrates the breadth 

and complexity of the program’s 

work and identifies 

priority initiatives. It outlines 

seven strategic program 

goals, each encompassing 

its own key objectives, 

as well as nearly 100 

specific initiatives aimed at 

achieving goals and objectives. 

The draft Strategic Plan 

was published on September 

30, 2011, with a 30- 

day comment period. The 

FDA carefully reviewed and 

considered all submitted 

comments before issuing 

this final Strategic Plan. 

More information can be 

found at www.fda.gov/ 

AboutFDA/ 

CentersOffices/ 

OfficeofFoods/ 

ucm273269.htm. 

CanadaGAP and CPMA Food Safety Programs to Merge 

The Canadian Horticultural Council (CHC) 

and Canadian Produce Marketing Association 

(CPMA) will integrate the CanadaGAP (On-Farm 

Food Safety) Program and the CPMA Repacking 

and Wholesale Food Safety Program (RWFSP). 

Both the CHC and CPMA boards of directors 

approved the integration initiative during their respective 

annual meetings earlier this year. 

Integrating the two programs will result in some 

key benefits for the Canadian fruit and vegetable industry, including adopting an industrywide 

food safety system that meets customer requirements; ensuring consistent and complementary 

food safety standards from producers and packers to wholesalers and repackers; lessening the 

confusion around overlapping programs or requirements; meeting the needs of companies that 

pack and repack product; maintaining strong linkages between the various levels of the value 

chain; competing more effectively with other internationally recognized programs whose scope 

reaches farther along the value chain and integrating audits, audit checklists, auditor training, 

government technical reviews and international benchmarking processes. 

A formal study was undertaken in 2010 to examine the feasibility of the joint venture. The 

study concluded this was a feasible initiative. The two programs will be integrated under an autonomous 

corporate entity that will function independently of both CHC and CPMA. 

Work on this initiative will continue through 2012–13, with funding assistance from Agriculture 

and Agri-Food Canada through the Canadian Integrated Food Safety Initiative under Growing 

Forward. The integrated program could be available by 2013–14. 

Huub Lelieveld Receives Food Safety Magazine 

Distinguished Service Award 

At the 2012 annual meeting of the Institute of Food Technologists 

(IFT) in Las Vegas, NV, Huub Lelieveld will be presented 

with the Food Safety Magazine Distinguished Service Award at the 

joint social of the Nonthermal Processing and Food Engineering 

divisions of IFT. 

Mr. Lelieveld’s outstanding commitment to food safety is 

reflected in his roles as president of the Global Harmonization 

Initiative, member of the Executive Committee and past-president 

of EFFoST (the European Federation of Food Science and 

Technology), and founder and past-president of EHEDG 

(the European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group). He 

continues to be active in various societies and helps drive 

innovation and advances in the processing of safe food. 

As a longtime member of the Editorial Advisory Board, 

and frequent contributor to Food Safety Magazine, including 

this issue’s article “What’s in the Best Interest of the Food Industry?” on page 18, we are pleased 

to honor Huub’s stellar contributions on global food safety, hygienic processing and plant design, 

and novel food processing technologies, which are unparalleled in the food industry. 

The Food Safety Magazine Distinguished Service Award honors individuals who best exemplify 

the characteristics of the dedicated food safety professional. Those honored are recognized by 

members of the profession for their collective works in promoting and advancing science-based 

solutions for food safety issues. 

Past recipients of the award include Allen Katsuyama, Larry Beuchat, Ph.D., Keith Ito, William 

Sperber, Ph.D., Robert L. Buchanan, Ph.D., Bruce Tompkin, Ph.D., John N. Butts, Ph.D., 

Don L. Zink, Ph.D., David Theno, Ph.D., and Barbara Masters, DVM. 


Something FAST. 

Something TRUE. 

Something MICRO. 

Choose proven expertise 

to back your food safety 

program. Gain new 24/7 

availability to protect your 

brand. 

Covance has expanded our 

laboratory 

services to include microbiology 

consulting, training and crisis 

response. 

In addition to our highthroughput 

microbiology testing 

services, we now offer you: 

Something 

NEW! 

• GFSI Pre-Audit Consultations 

• Third-party audits 

• Expert witness services 

• 24/7 harborage point 

investigations 

• Regulatory notice response 

assistance 

• HACCP training 

New legislation is being 

implemented, consumer 

condence is on the decline, and 

retailers are requiring evidence 

of your food safety programs. 

This is why we are delivering 

new programs to help meet your 

challenging food safety needs. 

Covance is committed to helping 

you deliver safe products. Call 

today to see how we can help 

you keep your brand protected 

and your products safe. 

Call 

(855) 83MICRO 

www.nutri.covance.com

News Bites 

2012 Food Safety Summit Wrap-up 

The 2012 Food Safety Summit kicked off in Washington, DC, in April with three certification 

programs on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, Industry-Foodborne Illness Investigation 

Training and ServSafe, and moved into conference sessions on topics ranging from food 

defense to the Food Safety Modernization Act. Keynote speaker Oscar Garrison, division director, 

consumer protection, Georgia Department of Agriculture, and president of the Association 

of Food & Drug Officials, was introduced by Food Safety Magazine Editorial Director Barbara 

VanRenterghem, Ph.D., and spoke on how the food industry and public health officials must 

collaborate to succeed. 

A highlight on the exhibition floor was the presence 

of First LEGO ® League (FLL) teams, showcasing 

their solutions to this year’s assigned real-world 

challenge of food safety. FLL immerses children 

between ages 9 and 16 in current-day science and 

technology challenges, encouraging teams to design 

their own solutions to these challenges and build 

autonomous LEGO robots that perform a series of 

tasks. Learn more at www.usfirst.org. 

The meeting ended with a Town Hall open forum discussion involving Michael Taylor, 

deputy commissioner for foods, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and Elizabeth Hagen, 

M.D., undersecretary for food safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture, which was moderated by 

Gary Ades, president of G&L Consulting and chairman of the Food Safety Summit Executive 

Educational Advisory Committee. The 2013 meeting is scheduled from April 30 through May 2 

in Baltimore, MD. 

IAFP Names The Kroger Co. as Recipient of the 

Prestigious Black Pearl Award 

The International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) selected 

The Kroger Co. as the 2012 recipient of the prestigious 

Black Pearl Award. Sponsored by Wilbur Feagan and 

F & H Food Equipment Company, the Black Pearl Award will be 

presented at IAFP’s annual meeting in Providence, RI, in July. 

This honor is given annually to one company for its efforts 

in advancing food safety and quality through consumer programs, 

employee relations, educational activities and adherence to 

standards, and support of the objectives of IAFP. 

The IAFP Fellow Award will be awarded to Christine 

M. Bruhn, Ph.D., University of California–Davis, 

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

Robert L. Buchanan, University of Maryland, 

will be awarded the President’s Lifetime 

Achievement Award. This award recognizes an 

individual who has made a lasting impact on 

advancing food safety worldwide through a 

lifetime of professional achievements in food 

protection. 

Kansas State University and Daniel Y. C. Fung, 

and the University of Wisconsin–River Falls and 

Purnendu C. Vasavada will receive the Grocery 

Manufacturers Association Food Safety Award in 

recognition of a long history of outstanding contributions 

to food safety research and education. 

New GHI 

Newsletter 

Available 

The new edition of the 

Global Harmonization Initiative 

(GHI) 

newsletter, 

GHI Matters, 

issue 5, has 

much information of interest 

to the readers of Food Safety 

Magazine. Apart from short 

reports on recent meetings, 

there are details on GHI’s activities 

in forthcoming events, 

such as CEFood2012 in 

Serbia, the Institute of Food 

Technologists’ annual meeting 

in Las Vegas, the International 

Union of Food Science 

and Technology World Food 

Congress in Brazil, the European 

Hygienic Engineering 

& Design Group World Congress 

on Hygienic Engineering 

& Design in Spain and the 

European Federation of Food 

Science & Technology (EF- 

FoST) annual conference in 

France. 

Of particular interest is the 

toxicity course that GHI is organizing 

in conjunction with 

the EFFoST conference. It is a 

unique opportunity to learn 

in a short time about reliable 

and rapid genotoxicity testing 

without using animals. 

This issue has an abstract 

on “Food security, the moving 

borders of poverty, free 

markets and political interventions” 

with lead authors 

Atef Idriss (GHI ambassador 

in Lebanon) and John Lupien 

(Food and Agriculture Organization, 

Food and Nutrition 

Division). 

GHI Matters can be downloaded 

from www. 

globalharmonization.net/ 

newsletter_issue_5. 


DB Prefilled Dilution Bottles 

Never Hassle with Shrink 

Bands Again! 

Easy 

pull strip 

Much easier to open and use 

Request your FREE copy 

today of our 265-page 

buyer’s guide! 

Call 800-328-8378 or 

visit weberscientific.com 

Huge freight savings and 

faster delivery nationwide. 

12 1 ⁄4” 

12 1 ⁄4” 

Legendary for great prices since 1959 

800-328-8378 • weberscientific.com 

Easier to store 

Greener packaging 

60% smaller footprint and 3 

times less corrugated waste 

than the competition 

LABORATORY SUPPLIER 

AWARD WINNING

GUEST EDITORIAL 

By Eric Mittenthal, M.S. 

Cutting Out the Fat 

The true story of lean finely 

textured beef 

The last few months have brought unprecedented 

attention to lean finely textured beef 

(LFTB), a product that was unfairly reviled in 

mainstream and social media as “pink slime.” 

Some critics have been extreme in their claims, 

erroneously calling it a filler, an additive or something 

that was previously used in pet food. While there were 

a variety of concerns raised about LFTB, at its heart, the 

main concern among consumers seemed not to be related 

to food safety, but to perceived deception. There was 

no intention to hide the product, and makers regularly 

talked about it to the media. The Washington Post carried 

a 2008 Business Section cover story with the headline 

“Engineering a Safer Burger” that featured one of the 

makers. The same company appears in a high profile film 

about the U.S. food supply. 

Still, the storm that played out in the media and social 

media space offers a forecast of things to come and the 

need to respond swiftly, effectively and frequently about 

meat processing. 

What Is LFTB? 

At a basic level, LFTB is no different from any other 

meat removed from a beef animal. It’s beef. But conversations 

with reporters and consumers made clear that 

consumers perceive that all meat is removed from carcasses 

by a few cuts from a knife. Of course, the reality is, 

meat comes from muscle and muscle can be connected 

to bone and fat. Depending on the location of the muscle, 

removing it can present varying degrees of challenge. 

In the case of LFTB, the meat starts with 

trimmings, which are small cuts of beef 

with fat attached that are not connected 

to a bone. To separate the meat from the 

fat, the trimmings are warmed to about 

100 °F, which is approximately body 

temperature. The trimmings are placed 

in a centrifuge so the fat is liquefied and 

spun away, and the lean meat remains. 

At this point in the process, a food safety 

intervention is applied to destroy any 

pathogenic bacteria that may be present. 

This intervention is classified as a 

processing aid. The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) considers processing 

aids to be substances that are present in 

a meat or poultry product in an insignificant 

amount that do not and have no 

functional or technical effects in the finished 

meat or poultry product. Examples 

of processing aids used during the production 

of LFTB include citric acid and 

ammonia. The resulting beef product is 

about 95 percent lean protein but also 

has a finer texture than typical ground 

beef. For these reasons, LFTB is not sold 

as a stand-alone product. Instead, LFTB 

is added to raw ground beef typically at a 

ratio of 5–15 percent. 

Why LFTB Is Beneficial 

There are several benefits to using 

LFTB in ground beef. Consumers demand 

a lean beef product, and LFTB 

allows processors to make lean ground 

beef blends that are affordable. Using 

ammonium hydroxide or citric acid to 

destroy bacteria provides added safety. 

USDA data show that the incidence of 

E. coli in fresh ground beef has been declining 

significantly over the past decade. 

The number of USDA ground beef samples 

testing positive for E. coli O157:H7 

dropped 55 percent between 2000 and 

2010. LFTB products have been a part of 

that success story. 

Finally, all types of LFTB are sustainable 

products because processors recover 

lean meat that would otherwise be wast- 


Food_Ad_NewFood_FoodSafety_twothirds.indd 1 

5/16/12 3:34 PM 

GUEST EDITORIAL 

ed. The beef processing industry is proud 

to produce beef products that maximize 

as much lean meat as possible from the 

carcass. It’s the right thing to do and 

it ensures that our products remain as 

affordable as we can make them while 

helping to feed America and the world. 

If LFTB is not used in fresh ground 

beef products, approximately 1.5 million 

additional head of cattle would 

need to be harvested annually to make 

up the difference, which is not a good 

use of natural resources, or modern 

technology, in a world where red meat 

consumption is rising and available supply 

is declining. 

Moving Forward 

Many supermarkets have pulled 

ground beef with LFTB off the shelves 

due to consumer reaction to news reports 

and social media activity. LFTB has 

not historically been distinguished from 

beef on a label because USDA classified 

LFTB as beef. However, USDA recently 

announced that it would approve labels 

(USDA actually approves all labels before 

they are applied) that declare LFTB 

when it is used, so LFTB may soon be 

available again in labeled packages. The 

future of LFTB will be determined by 

whether consumers accept it with a label. 

Ground beef with LFTB will likely 

be around 10 cents per pound cheaper 

than ground beef without it. In tough 

economic times, that may be enough 

to bring consumers back. If not, it will 

likely mean the loss of a safe, wholesome 

product that has been given an unfortunate 

nickname. 

• 

waters.com 

Serving fast, accurate results 

with innovative sample preparation 

and column solutions. 

With a wide range of food safety products, advanced applications, 

and dedicated technical support, we work with government and 

industry partners around the world to ensure that you achieve 

fast, accurate, and reproducible results. 

Browse our menu of laboratory solutions at 

www.waters.com/ft 

Eric Mittenthal, M.S. is vice 

president of public affairs at 

the American Meat Institute. 

(AMI) based in Washington, 

DC. He came to AMI from 

the International Food 

Information Council where he led their efforts 

in communicating with journalists and bloggers 

and also managed the FoodInsight.org blog. 

Eric graduated from Cornell University in Ithaca, 

NY with a B.A. in psychology. He also received a 

M.S. in biomedical sciences from Eastern Virginia 

Medical School in Norfolk, VA. 

Pharmaceutical & Life Sciences | Food | Environmental | Clinical | Chemical Materials 

© 2012 Waters Corporation. Waters and The Science of What’s Possible are trademarks of Waters Corporation 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 13

Testing 

By Kara Baldus, M.B.A., and Virginia Deibel, Ph.D. 

Flavors Should Burst, 

Not Packages 

Understanding the microbial 

causes of swollen packages 

The average American household throws away 

approximately 14 percent of purchased food, 

due in part to microbial spoilage. 1 While spoilage 

can take many forms, swelling packages 

serve as beacons of microbial contamination. 

We will discuss and identify the organisms responsible 

for causing package swelling, key steps in successful complaint 

resolution and elimination of future occurrences. 

Root-Cause Analysis 

While swelling packages may be due to microbial 

contamination, background information will help piece 

together how the microbes entered into the production 

stream. These investigations can be initiated while gathering 

information regarding the organism. To start: 

• Review product history for past customer complaints 

and their time frames (seasonality, new ingredient supplier, 

construction, unplanned maintenance events— 

equipment or building) 

• Check any retained samples for condition 

• Send samples to lab along with implicated 

product samples 

• Look across product lines for similar complaints, looking 

for trends 

• Identify line(s) 

• Identify shift(s) 

• Identify day(s) 

• Identify if there is a seasonality to the swollen 

packages 

• Identify if the product is discolored, 

has a foul odor or is slimy 

• Communicate any information 

gathered to the lab to assist in 

identification 

• Identify ingredients and review inhouse 

or ingredient-supplier test 

results 

• If no in-house ingredient testing 

is conducted, consider implementing 

a skip-lot testing 

program 

• Review preoperative results for 

deviations 

• Review any in-process food contact 

surface indicator-organism results 

(aerobic plate count, coliforms, etc.) 

• If no in-process testing program 

is conducted, consider implementing 

an indicator-organism 

testing program to help identify 

equipment maintenance issues 

before they can cause significant 

cross-contamination 

events. 

Investigative Microbiology 

Generally, package swelling is caused 

by carbon dioxide (gas) formation, a 

by-product of microbial growth. While 

many organisms may cause spoilage— 

which is a tactile, visual and olfactory or 

flavor change that is unacceptable—gas 

production is generally caused by only 

three types of organisms (Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Gas-producing Organisms 


Testing 

Product and equipment testing: Because 

microbes usually enter the production 

stream based on an ingredient or Good 

Manufacturing Practice lapse, one dominant 

organism is often responsible for 

spoilage. Alternatively, there may be one 

genus but multiple species involved. 

Microbial identification takes expertise 

and precision. Selecting a lab that has 

such expertise will save time. Ideally, the 

lab should use the data gathered to assist 

with formulation of corrective and preventive 

actions as quickly and efficiently 

as possible. 

It is often perplexing why pre-ship 

test results can be within specifications, 

but product defects occur later in shelf 

life. At shipment, if present, gas-forming 

concentration is usually low or below the 

limit of detection. This is why reviews 

of pre-ship results do not always provide 

helpful data. Routine monitoring 

of equipment for indicator organisms 

and data trending provide a picture of 

the microbial milieu and exposure the 

products face during production. When 

setting pre-ship product specifications, 

the lowest possible pre-ship numbers for 

common spoilage organisms is the best 

plan because any presence at this stage 

may indicate future spoilage. Tracking 

and trending resultant data may identify 

whether there may be a spoilage event 

later in shelf life. Gas production does 

not occur until bacterial concentrations 

reach approximately 1.0 × 10 7 colonyforming 

units/gram (CFU/g). 2 This is 

why the product can test within specifications 

when shipped only to swell later 

in shelf life. 3 

Laboratory analysis: For any microbial 

identification, testing labs usually take 

a three-pronged approach: 1) cultivation, 

2) isolation and enrichment and 

3) identification. Cultivation allows for 

quantitative results. Only approved cultivation 

methods found in Compendium 

of Methods for the Microbiological Examination 

of Foods, 4 Standard Methods for the 

Examination of Dairy Products 5 or AOAC 

International, 6 depending on the food 

type, should be used. However, some 

scientists may use nonapproved methods 

to resuscitate injured cells followed by 

isolation and identification if traditional 

direct plate counts are ineffective. 

Isolation and enrichment allows the 

microbes to be separated and multiplied 

so that each type may be successfully 

identified. All three steps are needed. 

Since each step takes 2–3 days, the entire 

process will require up to 9 days for final 

results. Further, if there are not a high 

number of organisms in the sample, cultivation 

may take longer. Consequently, 

obtaining a product sample during 

bloating will greatly aid in identification 

because there is a plethora of organisms 

available for culture. Of note, some organisms 

such as lactic acid bacteria are 

difficult to identify. Verify that the laboratory 

conducting the testing has experience 

working with them. 

Gas-Producing Spoilage Organisms 

Coliforms: Coliforms are a subgroup 

within the genera of Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae 

and are widely known 

to inhabit the gastrointestinal tracts of 

animals and humans. Their presence in 

production facilities indicates unsanitary 

conditions or contamination with soils 

exposed to feces. 5 Coliforms grow over 

a wide pH range (4.4 to 9.0) and at temperatures 

ranging from 3 °C to 50 °C. 

They are susceptible to heat, and while 

some are psychrotrophic (cold-loving), 

the majority are sensitive to cold. Thus, 

refrigeration will reduce populations. 

Lactic Acid Bacteria: Lactic acid 

bacteria are Gram-positive, nonsporeforming 

organisms that ferment glucose 

to lactic acid (homofermentative) or to 

lactic acid, carbon dioxide and ethanol 

(heterofermentative). Their presence will 

cause a sour note; together with heterofermentative 

organisms, they will cause 

swelling (Table 1). They can grow in low 

oxygen tensions (vacuum or modified 

atmosphere packaging), which enables 

them to outcompete other spoilage 

bacteria. Growth in refrigeration and in 

highly acidic environments will occur, 

allowing for spoilage multiple weeks into 

shelf life. 2 Many times, raw ingredients 

have high lactic acid bacteria counts. 

Since these bacteria are heat resistant, 

they can undergo thermal treatments 

and small numbers can survive. Spoilage 

can occur with cell concentrations of less 

than 10 CFU/g in finished products. 

Yeast: Yeasts ferment carbohydrates 

to form ethanol and carbon dioxide. 

They are commonly found in the environment 

and can cause contamination 

through airborne transmission. They 

grow more slowly than bacteria. Yeast 

spoilage can occur in products with low 

pH, low water activity and low temperatures. 

Since most are heat sensitive, yeast 

contamination of heat-processed foods 

is due to post-processing contamination 

(Table 1). 

Group 

Coliforms 

Lactic acid 

bacteria 

Specific 

organisms 

(genus) 

Citrobacter 

Serratia 

Proteus 

Escherichia 

Enterobacter 

Erwinia 

Klebsiella 

Hafnia 

Lactobacillus 

Streptococcus 

Leuconostoc 

Pediococcus 

Yeast 

Candida 

Saccharomyces 

Zygosaccharomyces 

Torulaspora 

Rhodotorula 

Pichia 

Table 1: Organisms Commonly Responsible 

for Product Spoilage 

Visible, detectable levels of yeast spoilage 

occur at approximately 1.0 × 10 6 CFU/g 

but can go undetected when weak gas 

production occurs due to a lack of organoleptic 

clues. 7, 8 Of interest, some 

yeasts can produce sufficient pressure to 

explode plastic food packages and glass 

bottles. 7 

Corrective and Preventive Actions 

Once the organism is identified, the 

likelihood of elimination is greater. For 

each genus implicated, the corrective and 

preventive actions may differ. However, 

in all cases, comprehensive equipment 

disassembly, cleaning and sanitizing are 


Testing 

in order since their presence often indicates 

post-processing contamination. 9 

Prerequisite programs and process controls 

should be reviewed and revised if 

necessary. For example, implementation 

or revision of a supplier-monitoring program 

and skip-lot testing, using one of 

the listed accredited methods, should be 

done to ensure raw ingredients are not 

entering the process at an unacceptable 

level. 

Conclusions 

When the packaging is bursting with 

gas rather than with flavor, a spoilage 

organism is often the culprit. An essential 

step in resolving and correcting 

this defect is to first identify the organism. 

Coliforms, lactic acid bacteria 

and yeasts are gas-forming spoilage 

organisms. Their presence indicates 

either pre- or post-processing contamination. 

Working with an experienced 

and knowledgeable laboratory in the 

resolution will help save time and avoid 

future occurrences. 

• 

Advancing 

Food Science 

Throughout the 

Global Food Chain 

examination of foods, 4th ed. Washington, 

DC: American Public Health Association. 

5. Wehr, H. and J. Frank (eds.). 2004. Standard 

methods for the examination of dairy 

products. Washington, DC: American Public 

Health Association. 

6. www.aoac.org/. 

7. Stratford, M. 2006. Food and beverage 

spoilage yeasts. In Yeasts in food and beverages, 

eds. A. Querol and G. H. Fleet, 335–379. 

Berlin: Springer Verlag. 

8. Hui, Yu (ed.). 2006. Handbook of food 

science, technology, and engineering. Boca 

Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

9. Doyle, E. M. 2007. Microbial food spoilage 

— losses and control strategies. Madison, WI: 

Food Research Institute, University of 

Wisconsin–Madison. 

Kara Baldus, M.B.A., is a 

study coordinator/lead Hazard 

Analysis and Critical Control 

Points instructor at Covance 

Inc. in Madison, WI. She can 

be reached at kara.baldus@ 

covance.com. 

Virginia Deibel, Ph.D., is 

the director of microbiological 

consulting within nutritional 

chemistry and food safety at 

Covance Inc. 

References 

1. www.docstoc.com/docs/25959301/Using- 

Contemporary-Archaeology-and-Applied- 

Anthropology-to. 

2. Sperber, W. H. and M. P. Doyle (eds.). 2009. 

Compendium of the microbiological spoilage 

of foods and beverages. New York: Springer. 

3. Hamasaki, Y., A. Mitsuko, F. Hidetaka and M. 

Sugiyama. 2003. Behavior of psychrotrophic 

lactic acid bacteria isolated from spoiling 

cooked meat products. Appl Environ Microbiol 

69(6):3668–3671. 

4. Downes, F. and K. Ito (eds.). 2001. Compendium 

of methods for the microbiological 

Silliker is dedicated to helping 

companies worldwide find 

practical solutions to food safety 

and quality challenges throughout 

the supply chain. 

Our commitment to helping processors, 

retailers and distributors find workable 

solutions has made us the trusted 

food safety and quality resource of 

companies around the globe. 

IFT Annual Meeting & Food Expo 

Silliker, Inc. Booth #1635 

IAFP 2012 Annual Meeting 

Silliker, Inc. Booth #608 

Subscribe to receive our free “Industry Insights” 

newsletter at the trade shows or go online to: 

http://info.silliker.com/industryinsights/ 

Silliker, Inc. 

111 E. Wacker Drive 

Suite 2300 

Chicago, IL 60601 / USA 

email. info@silliker.com 

www.silliker.com 

email. info@silliker.com 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 17

International Food Safety 

By Huub Lelieveld 

What’s in the Best Interest of 

the Food Industry? 

This is one in a series of 

“P3FC” articles (People, 

Planet, Prosperity and 

the Food Chain), essays 

and comments from 

assorted authors. All 

articles in the series will 

address the challenges 

of food production 

to communicate best 

practice in the industry 

and encourage the 

adoption of sustainable 

policies. All authors 

are food professionals 

coming from diverse 

employment sectors and 

from around the globe. 

The goal of P3FC is to 

help create a global food 

supply chain that takes 

into account the wellbeing 

and prosperity of 

people and the planet. 

If you are interested in 

contributing an article 

to the P3FC series, 

please send an e-mail 

to katherine.flynn@ 

safeconsortium.org. 

Don’t sell your soul to the devil 

Monday, April 23, 2012, was a day worth 

celebrating. It was the day that the 

Netherlands’ prime minister had to 

offer the resignation of the government 

to the queen. This was good news, because 

the minority government that was formed just 18 

months ago could govern only thanks to the support 

of the anti-foreigners party (PVV). The two governing 

parties, VVD (liberals) and CDA (Christians), had compromised 

to do what they traditionally would strongly 

oppose, like expelling refugees, in conflict with international 

agreements and sometimes even national and 

international laws, just to gain the support of the PVV. 

Few people liked the coalition, but defended it as being 

in the interest of the nation, meaning it was good for 

the Dutch treasury. 

There is a parallel in the food industry. It is tempting 

for chief executive officers (CEOs) to “compromise 

in the interest of the company,” the interest being 

the—usually short-term—financial results. If the compromise 

has to do with the quality, but does not affect 

the safety, of the product, it might be defensible, but 

there are cases where food safety is at stake. When 

discovered, they reach the news and everybody knows. 

Melamine in milk is not a unique case; other examples 

are lead oxide in paprika powder, ethylene glycol in 

wine and recycled transformer cooling oil in pig and 

poultry feed. On the microbiological side, we have 

seen spoiled meat reprocessed and put back in the 

food chain, recanning of moldy applesauce and chickens 

given rotten feed, leading to outbreaks 

because the eggs are contaminated 

with Salmonella. No doubt there will 

be new cases in the future; greed seems 

to make some people very innovative. 

While in some countries, the result may 

be imprisonment for those responsible, 

in other countries, the responsible CEO 

may be urged to resign without serious 

consequences, and there are cases without 

any consequences at all. Being dishonest 

about the safety, the origin or the 

composition of a product is not acceptable, 

and when somebody finds out, he 

or she should report it and those “governing” 

the company should not only 

be made to resign but should also be 

taken to court. In a decent society, there 

is no room for an “old boys’ network” 

with the wrong intentions, helping each 

other survive their wrongdoings. Making 

a profit is fine, but not if it involves 

unacceptable compromises—the ends do 

not always and automatically justify the 

means. 

• 

Huub Lelieveld is president 

of the Global Harmonization 

Initiative, member of the 

executive committee and 

a past president of EFFoST 

(the European Federation 

of Food Science and Technology) and founder 

and past president of EHEDG (the European 

Hygienic Engineering & Design Group). He is a 

fellow of IAFoST (the International Academy of 

Food Science and Technology), a fellow of IFT 

(the Institute of Food Technologists) and has 

been chair of the nonthermal processing and 

international divisions of IFT. Most recently, he 

initiated “People, planet, prosperity and the food 

chain,” in short, P3FC, an organization of which 

the sole objective is to remind the food industry 

as frequently as possible that besides caring for 

shareholders, they also share responsibilities for 

the planet and society. He is a member of the 

P3FC editorial team and is on the editorial board 

of Food Safety Magazine. 


Food Allergen Testing 

Almond · Brazil Nut · beta-Lactoglobulin · Cashew 

Casein · Crustacea · Egg · Gluten · Hazelnut 

Histamine · Lupin · Macadamia · Mustard 

Pistachio · Peanut · Sesame · Soy · Walnut 

Next Generation 

Gluten 

Testing with 

G12 Technology 

AgraStrip ® Lateral Flow Tests 

AgraQuant ® ELISA Tests 

Full Service Analytical Lab 

Call (800) 769 1380 

E-Mail office@romerlabs.com 

www.romerlabs.com/allergens

SANITATION 

By Michael Cramer 

Biofilms: 

Impact on the Food Industry 

Preventing and eliminating 

biofilm formation 

Last month, I went to the dentist for my routine 

6-month checkup. Maintaining good oral health 

has always been important to me and was stressed 

in our family when I was growing up. As my father 

used to quip, “Be true to your teeth or your teeth 

will be false to you.” 

The dental hygienist cleaning my teeth asked if I brush 

my teeth manually or if I use an electric toothbrush. I informed 

her that I use an electric brush, but she recommended 

a different brand that vibrates at a higher speed because 

it is more effective at preventing plaque formation. She 

explained that plaque is a dental biofilm ecosystem, a coating 

on the teeth that forms when bacteria, often Streptococcus 

or Neisseria, adhere to the tooth surface. The coating hardens 

after about 48 hours, and within 10 days, plaque becomes 

dental calculus, or tartar, which is difficult 

to remove and can ultimately result in 

damage to the tooth, the surrounding soft 

tissue and other health concerns. Plaque 

results from inadequate brushing and flossing, 

so the combination of deep flossing 

below the gumline and firm, rapid brushing 

can prevent the formation of dental 

biofilm. 

Food Industry Concern: Biofilm 

Formation 

Just as all of us are challenged by the 

formation of biofilm on our teeth, a challenge 

that food processors and their sanitation 

teams face is the formation of biofilms 

on food equipment surfaces. Food manufacturing 

plants, particularly sanitation and 

food safety/quality personnel, will want 

to recognize this potential hazard related 

to sanitation and that biofilms can have a 

profound impact on the safety and quality 

of their products. Biofilm formation can 

contaminate product through the introduction 

of pathogenic microorganisms 

or spoilage bacteria. Biofilms have been 

described as a “metabolically active matrix 

of cells and extracellular compounds” or 

as “matrix-enclosed bacterial populations 

adherent to each other and/or to surfaces 

or interfaces.” 1 They may contain spoilage 

bacteria such as Pseudomonas and Enterococcus 

spp. as well as pathogens such as 

Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, 

Escherichia coli O157:H7 or Salmonella. They 

are difficult to remove, are often resistant 

Figure 1: Biofilm Formation 


Bringing Roka to 

your backyard. 

Roka Bioscience is taking to the road, showcasing the most advanced 

food safety testing technology at locations across the country. Atlas on Tour 

is a mobile demonstration designed to provide a first-hand experience of 

the Atlas System — the fully automated molecular pathogen detection 

solution that is changing the dynamics of food safety testing. 

Put your company on the route to full automation. 

Experience Atlas on Tour 

at IAFP — July 22-25 

Providence, Rhode Island 

Booth #2 and #821 

Visit www.atlasontour.com for more details and to schedule a stop in 

your town. 

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

© 2012 Roka Bioscience, Inc. 

MAOTPUB0512 

1.855.ROKABIO | www.rokabio.com 

The Atlas System is manufactured by Gen-Probe Incorporated. Roka molecular technology is licensed from Gen-Probe Incorporated.

SANITATION 

“...a challenge that 

food processors and 

their sanitation teams 

face is the formation 

of biofilms on food 

equipment surfaces.” 

to normal sanitation procedures and can 

result in other detrimental process effects. 

Even when a food surface appears to be 

clean, the presence of biofilms is a potential 

hazard that must be eliminated and 

prevented from reoccurring. Before this 

can be done, it is important to understand 

what a biofilm is and how it is formed. 

Biofilms begin with a bacterial adhesion, 

referred to as a conditioning layer, 

of organic (protein) or inorganic matter 

forming on an otherwise 

visually clean food 

contact surface (Figure 

1). The accumulation of 

organic and inorganic 

material on processing 

surfaces creates an environment 

where bacteria 

can adhere. Live, damaged 

or dead cells can 

attach themselves to the 

conditioning layer and 

begin colonization. The 

conditioning layer starts 

as a thin, resistant layer 

of microorganisms, any 

combination of spoilage and pathogenic 

bacteria that form on and coat the conditioning 

layer. As the layers of bacteria 

attach to the surface and each other, they 

trap debris and nutrients, and the biofilm 

begins to take shape. Bacterial appendages 

(e.g., fimbriae, pili and flagella) may also 

facilitate the attachment of other cells or 

materials to form the colony. For example, 

L. monocytogenes likely attaches to surfaces 

by producing attachment fibrils. During 

attachment, cells in the forming colony 

work together in a coordinated and cooperative 

fashion, including channeling 

nutrients to the film and removing waste 

products. 

As the colony continues to attach, there 

is production of extracellular polysaccharides 

and changes in cell morphology. 

Extracellular polysaccharide formation aids 

adhesion of the cells in the film and protects 

the bacterial layer against cleaners and 

sanitizers. The polysaccharide will also trap 

other cells and debris. Dr. Virginia Deibel 

states that the extracellular polysaccharide 

material forms a bridge between bacteria 

and the conditioning layer with a combination 

of electrostatic and covalent bonds. 2 

Development and growth, without removal 

intervention, results in the film becoming 

irreversibly attached to a substratum, 

interface or to each other, embedded in a 

matrix of extracellular substance that they 

have produced. Mature film reaches an 

equilibrium that delivers oxygen, food and 

nutrients while carrying away fermentation 

products and sloughed cells. The outermost 

slime layer of film serves as a snare 

that traps additional 

contaminants and acts 

as a protectant, sealing 

the bacteria within 

so that the protected 

bacteria can be up to 

100 times more resistant 

to sanitizer. As an example, 

L. monocytogenes 

in biofilms is more 

resistant to sanitizers 

than those not in films. 

Inorganic and organic 

material flowing over 

the biofilm provides 

nutrients to the colony. 

Inside the biofilm, damaged or small cells 

may have the time to repair themselves 

and reproduce. The film is irreversible and 

now requires a special cleaning protocol for 

removal. 

Biofilms form at a slow but steady rate 

and, much like tooth tartar, become harder 

to remove over time. They can form on 

almost any surface but are most likely to 

form on rough, penetrable surfaces, such as 

those that are scratched, pitted, corroded 

or cracked. 3 They can attach to all types of 

surfaces in food plants, from stainless steel, 

especially on abraded or scratched surfaces, 

to polypropylene. Biofilms may form in 

hard-to-reach areas, such as the undersides 

of conveyor belts and seals. For this reason, 

it is necessary to regularly inspect and 

change equipment parts such as gaskets, 

O-rings and piping. Where possible, food 

plants should identify and eliminate areas 

that cannot be thoroughly cleaned through 

sanitary design of equipment. Extended 

production runs with minimal cleanup 

in between also increase the chances and 

frequency of films developing due to 

increased organic material contact time, 

opportunity for organisms to multiply and 

formation of the conditioning layer. These 

longer runs also cut into valuable sanitation 

time and reduce the ability of sanitarians 

to do their job as designed, causing 

them to rush or take shortcuts. Additional 

factors that contribute to biofilm formation 

include the lack of stringent cleaning 

regimes, pH extremes and high contactsurface 

temperatures that denature proteins, 

facilitating the formation of a conditioning 

layer, a low fluid flow rate and 

nutrient availability. 

Challenges Associated with 

Biofilms 

There are several problems associated 

with biofilms, not the least of which is 

product contamination. Product contamination 

occurs from sloughing bacteria that 

are shed periodically by the film and can 

reattach on equipment somewhere else in 

the product flow or can make their way 

into food product. If these are spoilage organisms, 

product shelf life may be reduced, 

and consumer purchases, especially repeat 

purchases, may decline. However, if they 

are pathogens, the product may be considered 

adulterated and subject to recall, or it 

may be responsible for a foodborne illness 

outbreak. Any company that has been 

involved in a recall or whose product has 

been associated with an illness can attest to 

the fact that biofilms are damaging to the 

business and extremely expensive. Organisms 

within the film are also more heat 

resistant, so sloughed cells from films that 

form before cooking may not be destroyed 

as readily by the lethality process. 

Just as dental plaque damages teeth 

through the production of acids as a byproduct 

of bacterial metabolism, biofilm 

formation comes with associated problems, 

such as accelerated deterioration of equipment 

through corrosion from cellular 

byproducts. There may also be a reduction 

in the efficacy of heat transfer and 

impairment of detection devices as the film 

disrupts transmission. As previously indicated, 

attached cells can develop increased 

resistance to cleaning chemicals and sanitizers 

possibly due to protection provided 

by the polysaccharide layer. The reduction 

in effectiveness of chemicals may be the 


SANITATION 

result of cells layering and the reduction of 

exposed surfaces on which the chemicals 

make contact. As an example, cells of L. 

monocytogenes in biofilms have been found 

to be more resistant to sanitizers than nonattached 

cells. 

Evidence of Biofilm 

There are several means of determining 

that a biofilm has begun to form on a food 

contact surface. Detection may be via the 

use of several senses. Visual signs include 

a “rainbow” appearance on stainless steel, 

and tactile senses will detect a slimy feel on 

otherwise clean-appearing equipment surface. 

Although sour or off-odors may not 

indicate the presence of biofilms, they may 

indicate that a piece of equipment is not 

being cleaned thoroughly and that there is 

a potential for biofilm formation. 

From an analytical standpoint, another 

indicator of biofilms is a sporadic spike in 

environmental test results due to bacterial 

sloughing. These indications may be found 

through generic microbiological tests such 

as aerobic plate count or through environmental 

pathogen testing for plants conducting 

Listeria swabs. An increase in the 

bacterial counts or positive findings may 

indicate the formation of a biofilm and 

bacterial sloughing. Unfortunately, if they 

are not detected soon enough, the result 

may be sporadic product microfailures or 

decreased product shelf life. However, if 

you are already at a point where product 

has begun to fail shelf life or demonstrate 

higher than normal bacterial counts, it 

would be wise to consider the possibility 

of biofilm formation and apply control 

measures to eliminate it. Adenosine triphosphate 

(ATP) bioluminescence devices 

can be used to detect the presence of 

organic materials; unfortunately, ATP may 

not detect the presence of mature biofilms. 

The reason for this is that embedded cells 

do not move as much due to nutrient availability 

and use less energy, thus producing 

less ATP. Therefore, the device may deliver 

a “Pass” reading on a surface where there is 

a biofilm. 

Biofilm Removal 

There should be no good reason for 

the films to build if there is good sanitary 

equipment design and regular and 

thorough cleaning to remove surface soil 

and subsurface film. Food manufacturing 

equipment poses many sanitary design 

challenges. Equipment has hollow rollers 

and tubing, welds, joints and scrapers that 

make cleaning difficult. Once biofilms 

have established themselves on a surface, 

they are harder to remove as they develop 

over time and require more aggressive action 

to eliminate. Fortunately, the original 

biofilm attachment is weak and easy to 

remove through proper sanitation procedures. 

Therefore, the film soil must be 

removed, and the most effective method 

of cleaning is a standard process, described 

below: 

Dry clean. This is done to remove as 

much visible soil or product material as 

possible. This may involve scraping, brushing, 

vacuuming, sweeping or shoveling to 

(continued on page 76) 

Biofilms Have a New Foil… 

STERILEX ® 

PerQuat Technology 

“Results showed that the formulation was 100 percent effective, providing total kill and 

more than 90 percent biofilm removal. This disinfectant is more effective than currently 

used disinfectants in reducing L. monocytogenes biofilm growth.” 

—Judy Arnold 

USDA Microbiologist 

ENHANCE YOUR SANITATION PROGRAM 

INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR MICROBIAL CONTROL 

For more information, call 800.511.1659 or email sales@sterilex.com 

J u SterilexPerQuatAd.indd n e • J u l y 2 0 1 21 

5/9/12 4:50 PM 23

Focus on TRACEABILITY 

By Hinda Mitchell 

Communicating During and 

Through a Food Recall 

Managing traceability 

during a recall 

Ground beef. Cantaloupe. Bagged spinach. 

And eggs…oh, yes…eggs. The news today 

is replete with stories of food recalls, but 

perhaps none more visible than the August 

2010 Salmonella Enteritidis egg crisis that 

resulted in the recall of more than one-half billion eggs 

from states across the country. 

Effective, responsible communication is key to maintaining 

trust in the food system, and a challenge for 

anyone who produces food is determining a strategy for 

communicating prior to, during and after a recall. So if 

you’re a farmer or a food producer facing a recall—or are a 

stakeholder in the food system interested in understanding 

more about what happens in these cases—read on to 

learn more about communicating from the front lines of 

the 2010 egg recall. 

Get prepared. The most important thing a farm can 

do right now is preparation. A recall consumes time and 

resources and is not a good time to be just starting to 

think about farm communications. Do you have a crisis 

plan for a food recall, adulterated product or foodborne 

illness outbreak? Can you trace your product one step 

back and one step forward? Do you know your key media 

contacts? Is your list of customers up to date and can 

you reach them at any given time? Can you quickly and 

effectively articulate what the food safety and disease prevention 

protocols are on your farm? Is someone on your 

farm trained to serve as a spokesperson? If you answered 

any of these questions “no,” then you’re not ready. 

Know your audiences. The scope of people to whom 

you must communicate during a recall is 

broad. It includes the media, consumers, 

your customers, suppliers, federal regulatory 

agencies and other public health 

authorities, your employees and local 

community leaders. Each of these audiences 

plays an essential role in the recall 

communications process. 

Follow the lead of federal authorities. The 

federal agency leading the recall will 

have specific guidelines for communications. 

They include everything from 

what media outlets must be notified 

(e.g., The Associated Press must always 

be included) to what language must be 

used (e.g., symptoms of the type of foodborne 

illness) in materials. Be flexible 

and ask many questions. You should be 

informed on every action being taken by 

the agency, so that you are well prepared 

to discuss it with others as necessary. You 

are free to communicate beyond these 

parameters, but all communications 

must follow their lead. 

Timing matters. You can’t wait forever 

to let the public know—notification is 

the right thing to do, and there are legal 

and reporting requirements that must be 

followed. More importantly, if the public 

and your constituents believe you held 

back information, your perceived delay 

will raise questions and compromise trust. 

On the flip side, ensuring information is 

accurate and current also is key. Tell what 

you know when you know it, and when 

appropriate and necessary to do so. 

Be open and transparent. The public 

nature of a recall means that all information 

will eventually be shared publicly. 

There is no benefit to a farm in being 

less than forthright about what’s taking 

place. Always tell the truth. Engage with 

the media and with your customers. 

Don’t relinquish your position as the 

best source of information. You are the 

expert, and you should be the first point 

of contact. That’s part of demonstrating 

your commitment to food safety and to 

doing what’s right. 


Focus on TRACEABILITY 

Recognize the story’s appeal. Threats to 

public health and food safety are hot 

topics. Coverage of your recall will range 

from the disinterested to the sensational—and 

everywhere in between. More 

than 80 reporters were covering the 2010 

egg recall on a daily basis. Many showed 

up on-site at one of the affected farms. 

Media will use the highest numbers 

possible when reporting both the scope 

of the recall and the people potentially 

affected by it. They’ll be looking for 

the three ideal parts of a story—a victim 

“Effective, responsible 

that the situation is not repeated. Restoring 

trust and reputation takes time and 

resources, but is necessary for survival 

after a recall. Above all, farms must illustrate 

a clear change in course, a commitment 

to going above and beyond 

to ensure safe food is produced and an 

ongoing effort to do what’s right and 

responsible at all times. 

• 

Hinda Mitchell of CMA (an issues management 

and communications firm) provided crisis communications, 

media relations and strategic message 

development counsel during the 2010 national 

egg recall. 

For more information about traceability and recall 

communication, please visit our Signature Series 

articles on our website at 

www.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature.asp 

communication is key 

to maintaining trust in 

the food system, and 

a challenge for anyone 

who produces food is 

determining a strategy for 

communicating prior to, 

during and after a recall.” 

(consumers), a villain (the farm) and a 

superhero (the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

or other agency). It is frustrating, 

but it is reality. Again, don’t let 

others tell your story for you. Represent 

your farm at all times. 

Plan for a long road back. The consuming 

public wants their food to be safe 

and free from disease. A recall puts 

that wish in jeopardy, and for a farm to 

regain the trust of its customers and consumers, 

a consistent, transparent effort 

of ongoing communication is required. 

Farms must demonstrate that they have 

cooperated fully with all regulatory officials, 

that they have implemented all 

needed corrective measures and that 

steps have been put in place to ensure 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 25

PROCESS CONTROL 

By Richard F. Stier 

Shipping and Receiving for 

Food Safety 

An integral part of traceability, 

recalls, allergen control and 

food defense 

Shipping and receiving are integral parts of all 

food processing and warehousing operations, 

both large and small. Raw materials, ingredients 

and packaging materials flow in, and finished 

goods move out to customers and/or distribution 

centers. Each operation manages these operations a 

bit differently. There may be a warehouse manager who 

handles both areas, or shipping and receiving can be 

managed by separate individuals. It is up to the manager 

to develop and draft the procedures, including monitoring 

and record keeping, train the staff and make sure that 

the procedures are being followed. 

Receiving 

One of the roles of the warehouse manager and his or 

her staff is to schedule both inbound and outbound shipments. 

Scheduling is essential to efficient operations and 

manpower utilization. Trucks that show up without an 

appointment are usually either turned away or could end 

up waiting for hours to find a slot for loading. The first 

person many inbound truckers meet is a plant’s security 

guard. Larger operations, which are almost always fenced, 

usually have a guard shack or monitor the gates via video 

or audio. In the latter case, inbound truckers ring up the 

office and are allowed onto the grounds, if they have 

been scheduled. Guards have different roles. Some are 

simply gatekeepers, who let in scheduled trucks, make 

sure the truckers understand the plant rules and sign 

them in and out. Others have an expanded role. One 

facility that I visited had a policy that 

stated only sealed trucks were allowed to 

make deliveries. The guard checked to 

see that the truck was sealed and, if so, 

confirmed that the seal number matched 

that on the bill of lading (BOL). If the 

truck was unsealed, the seal not intact 

or the seal did not match the BOL, the 

truck was turned away. This also applied 

to LTLs (trucks with less than a full load). 

The company’s policy was that LTLs 

had to be resealed at each stop, a new 

seal put on the doors and the new seal 

number entered on the BOL. This is one 

activity that is usually done at the receiving 

docks. 

Establishing Procedures 

Processors need to establish procedures 

for all types of delivery trucks: 

containers or vans, tank trucks, rail cars 

or even tanker ships. Let’s look at how a 

processor should handle inbound vans 

or containers. One program that processors 

need to develop is a policy for 

drivers. More and more food companies 

are constructing receiving offices. After 

the drivers park their vehicles, they are 

required to present their paperwork to 

the office. These offices are caged so that 

the truckers are unable to enter the warehouse 

proper. The offices are often built 

with a trucker’s waiting room, which includes 

a toilet, vending facilities to purchase 

food and even showers. Truckers 

are not allowed to wander the grounds. 

If the trucker needs to go into the warehouse, 

he or she will be escorted. The 

driver policies should be presented to 

the trucker at the guard shack as he enters 

the grounds and/or be posted in the 

receiving office. Truckers should never be 

allowed to enter the grounds with pets in 

the cab. All too often, the pets are taken 

out of the cabs and allowed to roam an 

area to do their business. Additionally, 

children should not be allowed to leave 

a cab or driver’s side. For safety reasons, 

children must be attended at all times in 


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. In fact, we have third-party clinical test 

data that can give you the confidence of scientific 

metrics. Our top-quality swabs are available 

in various sizes, shapes, and tip fibers, with and 

without media. 

Our EnviroMax ® and EnviroMax Plus ® kits come 

with oversized foam swabs, ideal for larger surfaces. 

Puritan ESK ® kits are excellent for on-the-spot 

testing — choose from 4 different standard pre-fill 

options or ask for custom media. See the study 

that shows Puritan to be the leader and request 

free samples of our environmental 

swabs. Scan the code or visit our website 

at puritanmedproducts.com/envirostudy. 

800-321-2313 • puritanmedproducts.com 

Puritan Medical Products Company LLC, Guilford, Maine 04443-0149 USA 

An affiliate of Hardwood Products Company ISO 9001:2008 

US MANUFACTURED

ELEVATE 

CONFIDENCE 

IN FOOD SAFETY 

Confi dence means knowing your lab is delivering accurate, consistent, 

and timely results. We listen carefully to customers’ needs, both present 

and future, engaging in lab-bench to lab-bench scientifi c collaborations to 

attack many of the food supply chain’s biggest challenges. 

Agilent’s comprehensive product and service solutions address the 

discovery and measurement of both chemical and biological contaminant 

analysis in current and emerging applications across the food spectrum. 

We’re confi dent that Agilent is uniquely equipped to support food 

testing– now and in the future. 

Access the new Food Safety Applications Compendium at: 

www.agilent.com/chem/food 

Food Safety Summit: 

Scan with your smart 

phone to register now. 

© Agilent Technologies, Inc. 2012


a busy loading/unloading area. The issue 

becomes most prominent during the 

summer school vacation months. Ideally, 

there should be no children allowed on 

grounds. If a company does establish 

such a policy, it should be made clear in 

advance to all delivery persons. 

When a truck backs into the docks, 

several things must be done prior to 

unloading. As noted above, the receiving 

personnel should check the seals on the 

doors to ensure that they are intact and 

that the seal numbers match the BOL. 

If the security seals are intact, the doors 

may be opened and the next phase of 

receiving may begin. This is when the 

physical door seals are examined for 

DATE 

any leaks, cuts, odors and other signs of 

potential problems. Loading dock staff 

must check the following: 

1. The vehicles should be clean and in 

good condition. 

2. There should be no evidence of insect 

or rodent infestation. 

3. There should be no off odors that 

might be absorbed by the materials in 

the vehicle. 

4. The product and the pallets on which 

the product was shipped should be in 

good physical condition. 

5. For refrigerated or frozen deliveries, 

the products must meet established 

specifications for delivery, specifically 

in terms of temperature control. 

TIME 

CARRIER LICENSE PLATE DRIVER & LICENSE # 

REACH 

LOWER 

DETECTION LIMITS 

Confi dence means reaching reliably 

lower detection limits for high 

through-put food analyses. The 

Agilent 7000B Triple Quadrupole 

GC/MS system ensures accurate 

trace detection for your complete 

list of analytes and broadest 

range of commodities—verifi ed by 

precise product ion ratios. 

LOADING ZONE 

CHECKED BY: 

Are the compartment door seals intact? Check One 

Yes Broken Missing 

If the seals are missing, was the container an LTL shipment? Yes No 

Seal Number(s) 

Is the trailer free of pests, including pets? Check One 

Yes 

No 

Does the trailer show any evidence of unusual material or off odors? If so, describe. 

Does the trailer show any evidence that it was used to transport any harmful nonfood 

items or water products? Check One 

Yes 

No 

Is the integrity of the load intact? Check One 

Yes 

No 

For more information on the Agilent 

7000B Triple Quadrupole visit: 

www.agilent.com/chem/7000B 

If the trailer was delivering refrigerated or frozen items, was the refrigeration unit turned on 

and was the trailer cold? Check One 

Yes 

No 

© Agilent Technologies, Inc. 2012 

Container Accepted 

Reason for rejection: 

Container Rejected 

Figure 1: Inbound Trucker Security Checklist 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 29


ASSURE 

ACCURATE 

SAMPLE PREP 

Confi dence means assuring 

your results are accurate and 

reproducible, right from the start. 

Agilent’s comprehensive Bond 

Elut SPE & QuEChERS sample 

preparation portfolio selectively 

removes interferences from 

complex food matrixes–effi ciently 

and dependably. 

To learn more about Agilent sample 

prep solutions for food safety visit: 

www.agilent.com/chem/assure 


Truck Good Temperature of Accept/ 

Date Time Seal # clean Infestation condition refrigerated/frozen Reject 

no off 

odors 

Y N Y N Y N Y N NA 

Figure 2: Inbound Truck Inspection 

6. The BOL must match what is in the 

vehicle. 

7. There is no evidence of tampering. 

8. If this is a refrigerated or frozen load, 

the cold air deflectors and the load 

temperature should be maintained 

properly in all four corners, especially 

at the backdoor. 

Recording and Maintaining Data 

All of this information must be recorded. 

The kind of record that is used 

will vary with the operation. Some use 

one form for each inbound vehicle that 

highlights all the necessary information 

(Figure 1). Others use a form that allows 

many inbound shipments to be recorded 

on a single form (Figure 2). Some will 

even record the information on the 

BOL. If the delivery does not meet any 

of these criteria, it can be rejected outright. 

In many cases, if there is a question, 

the best bet is to contact the quality 

group and let them make the final call. 

Smart processors receiving ingredients 

that are refrigerated or frozen will 

mandate that delivery vehicles be fitted 

with temperature recorders. The receiving 

crew should examine the recorders to 

ensure that the load was properly maintained 

during shipment. Copies of the 

recorder chart may also be retained as a 

permanent record. 

Another policy that needs to be established 

is how certificates of analysis 

(COA) are to be handled. More and 

more food companies are demanding 

that a COA accompany each inbound 

raw material or ingredient. The company 

needs to establish the following: 

• Who receives the COA? 

• How is receiving notified that the 

COA has been received? 

• Who will compare the COA with the 

existing specification to ensure that 

the delivery meets the specifications? 

• Where will the COA be retained? 

• Does the COA even relate to the 

product(s) and lot number(s) that are 

being received? 

If COAs are required, the company 

needs to define what is to be done with 

lots for which no COA is received. If the 

lot is rejected, there are two options: 

1. Reject the load and send the truck 

back to the vendor 

2. Accept the load, place it on hold and 

notify the vendor that they must send 

a COA or the load will be sent back 

If a load is rejected and returned to 

the vendor, the vendor will probably 

never make a similar error. 

Controlling Allergens 

The receiving docks may also be an 

integral part of the allergen control policy 

developed by many food processors. 

Most processors maintain a master list of 

all allergens that they purchase. This list 

should be updated as needed. A copy of 

the list should be provided to the receiving 

group. When products containing an 

allergen are delivered, the receiving crew 

are instructed to flag that item to make it 

clear to all that that ingredient contains 

an allergen. The tags that are applied 

are usually brightly colored. Colors of 

choice tend to be purple, lime green or 

iridescent orange. Many manufacturers 

are now flagging their own ingredients 

to emphasize that their products contain 

allergens. Even if the supplier has flagged 

the ingredient, the receiving crew will be 

required to add their own tag if that is 

their policy. Flagging materials at receiving 

also serves to remind the warehouse 

people that they are handling an allergen, 

which must be handled and stored 

according to the company’s allergen 

control program. 

Tracking Incoming Product 

Finally, the receiving and/or warehouse 

people may be responsible for 

helping in the company’s ingredient 



tracking program. They may be asked 

to apply bar codes that can be used for 

tracking the materials when they are 

used, or they may simply be asked to enter 

the lot numbers and ingredients into 

an inventory system. Some companies 

place bar codes on every case that comes 

in. When such a system is managed correctly, 

each case or lot that is received 

can be tracked. Each case that is shipped 

may also be tracked with a well-managed 

bar code system. For processors using 

raw agricultural produce, the receiving 

group must also verify that all incoming 

products have the appropriate documentation 

that will allow traceability back 

to their supplier, which may mean back 

to the farmer and his field. The Produce 

Traceability Initiative, or PTI, may be 

accessed at www.producetraceability.org. 

This is a multiyear, all-industry effort to 

standardize the traceability information 

that should be on every case of fresh 

fruits and vegetables, and the documentation 

that should accompany each 

shipment as it moves through the supply 

chain. The PTI is currently being examined 

by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

and other groups as a model for 

products beyond fresh produce. 

Many processors purchase ingredients 

in bulk. Bulk purchases include grains, 

flours, seeds and a wide range of fluids, 

such as sugars, vinegar, juices and edible 

oils. How about looking at what is 

expected when using bulk fluids? When 

purchasing bulk liquids, certain things 

must be done. Most tank trucks include 

several entry points. There are hatches 

or manholes on the top and pipes at the 

rear or bottom of the tanker for unloading. 

Each of these must be locked and 

have an intact numbered security seal 

(Image 1). The seal number for each entry 

point must be recorded on the BOL. 

If any of the entry ports is opened or the 

seal is broken or does not match what is 

on the BOL, the load must be rejected. 

There is too great a chance that load has 

been adulterated or, in the worst case, 

been subjected to an act of bioterrorism. 

There is one other element that all 

processors using bulk fluids must build 

into their quality program for receiving. 

Receiving personnel need to be trained 

in how to properly unload the bulk 

system. Who will clean and sterilize 

the hose hookups must be defined and 

documented. If there is a hose on the 

truck, it must be inspected and evaluated 

to determine whether it is acceptable for 

unloading. If the new delivery is commingled 

with product that is currently 

in bulk storage, the company will compromise 

traceability. If so, there should 

be a documented risk assessment on this 

point, indicating that they are aware of 

the potential risk and have accepted it as 

part of doing business. If there are organic 

or religious requirements, procedures 

that define how to handle this kind of 

bulk material during unloading and storage 

may be different from the normal 

procedures. 

ATTAIN 

SUPERIOR 

INERTNESS 

Confi dence means knowing your 

inertness is superior. Perform 

trace-level analysis with Agilent’s 

Ultra Inert GC solutions to ensure 

consistent system inertness–and 

results–for vital food safety 

analysis. 

To learn more about Agilent 

Ultra Inert GC solutions for 

food safety visit: 

www.agilent.com/chem/attain 


Image 1: Bulk Tanker with Seals Required for All Entry Points 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 31


ENSURE 

FOOD SAFETY 

DATA INTEGRITY 

Confi dence means ensuring accuracy 

and integrity of your analytical data 

in heavily regulated environments. 

Agilent OpenLAB Enterprise 

Content Manager (ECM) and Agilent 

OpenLAB Electronic Lab Notebook 

(ELN) help ensure compliance. With 

Agilent’s open informatics suite you 

can capture, analyze, and share vital 

information–from any instrument, 

in any data format. 

Try OpenLAB ELN for free: 

www.agilent.com/chem/openlabFREE 

To learn about OpenLAB Informatics 

Suite in food safety, visit: 

www.agilent.com/chem/ensure 


Vehicle Tank Washing 

When the vehicle arrives at the plant, 

the driver must present documentation 

indicating the tanker has been washed: 

a wash tag. As part of the tank wash 

program, processors should mandate 

that the tank trucks use only tank wash 

facilities that have been audited by the 

company or a third-party auditor, and 

verified as being effective. According 

to Tammy Smith of Global Quality 

Systems, there are many tank wash facilities 

throughout the country to choose 

from. Unless a tank 

wash facility has goodquality 

programs and 

systems/documentation 

in place to monitor 

its activities and 

have reproducibility 

in the wash bay, they 

should not be used for 

washing food-grade 

tanks. The transportation 

piece of the food 

system has for many 

years been neglected. 

As we have learned 

from previous recalls 

(e.g., Schwan’s ice 

cream, fresh produce, 

etc.), transportation 

is an important piece 

of the food system. A 

food-grade tank wash 

facility should have 

as part of their quality 

program a minimum of the following 

documents: 

• Good Manufacturing Practices (which 

should follow the requirements contained 

within the 21 CFR Part 110) 

• Pest control policy (preferably outsourced 

to an external vendor) 

• Training policy 

• Chemical safety and handling policy 

• Security policy 

• Tank wash procedures 

• Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 

Points (if applicable) 

• Equipment maintenance and calibration 

manuals and records 

A proper wash must document the 

time (length of wash cycle), temperature 

“The global economy, 

renewed interest 

and commitment 

to food safety and 

concerns about acts 

of bioterrorism have 

changed the way the 

food industry does 

business for the better.” 

of water/detergent during wash cycle, 

concentration of the detergent during 

the detergent cycle, the sanitizer concentration 

during the sanitizing cycle and 

the flow (or psi) at the spinner nozzle 

during the wash cycle. 

A fully automated wash cycle with 

electronic capturing of the data is the 

best system to have in place. In the 

event of a foodborne outbreak, it may 

be traced back that the tank was improperly 

washed and thus come back to the 

washing facility to present information 

on how the tank was 

washed. It is imperative 

that the wash facility 

be able to document 

how the tank 

wash was conducted. 

Monitoring Sanitation 

and Security 

In addition, programs 

for receiving bulk liquids 

must include requirements 

for sanitary 

design and operations 

of the plant’s receiving 

facilities. The receiving 

ports must be cleanable 

and locked when 

not in use. The receiving 

area itself should 

be caged or locked to 

minimize access by 

unauthorized personnel. 

Signage should 

be posted stating just that. The hoses or 

pipes used to make the transfer must be 

cleaned between uses, stored to minimize 

the potential for contamination 

and capped when not in use. It is imperative 

that transfer procedures be properly 

followed and documented. When 

receiving bulk liquids, COAs must be 

available and reviewed prior to making 

the transfer. 

Finally, the receiving group should 

keep a camera in the receiving offices. 

The camera will be used to record problem 

deliveries, such as seals that are broken 

or missing or damaged loads. These 

are situations where a picture is worth a 

thousand words. Some food safety ex- 



Date Time Seal # Clean 

Infested Good repair Refrigeration Reviewed by Comments 

Figure 3: Outbound Shipping Quality 

Y N Y N Y N Y N 

perts believe that companies should use 

a film camera instead of a digital one. 

They maintain that prints or slides can’t 

be “photoshopped” and will, therefore, 

provide better evidence if the situation 

ever went to court. 

Shipping 

Many of the same basic principles 

discussed during receiving apply to shipping. 

Whereas receiving is an integral 

part of a company’s programs to track 

ingredients, raw materials and packaging, 

shipping is essential for properly tracking 

their finished products. When preparing 

shipments, it is imperative that the shipping 

documents include the following 

information: 

• Item number 

• Amount of product being shipped 

• Lot numbers for all items being 

shipped 

• Destination 

When loading a truck, the shipping 

personnel must verify that the shipping 

documents match what is being loaded. 

The use of bar codes on cases and pallets 

can facilitate this. In addition, the bar 

code will tell a warehouseperson whether 

a product is available for “picking.” Products 

on hold should not be accessible in 

a well-managed system. One rule that 

will enhance traceability is to prohibit 

mixing lot numbers and different products 

on a single pallet. In fact, it would 

be wise to establish a policy absolutely 

forbidding mixed pallets. Two or three 

partial pallets are much easier to deal 

with than a single mixed pallet. 

Documentation 

The best way to ensure that a load 

matches the BOL is to get the products 

or pallets going into the van staged 

ahead of time on or around the dock. 

This way, the shipping supervisor or one 

of his or her people can easily check each 

pallet. 

As in receiving, the crew at the loading 

dock must inspect the vehicle before 

it is loaded. The vehicle should be: 

• Clean 

• In good condition 

• Have no off odors 

• Pest-free 

This information may be recorded on 

a BOL, an invoice form similar to that 

seen in Figure 1 or like one in Figure 

3. The bottom line is that the shipper 

wants to document that the truck used 

for shipping their goods was in good 

condition. If it does not meet these basic 

criteria, send it away and tell the shipping 

company to bring in another unit. 

In addition, if the product being loaded 

is a refrigerated or frozen product, 

the vehicle should be precooled and the 

refrigeration unit should be in operation. 

The shipper needs to document that 

this has been done. With these kinds of 

products, the shipping crew should load 

the vehicle so that air circulation effectively 

keeps the products cold or frozen. 

Loading should ensure adequate air 

circulation and uniform cooling. One of 

the disadvantages of loading a container 

with cased products not on a pallet is 

that they are packed so tightly that air 

circulation is compromised. Additionally, 

containers loaded like this must be 

unloaded by hand and re-palletized at 

their endpoint. The container should 

also have a temperature-monitoring 

device that is properly functioning. This 

will help ensure that the refrigerated van 

is properly operated during transit. 

There are now companies that have 

equipped their refrigerated vans with 

global-positioning devices that allow the 

company to track not only where the 

unit is, but also the temperature of the 

unit during transit. Truckers apparently 

dislike these devices since they tell the 

shipping company whether the trucker 

has decided to take detours or make unscheduled 

stops. 

Most truckers want to check their 

loads prior to closing the van. If this is 

the case, the trucker must be escorted 


AFFIRM 

FOOD SAFETY 

STANDARDS 

Confi dence means affi rming your 

instruments are globally certifi ed 

to maintain the strictest food 

safety standards. Affi rm your 

proof-of-system maintenance and 

calibration with Agilent’s Functional 

Verifi cation Services. Standardize 

maintenance protocols and validate 

testing methodology across all your 

chromatography systems worldwide. 

To reduce regulatory risk and 

streamline ISO 17025 documentation/ 

certifi cation process, visit: 

www.agilent.com/chem/FVSfood 


J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 33

ReguLATORY REPORT 

By Markus Lipp, Ph.D. 

Beverages at the Forefront 

of Innovation in Booming 

Functional Food Market 

Formulating with natural, 

novel and other ingredients 

poses new quality challenges 

In the universe of foods, beverages offer tremendous 

opportunities for innovation. A key area of focus for 

industry today is functional beverages—the fastestgrowing 

sector of the functional food market. These 

range from drinks that claim to improve athletic 

endurance, energy, hydration and health (with the latter 

encompassing general wellness/immunity, bone/joint, 

cognitive, digestive and other areas); enhance beauty and 

relaxation and promote weight loss. The wide variety of 

functional claims appeals across demographic groups, 

from adolescents to baby boomers. In addition to capitalizing 

on the trend of functional ingredients, beverages 

meet the growing demand for convenience foods. As 

such, companies of all sizes are investing heavily in the 

area of functional beverages. 

Of course, the building blocks for these new functional 

beverages are their ingredients. Sometimes, functional 

drinks are fortified with traditional vitamins and 

minerals. In other cases, manufacturers are looking to 

novel ingredients, such as açaí, pomegranate or the next 

so-called superberry, or to natural and/or low-calorie 

sweeteners such as stevia or monk fruit. Other areas of 

interest include beverages incorporating omega-3 fatty 

acids, probiotics and dietary fiber. The list is endless. 

These new opportunities also bring new challenges, 

ranging from formulation to marketing. However, the 

most critical of these must be ensuring the quality and 

safety of these ingredients and, in turn, the final beverage 

product. 

Ensuring Quality: A Tall Order 

As manufacturers look for new ways 

to differentiate their products and appeal 

to consumers, the demand for novel ingredients 

and those of proven popularity 

is unremitting. This draws new ingredient 

suppliers from all over the world into 

the market, which food companies rely 

upon to formulate their new beverage 

products. The choice of global suppliers 

is often based on their ability to provide 

lower-cost ingredients. However, there 

are other reasons as well. Certain natural 

ingredients, for instance, may be indigenous 

only to certain parts of the world 

and thus are acquired from suppliers in 

those regions. Açaí berries, which thrive 

in the tropical climates of Central and 

South America, are one example. However, 

as manufacturers source raw materials 

from around the globe, they are challenged 

to ensure the authenticity—that 

is, the identity, quality and purity—of 

what they are purchasing. In considering 

ingredient suppliers, manufacturers 

may be presented with less expensive 

items that claim the same authenticity 

as a higher-priced one, but how can one 

ensure it is actually an equivalent ingredient? 

Standards to establish the identity, 

quality and purity of food ingredients 

are necessary to help ensure that the purchaser 

is acquiring the expected product. 

While periodic supplier quality checks 

seem a basic requirement, particularly 

in the multibillion-dollar food industry 

that employs so many quality and safety 

systems, this practice evidently is not 

employed as often as would be expected. 

The Food Chemicals Codex (FCC), 

published by the U.S. Pharmacopeial 

Convention (USP), is a compendium 

of internationally applicable standards 

designating the identity, quality and 

purity of more than 1,100 food ingredients. 

Any food ingredient legally 

marketed anywhere in the world is eligible 

to be added to the compendium. 

These standards are useful in a variety of 


control your 

WOrLd 

with LIGHTNING MVP ® 

One 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. 

•ATP 

•Concentration 

•pH 

•Conductivity 

•Temperature 

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

PATHOGEN TESTING • HYGIENE AND HACCP MONITORING • QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING


“In the universe of 

foods, beverages 

offer tremendous 

opportunities for 

innovation.” 

ways, including conducting day-to-day 

business transactions as part of mutual 

agreements and contracts between food 

manufacturers and ingredient suppliers, 

and for maintaining regulatory compliance 

in those jurisdictions that have 

adopted FCC in whole or in part. These 

independent standards can assist manufacturers 

and suppliers in defining shared 

expectations regarding ingredient quality. 

In a globalized industry in which the size 

and sophistication of 

suppliers run the gamut, 

independent public 

standards can serve 

as a valuable resource 

and can level the playing 

field among suppliers. 

Adding to the 

complexity of supply 

chain management as 

ingredients are sourced 

worldwide, industry 

is also challenged by 

the sheer number of food ingredients in 

use today. Take sweeteners used in diet 

soft drinks. In the not-too-distant past, 

soda was offered in sweetened varieties 

of “regular” (i.e., sucrose or corn syrup) 

and “diet” (typically aspartame). Today, 

diet soda is offered not as one but many 

different products, differentiated in large 

part by how they are sweetened: with 

the traditional aspartame, with sucralose, 

with stevia—and newer sweeteners are 

emerging. Of course, this example does 

not even take into account the multitude 

of other variations in diet soda—cherry, 

vanilla and other flavors such as added 

lemon or lime, caffeinated or caffeinefree, 

cans and bottles of different sizes, 

etc. It is clear why most grocery stores 

can fill a full aisle with soft drinks alone. 

The result is more choice for consumers 

based on their preferences, but also 

greater complexity for food manufacturers. 

Every individual ingredient requires 

a unique set of tests to guarantee quality 

and safety, and companies must account 

for more and more ingredients. 

Beyond the number of ingredients 

used in food production, the complexity 

of many newer ingredients is also heightened 

for many reasons. This is often the 

case with “natural” ingredients that are 

currently in demand. One example is rebaudioside 

A (Reb A), popularly known 

as stevia, and used widely in beverages. 

Reb A, whose uniqueness and appeal 

lie in the fact that it is a “natural” (i.e., 

plant-based) zero-calorie sweetener, provides 

a specific set of scientific challenges. 

Reb A is just one of many individual 

steviol glycosides produced in the stevia 

plant. These have varying 

degrees of purity. 

As a family of compounds 

with similar 

chemical features, the 

various steviol glycosides 

all naturally occur 

side by side in the 

same plant and have 

similar, but not identical, 

features (e.g., they 

are all sweet but to 

different degrees and 

with different flavor 

profiles). Variations can have significant 

impact on the final product. Individual 

manufacturers follow different strategies 

by either extracting or purifying only the 

most prevalent compound, Reb A, or 

the whole family of steviol glycosides. 

Different processes result in different 

purities. Moreover, steviol glycosides are 

difficult to analyze, as these are plantderived, 

large and complex molecules 

that are not easily separated from each 

other or from other plant-derived, large 

and complex molecules. 

Through FCC, USP has developed 

standards for Reb A, as well as for a mixture 

of steviol glycosides, which include 

a newly developed method capable of 

separating and measuring all nine glycosides. 

Manufacturers should be particularly 

vigilant when dealing with natural 

ingredients that are of high interest to 

consumers, such as Reb A. There are numerous 

examples of thriving markets for 

inauthentic ingredients in environments 

where there is limited supply (often the 

case with natural ingredients) and high 

demand. Constant pressure for product 

innovation, economic pressures and a 

globalized industry all contribute to the 

need for standards to verify the authenticity 

of ingredients used to formulate 

finished products. 

Functional Ingredients and Health 

Claims 

Though Reb A is being explored for 

other functional benefits it can be connected 

to—extending beyond claims of 

low calorie and natural—for the time being, 

the ingredient appeals to consumers 

from a weight-management perspective. 

However, when looking at other products 

being associated with functional 

health claims, even greater complexity 

arises. Probiotics offer one such example. 

These products have undergone 

increased scrutiny based on their health 

claims, often related to digestive health, 

with regulators in the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. 

Federal Trade Commission, the European 

Food Safety Authority and elsewhere 

evaluating claims with a critical eye. 

At the same time, probiotics are being 

incorporated into new foods and beverages 

beyond the traditional yogurt/dairy 

products, by manufacturers who are not 

as experienced working with them. The 

need for strong science to undergird 

these claims is more urgent than ever. 

In connecting functional claims to 

their products, manufacturers rely upon 

the results of clinical trials of particular 

ingredients. Herein lies some scientific 

complexity, with probiotics as a good 

case study. Given that many different 

strains of microorganisms are cultured 

and have been tested and used in foods, 

any supporting studies for justifying 

health claims are at the specific strain 

level. For any claimed health benefit, 

manufacturers should be able to confirm 

that what they are using in a probiotic 

food product is the strain tested. This 

speaks directly to the identity of the 

probiotic ingredient—a key component 

of a public standard. USP is beginning to 

set such standards for probiotics, but for 

these ingredients—and for all functional 

ingredients—key questions and issues still 

must be resolved. 

One factor is the overlap of foods 

and dietary supplements in the func- 



tional ingredients arena, which is highly 

relevant to beverages in particular. Some 

products may appear to be beverages but 

are actually marketed as dietary supplements, 

and it can be a challenge for consumers 

to tell the difference when shopping 

for products. The only difference 

from a consumer perspective may be 

whether there is a nutrition facts panel 

or supplement facts panel on the label. 

In the United States, this has been the 

subject of recent warning letters issued 

by FDA. Additionally, Health Canada 

announced in April 2012 that it will 

no longer allow functional foods and 

beverages to be marketed under Natural 

Health Products Regulations. 

Markus Lipp, Ph.D., is director of food standards for USP. He has 20 years of experience 

in food and food ingredient issues, bottled water quality standards and genetically 

modified agricultural products. For more information on USP’s upcoming symposium on 

functional ingredients, visit uspgo.to/boston-s3-2012. 

For more information on beverage safety and regulations for beverage processing, please visit our 

Signature Series articles on our website at www.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature.asp 

The Road Ahead 

Functional ingredients will continue 

their sharp trajectory as consumers demand 

products with perceived benefits 

to health and wellness. Beverages in 

particular are poised to continue successfully 

incorporating novel ingredients. 

The authenticity of these ingredients 

should not be taken at face value, and 

manufacturers must take steps to verify 

supplier claims. How are identity and 

function intertwined? To what extent? 

How is this measured? With more and 

more functional ingredients entering the 

market, manufacturers, regulators and 

standards-setting bodies face a pressing 

need to come to some level of agreement 

on these types of questions. This is the 

focus of an upcoming symposium that 

USP is convening in Boston, September 

18–20, 2012: “Functional Foods and Dietary 

Supplements—Global Opportunities 

and Challenges.” 

Public standards play a critical role 

here and can also assist legitimate suppliers 

that may be competing with lessscrupulous 

ones offering substances of 

questionable quality. Moreover, with 

many functional ingredients, industry, 

regulators and standards-setting bodies are 

still in uncharted territory. To preserve the 

reputation of these products, greater clarity 

on a number of fronts related to identity 

and functionality must be achieved. 

Otherwise, functional claims may become 

unreliable and meaningless. • 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 37

PACKAGING 

By Monoprix 

It’s What’s on the Outside 

that Counts 

How to succeed with 

own-label brands 

The European Food Safety Authority, which sets 

out the legal requirements on food safety and 

hygiene, has recently made changes calling for 

the standardization of information displayed on 

product packaging. The challenge now for the 

food and beverage industry is to meet the demands of consumers 

for more information on the products they consume 

and, at the same time, manage an ever-greater range of product 

specifications. 

Monoprix is one of the largest retailers in Europe; we 

are responsible for managing over 80,000 existing products 

throughout our stores. Product specifications now need a 

high level of detail, including information on potential allergens, 

not to mention whether they contain genetically modified 

organisms, or are fair trade, palm oil-free or organically 

sourced. This introduces more work into the packaging process 

and calls for more transparency of information between 

parties. To achieve this, we need to have the right tools to 

manage all the information on our products while retaining 

the ability to easily store and retrieve information for faster 

and more efficient product recalls. 

A Brief History of Packaging 

Traditionally, the packaging process has relied on Excel, 

image files or in-house software systems. To put this in a 

greater perspective, a quality manager in charge of a private 

label portfolio can expect to manage an average of 400–450 

products, whose specifications are reviewed annually. 

Problems have often emerged from managing information 

poorly, which can lead to an unnecessary amount of duplication. 

Furthermore, listing specifications 

repeatedly increases the risk of error and 

wastes valuable time and resources. With 

these challenges, the role of the quality 

department is increasing in complexity and 

cannot afford to be burdened with administration 

within a shrinking time frame 

imposed by the product launch schedule. 

Thinking Outside the Box 

In this competitive market, retailers are 

being called upon to deliver new products 

to market as soon as possible, while complying 

with various industry standards on 

product information. There are thousands 

of private label products offered to consumers, 

and it is becoming ever more important 

for us to distinguish ourselves from 

the competition with innovative products. 

Monoprix wanted to better reflect our 

focus on delivering a positive customer experience 

in our physical stores. As such, we 

decided to completely redesign our standard 

own-brand “M” packaging with inspiration 

from the pop art of Andy Warhol. 

With the concept achieved, the next step 

was to coordinate multiple departments 

and external partners to execute the plan. 

This required drawing on efforts from a 

variety of sources, including creative agencies, 

product quality departments, printers, 

manufacturers and designers, who did not 

all necessarily live in the same country 

or speak the same language. To make the 

process coherent and to deliver the final 

product quickly, we needed to improve the 

communication and collaboration between 

the parties involved. 

A Packaged Solution 

To undertake this project, we used a 

private label software specialist whose 

packaging portal allowed coordination 

of the packaging process from the design 

right through to implementation. The first 

step of the process was created through 

the artwork portal, a collaborative project 

management tool. This let us manage the 

development of the artwork and facing 


October 28-31, 2012 

McCormick Place 

Chicago, Illinois USA 

Advance cleanliness. Advance compliance. Advance operations. 

PACK EXPO International 2012 is the world’s largest packaging and processing 

event, showcasing more innovations and solutions than any other show: 

• Learn the latest about the FSMA at the Food Safety Summit Resource Center. 

• Discover solutions for preserving taste and protecting products. 

• See breakthrough technologies in cleaning, tagging and tracking. 

• Hear packaging and processing experts at the Innovation Stage. 

• Check out award-winning package designs at The Showcase of Packaging 

Innovations ® , sponsored by The Dow Chemical Company. 

Register today! www.packexpo.com/food 

October 28-31, 2012 | McCormick Place | Chicago, Illinois USA 

Produced by:

PACKAGING 

used on the packaging through to the final 

print phase, and stores all the images and 

specifications used for the product in an 

online library. This means that all materials 

are easily accessible, and the portal features 

a web-proofing functionality that automatically 

detects mistakes, making for rapid 

corrections. 

Private Workspace in the Public 

Cloud 

The portal let our teams work on the 

packaging and make changes simultaneously, 

helping us move through the process 

quickly. The portal creates a private workspace 

for each party online, so that they 

have control only over the parts of the process 

they’re responsible for. This feature is 

important to us from a security perspective 

and prevents users making changes to others’ 

work. Because this information is immediately 

available, we find that this makes 

managing multiple product lines more efficient. 

Furthermore, in the event a mistake 

is made and a product must be recalled, 

the portal helps us track these products 

quickly using their specifications. Because 

the information is electronically stored, we 

can easily reuse existing specifications to 

create entirely new products in the future. 

An important feature of how the packaging 

portal works is that each stage of the 

process must be validated by all parties 

using digital signatures. As authorizations 

are made instantly online, this attribute 

reduced the time everyone spent writing 

e-mails or making phone calls. The only 

time that we or our partners had to pick up 

the phone was if we didn’t agree to sign off 

on a particular stage of the process. Once 

the details were clarified over the phone, 

the section could then immediately be 

validated online. As with the undertaking 

of any large project, it was important that 

those responsible for each part of the process 

remained accountable for their work. 

Because the information is stored electronically 

and is always available, we can quickly 

identify mistakes and spend less time 

finding the root cause of the problem and 

more time solving it. This helps improve 

collaboration and further reduces the risk 

of incorrect information finding its way to 

the end product with the consumer. 

The packaging portal helped streamline 

the process and bring together workers 

with very different responsibilities and 

briefs onto the same management platform. 

The time we saved in administration 

and approval allowed the printers, designers 

and subcontractors to deliver their work 

effectively, and we could quickly proceed 

to the next stage in the 

development cycle. This 

process allowed us to 

redevelop packaging 

across more products 

much faster than we 

would using paper 

records. We successfully 

applied changes to 

over 20,000 products 

throughout both our 

food and nonfood 

product ranges over the 

course of 3 years. 

Using software as a 

service (SaaS) for our 

packaging process dramatically reduced 

both the cost and time associated with 

managing specifications across our M label 

product range. We were also able to improve 

our ongoing efficiency and develop 

our working relationships with third parties 

and external agencies. While improved collaboration 

has helped us deliver an entirely 

new range of product packaging and reduce 

the time of these products to market, 

the software could help facilitate effective 

product recalls in the future when needed. 

Effective Management of Product 

Recalls 

Incorrect information displayed on 

packaging is not only a problem in terms 

of confusing customers, it is also a violation 

of the law and the industry standards 

with which we as retailers must comply. 

While we make every effort to prevent 

mistakes being made in the first place, one 

incorrect piece of packaging information, 

like a wrong expiration date, can cause a 

significant problem. Once the product has 

been sent to print, not much can be done 

to stop it making its way to consumers 

until we are made aware of the mistake. 

What we can then do is quickly prevent 

further mislabeled products from reaching 

“Incorrect information 

displayed on packaging 

is not only a problem 

in terms of confusing 

customers, it is also a 

violation of the law…” 

the shelves and swiftly deal with those that 

have been affected by recalling them. 

To make this process as effective as 

possible, we must have the right information 

at our disposal and be able to access it 

readily. Since the packaging specifications 

in the previous process are stored electronically, 

we can quickly see which products 

have been affected and 

implement a recall. The 

industry as a whole 

needs to realize these 

benefits to minimize 

the risk of product 

recalls, as the news of 

a product recall can 

damage the reputation 

of the whole industry 

as well as the specific 

retailer concerned. We 

must now demonstrate 

that we in the food and 

beverage industry have 

done everything in our 

power to protect the consumer by faster 

product recalls in hours, not days. 

New Approaches Needed 

We are now under greater pressure to 

reduce costs and earn higher margins while 

delivering a wider portfolio of products 

that engage consumers in new ways. In this 

process, we cannot afford to risk avoidable 

packaging mistakes that damage reputations, 

violate our industry standards and 

ultimately put consumers at risk. SaaS in 

the food industry has proven itself fit to 

manage these different demands, reducing 

the chance of error without stifling the 

creative process. 

The food and beverage industry must 

ensure that it is innovative in the products 

it designs as well as in the ways it reduces 

risks and deals with product recalls. Our 

individual reputations stand together; 

product recalls from poorly managed 

packaging have the potential to damage the 

view of the industry as a whole, something 

none of us can afford in these challenging 

economic times. 

• 

France-based Monoprix is a leading European 

retailer of food and general merchandise, with 

more than 300 stores. 


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

It’s Our Job to 

Make Sure 

You Have the 

Right Tools 

Explore products in categories like: 

Analytical Instruments & Systems 

Chromatography, Mass Spec, Protein Analyzers, 

Sample Prep, Spectroscopy 

Audits/Certification/Training 

Consultants 

Detection Systems 

Antibody, Molecular 

Environmental Monitoring 

Sample Collection, Surface Tests, Systems 

Facilities 

Air Filtration, Flooring 

Inspection Systems 

Metal Detection, X-ray Machines 

Laboratory Services 

Adulteration & Quality Control, Allergen, Analytical 

Chemistry, FDA Import, Microbiological, Natural Toxins, 

Nutritional Analysis, Residue/Contamination, Shelf-life 

Pest Control 

Services, Software 

Sanitation and Hygiene 

Hand, Boot & Body Washing Systems, Sanitation 

Systems, Sanitizers, Cleansers & Dispensing Systems 

Software 

Food Safety Management, Pest Control 

Test Kits 

Pathogen, Quality Indicators 

Testing Instruments 

Data Loggers, Humidity, pH, Temperature 

Food Safety Connect is the online marketplace for food safety 

solutions that brings it all together—reliable, useful information 

presented in an easy-to-use interactive format. 

Powered by Food Safety Magazine 

Connecting Food Safety Professionals with Food Safety Solutions

Focus on TECHNOLOGY 

By John J. Specchio, Ph.D., John P. Schrade and Mandy Unanski 

Utilization of Steam Heat 

Generated via Microwave 

Energy 

A look at steam heat 

for food processing 

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 

effectiveness of steam-heat processing of food 

within a covered Cambro pan containing water 

with energy generated via microwaves. Specifically, 

the study was designed to determine 

adequate heat transfer and time/temperature cooking 

parameters for seafood products. 

Background 

Most restaurants and retail food stores rely upon 

traditional steamers to cook seafood products to the required 

temperature of 145 °F as specified within the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code. 1 The 

problems associated with conventional steamers include 

the high costs of the units, energy expenses and complicated 

plumbing hookups. The difficulty of cleaning and 

sanitizing the interior area of conventional steamers is of 

particular concern. A solution to these issues is the use of 

microwave-generated energy to steam-cook seafood products 

within covered Cambro pans containing water. 2–4 

First, the microwave units are portable and don’t require 

expensive and complicated steam and wastewater plumbing 

hookups. Second, the Cambro pans are available in 

different sizes to economically accommodate the volume 

of food items being prepared. Third, the stainless steel 

microwave units as well as the Cambro pans are easily 

cleaned and sanitized. Fourth, cooking time is reduced 

significantly in that a traditional 1.5-pound lobster can be 

steamed to a minimal internal temperature of 145 °F in 

a total of 4 minutes (2 minutes cooking 

and 2 minutes holding). Fifth, there is a 

large savings in energy costs using microwaves 

to generate steam as opposed to 

using conventional steamers. 

Section 3-401.12 of the 2009 edition 

of the FDA Food Code 1 requires that 

raw animal foods, including seafood, 

heated via microwave energy must attain 

an internal temperature of at least 165 

°F. However, traditional steam heating of 

seafood products need only attain an internal 

temperature of 145 °F. This study 

was designed to determine whether cooking 

seafood in covered Cambro pans 

with added water and using microwaves 

as the energy source to produce steam 

was equivalent to cooking seafood in 

traditional-style steamers. If this premise 

is proven true, then it could suggest that 

the Food Code be amended to allow for 

the steam heating of seafood products to 

a minimum internal temperature of 145 

°F using microwave energy as the source. 

Objectives 

The four major objectives of this 

research were the following: (a) compare 

the cooking of seafood using traditional 

microwave energy for heat transfer versus 

using microwave-generated steam within 

covered Cambro pans; (b) determine 

time/temperature cooking parameters for 

heat transfer using microwave-generated 

steam within a covered Cambro pan; (c) 

determine temperature variations within 

various seafood products processed using 

microwave-generated steam within a covered 

Cambro pan and (d) ultimately, determine 

the equivalency of heat transfer 

within seafood utilizing steam generated 

via microwave energy within a covered 

Cambro pan compared with traditional 

seafood steamers. 

Materials 

A Panasonic 3200-watt 4-magnetron 

“Sonic Steamer” microwave was 

used as the energy source for creat- 


Make food pathogen detection 

Super Fast 

AOAC-RI-certified assays: 

Listeria spp. and Salmonella * 

With Atlas Detection Assays, you have the power. 

The Atlas System is the fully automated molecular pathogen 

detection system for food safety testing. 

*Additional assays in development. 

K Shortened enrichment times 

K Minimal assay preparation 

K Over 300 samples processed in a single shift 

K Continuous access enables continuous fl ow to result 

K Up to a 24-hour advantage on time to result 

Superpower your lab! 



MSFPUB0212 




ing microwave-generated steam. 2 The 

12-inch-by-20-inch-by-4-inch pans used 

were Cambro microwave steaming trays 

with covers, composed of high-density 

polyethylene. Lobsters weighing 1.5 

pounds each and 23.2 ounces of jumbo 

shrimp (12/25 count) were used as the 

shellfish typically steamed by traditional 

methods. Water was added as a catalyst 

to create steam. A Fluke model 189 True 

RMS Multimeter thermocouple using 

an 80B-A Integrated DMN temperature 

probe was used to monitor internal food 

product and steam temperatures. 

Procedures 

Both lobster and shrimp were processed 

within the microwave oven in 

a covered Cambro pan at high power 

and allowed to stand for 2 minutes after 

cooking to obtain temperature equilibrium. 

When water was added, a ratio of 

30 ml per pound of lobster or shrimp 

was utilized. Internal temperatures of 

the lobsters were taken at five locations 

at approximate 1-inch intervals from the 

head to the tail; the temperatures of each 

claw were also taken. The internal temperatures 

of the shrimp were taken at the 

large headless end only. The five experiments 

conducted were: (1) 45 ml water 

only in a covered Cambro pan; (2) one 

1.5-pound lobster in a covered Cambro 

pan with 45 ml water; (3) one 1.5-pound 

lobster in an uncovered Cambro pan 

with 45 ml water; (4) one 1.5-pound lobster 

in an uncovered Cambro pan with 

no water added and (5) 23.2 ounces of 

large shrimp in a covered Cambro pan 

with 45 ml water. 

Results 

The results of the five experiments 

were as follows: 

1. The temperature of the steam environment 

in the covered Cambro pan 

that contained water only was 191 °F 

after 2 minutes at high power. 

2. The 1.5-pound lobster in a covered 

Cambro pan with 45 ml water added, 

after 2 minutes at high power followed 

by 2 minutes of standing time, 

exhibited internal temperature readings 

at the five locations from head 

Table 1: Results of One 1.5-Pound Lobster in a Covered Cambro Pan with 45 ml Water Added 

to tail and left and right claws of 

the lobster as shown in Table 1. The 

standard deviation was calculated as 

1.799. The temperatures of both the 

right and left claws were 170.0 °F and 

149.3 °F, respectively. 

3. In a comparison of a covered Cambro 

pan with an uncovered Cambro 

pan, a 1.5-pound lobster was placed 

in an uncovered Cambro pan with 

45 ml water added. After 2 minutes at 

high power followed by 2 minutes of 

standing time, the internal temperature 

readings at five locations from 

head to tail and left and right claws of 

the lobster are shown in Table 2. The 

standard deviation was calculated as 

4.347. Additionally, the temperatures 

of both the right and left claws were 

138.8 °F and 149.9 °F, respectively. 

4. In an effort to show that the steam 

was being generated from the water, 

a 1.5-pound lobster was placed in 

an uncovered Cambro pan with no 

water added. After 2 minutes at high 

power followed by 2 minutes of 

standing time, the internal temperatures 

were taken at five locations from 

head to tail and left and right claws of 

the lobster. The results are presented 

in Table 3. The standard deviation 

was 5.413. The temperatures of the 

Table 2: Results of One 1.5-Pound Lobster in an Uncovered Cambro Pan with 45 ml Water 

Added 



Super Accurate 

With Roka molecular technology, you have the power. 

Roka molecular technology powers the Atlas System, the fully 

automated molecular pathogen detection system for food safety testing. 




K 

K 

K 

K 

K 

Full sample-to-result traceability 

Integrated process controls 

Single manual transfer 

Proven molecular technologies incorporate three levels of specifi city 

Complete electronic audit trail 




MSFPUB0212 




Table 3: Results of One 1.5-Pound Lobster in an Uncovered Cambro Pan with No Water Added 

right and left claws were 176.1 °F and 

194.7 °F, respectively. 

5. In the last experiment, 23.2 ounces 

of shrimp were placed in a covered 

Cambro pan with 45 ml water. After 

2 minutes at high power followed by 

2 minutes of standing time, the internal 

temperatures were taken on 12 

shrimp at the larger headless end. The 

results are presented in Table 4. The 

standard deviation was 4.371. 

Discussion 

This study was conducted to compare 

heat transfer within seafood products via 

microwave-generated steam in covered 

Cambro pans with added water placed 

within a Panasonic “Sonic Steamer” 

3200-watt 4-magnetron microwave unit 

with the heat transfer within a conventional 

steamer. 2, 3 

The first part of the study was to 

determine the temperature of the 

steam environment within the covered 

Cambro pan with the addition of 45 

ml water only. The results indicate that 

the temperature within the steam-filled 

pan was 191 °F after 2 minutes at high 

power and 2 minutes of holding time. 

This showed that microwave energy can 

Table 4: Results of 23.2 Ounces of Large Shrimp in a Covered Cambro Pan with 45 ml Water 

Added 

effectively and consistently be utilized 

to generate steam within the covered 

Cambro pan. 

The second part of the study showed 

that lobsters placed in covered Cambro 

pans with 45 ml water, steamed for 2 

minutes and held for 2 minutes, reached 

above the required internal temperatures 

of 145 °F. Additionally, the temperatures 

taken from various parts of the lobster 

were very close, within a standard deviation 

of 1.799 (Table 1), indicating an 

evenness of heating via steam energy. 

Furthermore, the combination of the 

covered Cambro pan with the added 

water along with the microwave energy 

generated a “steam environment” similar 

to conventional steamers. 

In an attempt to demonstrate that 

the evenness of heating was related to 

the steam-generated heat transfer within 

the covered Cambro pan with water, 

the experiment was repeated under the 

same conditions except the Cambro 

pan was left uncovered. 3, 4 The results 

indicated an expected unevenness of 

heating from the traditional microwave 

energy. Steam could not be generated as 

in the covered Cambro pan. The temperatures 

were below the required 145 

°F for steam heating and the standard 

deviation was 4.347 (Table 2), indicating 

unevenness of heat transfer in the 

lobster. This proves that the heat energy 

was being provided by the microwaves 

not the steam. 

The fourth part of the study was 

similar to the previous two except the 

lobster was placed in an uncovered 

Cambro pan with no added water. This 

experiment would prove or not that the 

covered Cambro pan along with the 

water is required for even steam-heat 

generation. The temperatures did reach 

the required 145 °F for cooking but were 

not consistent throughout the lobster. 

The standard deviation was 5.413 (Table 

3). This indicated that the added water is 

necessary for the development of steam 

and the heat was generated unevenly via 

traditional microwave energy. 4 

The final experiment included the 

use of large shrimp cooked in a covered 




Super Efficient 

With the Atlas System, you have the power. 

The Atlas System is the fully automated molecular pathogen 

detection system for food safety testing. 




K 

K 

K 

K 

K 

K 

Over 300 samples processed in a single shift 

No secondary enrichment required 

Minimal hands-on time 

Continuous access enables continuous fl ow to result 

True walk-away automation 

Multiple assays can be run concurrently 




MSEPUB0212 



Food Safety Insider 

New Innovation for 

Food Microbiology 

www.aicompanies.com 

Over the past few years, the food industry has focused on 

quality control. With numerous bacterial outbreaks each 

year, more regulations and microbiological testing have 

been enforced. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

has estimated that approximately 48 million people become 

sick with foodborne illnesses each year. Such outbreaks in meat, 

fruit or vegetables have been major contributors to the firm decision 

by the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) to change 

policies regarding the future of 

food safety. With such risks, the 

industry has been pressed to 

develop innovations to help with 

early detection and avoidance of 

catastrophic and tragic losses. 

In the past, FDA established 

spiral plating as an accurate 

method to enumerate bacterial 

samples in various fields of 

microbiology. Developed by Drs. 

Jim Gilchrist and Jeptha Campbell in 1976, spiral platers have 

been in use worldwide, and the spiral plating method is recognized 

as a significant contributor to microbiology productivity. The 

method is easy to implement and enables quick throughput of a 

large number of samples. 

Advanced Instruments Inc. (formerly Spiral Biotech Inc.), based 

in Norwood, MA, has facilitated vast improvements in the field 

of spiral plating. The Autoplate ® is the latest in microprocessorcontrolled 

spiral plating technology and uses an AOAC-approved 

method (#977.27) to directly plate microbial suspensions with 

concentrations ranging from 40 to 1,000,000 colony-forming units 

(CFU)/mL on 10-cm plates without the need for serial dilution. 

This automated method’s unique features result in greater sample 

repeatability and significant savings in time, labor and disposable 

materials over conventional plating methods. 

In the field of microbiology, it is always necessary to determine 

the number of bacterial cells in a sample. Bacterial enumeration 

of a sample is easy; however, it is time consuming since serial 

dilutions of sample are required. With high demands for rapid 

production time with accurate and precise results, it is essential 

to have a plating system that can accommodate a quick dilution 

method, accurate and precise enumeration of the sample and 

short preparation time. What is a good system, you might ask? 

The Autoplate Spiral Plating System (SPS) eliminates the need for 

serial dilutions by the availability of a 4-log dilution, reduces the 

cost per test (i.e., a 75 percent reduction in consumable costs) 

and provides repeatable results. The Autoplate was designed to 

help laboratories utilize their time and materials more effectively. 

The ideal customer plates samples regularly (>25 per week), uses 

a sample with a microbial concentration greater than 1,000 CFU/g 

or CFU/mL and has samples available 

in volumes greater than 200 mL. Any 

application where counts are high, dilutions 

need to be made and standardization 

and reproducibility are key issues 

is an opportunity for spiral plating. 

The Autoplate SPS is an automated 

spiral plating system used for bacterial 

enumeration, antimicrobial susceptibility 

testing and mutagenicity assays. 

The spiral plating method is used in 

various fields of microbiology, ranging 

from quantitative microbiology, product 

testing, preservative effectiveness and 

drug discovery to ecology and biocide 

testing in the food, dairy, dental, 

pharmaceutical, cosmetics and environmental 

industries. SPS inoculates 

the surface of a prepared agar plate to 

permit the enumeration of microorganisms 

in solutions containing between 

500 and 500,000 microorganisms per 

mL. The Autoplate deposits the sample 

in a spiral pattern, known as the Archimedean 

spiral, onto the surface of 

the rotating agar plate, creating a 4-log 

dilution effect. 

In the food industry, ongoing research 

continues to determine the 

prevalence of pathogens, improve 

detection rates and develop methods 

to raise the quality of the food supply 

in both raw and processed food items 

and their ingredients. Total viable organism 

counts using standard methods 

(e.g., aerobic plate count) or tryptic soy 

agars are often required. The Autoplate 

makes plating such items easier. The 

Autoplate is also ideal for those interested 

in utilizing selective or differential 

agars since it can make up to 10 different 

plates using only one aspiration of 

sample. 

Spiral plating has been an important 

tool for microbiologists in the food 

safety field. The method provides accurate 

and precise enumeration, which 

then helps identify pathogens that can 

be found in food. Using the Autoplate 

minimizes labor yet still meets the laboratory 

criteria of accuracy, efficiency 

and sterility of samples. The time saved 

on sample preparation and plating 

can help with the identification of new 

pathogens and improvements in food 

quality control. The system will help 

with the speedy recognition of bacterial 

outbreaks and therefore minimize outbreaks 

of foodborne illnesses in 

humans. 


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 40-second cycle times with two 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 Advanced Instruments that’s so hot, it’s really cool! 

www.aicompanies.com/Auto1 +1 781.320.9000


Crisis Management: 

How to Handle 

Outbreak Events 

By Benjamin Chapman, Ph.D., Audrey Kreske, Ph.D., 

and Doug Powell, Ph.D. 

Public health officials call a produce packer and tell them that 

a cluster of 60 illnesses has one thing in common—their 

product. Illnesses have been popping up for weeks, entered 

into state and national databases, and after a couple 

of rounds of interviews with the victims 

(some still hospitalized), statistics and 

epidemiology point to the packer as the source. 

The investigators are on their way to the 

facility; they would like to see how clean and 

sanitized the packing lines are, how well the 

packer’s dump tank chlorinator is working and 

analyze all transaction documents to determine where 

all incoming product came from and where it all went. 

There are sick children, chatter on Twitter, press inquiries 

and angry customers looking for refunds. Additionally, all of 

this happens within 24 hours of the initial call. Within 3 days, 

the number of linked illnesses triples, lawsuits have been filed 

and the commodity has become the punch line in late-night talk show monologues. 

51 J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n51 

e

The producer may have employed Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and passed 

their third-party audits; however, the business will still lose market share, as will others 

that produce and sell similar products. At this point, the goal is to minimize losses 

and then capitalize on the media attention. The heat of a crisis is a lousy time to figure 

out how to manage the fallout. 

In the Midst of Crisis 

Nationally, foodborne disease causes an estimated 48 million illnesses and 3,000 

deaths annually, with U.S. economic costs estimated at $152 billion to $1.4 trillion 

every year. 1–3 An increasing number of these illnesses are associated with fresh fruits 

and vegetables. An analysis of outbreaks from 1990 to 2003 found that 12 percent of 

outbreaks and 20 percent of outbreak-related illnesses were associated with produce. 4,5 

Once a product is implicated in an outbreak, all growers are affected, although the 

contaminated product may have come from one grower in a different locale. 

“Once a product is implicated in an outbreak, 

all growers are affected, although the 

contaminated product may have come from 

one grower in a different locale.” 

In 2008, tomato growers, wholesalers and retailers in Florida lost an estimated $250 

million when they could not sell their product after an investigation of a possible Salmonella 

spp. outbreak linked to their product, resulting in a national health advisory. 6 

Consumer confidence in the safety of tomato products eroded, while food safety 

practices on farms and throughout the supply chain were called into question. Tomato 

producers across North America found themselves answering questions about growing 

conditions, the safety of inputs handling and distribution of products—even though 

the investigation eventually pointed to imported serrano peppers as the source. 

Crisis management within the food industry has four phases, which are described 

in detail below. 

Prevention: Employing a good food safety culture, including staying current on risk factors 

GAPs, Good Manufacturing Practices, prerequisite programs and regulations provide 

the foundation for producing food safety, but when an outbreak happens, following 

industry best practices and standards is the minimum that buyers expect. These 

are must-haves. Companies that integrate food safety into their values—from the chief 

executive officer to the sanitation staff—create positive food safety cultures, which is 

how an organization or group approaches food safety risks, in thought and in behavior, 

and is a component of a larger organizational culture. 7 Creating a positive culture 

of food safety requires application of the best science with the best management and 

communication systems. Owners and operators need to know the risks associated with 

their products and how to manage those risks. Having technical staff knowledgeable 

about emerging food safety risks and conducting ongoing evaluations of procedures, 

supplier requirements and frontline staff practices provide necessary foundations for 

a good food safety culture. Steps taken during preparation also demonstrate that the 

business was taking steps to reduce risk and answer potential questions like: Did the 

company require anything from suppliers with respect to microbiological or other 

food safety assurances? Did they learn from any deficiencies pointed out through 

audits? What did they do to let their customers know about any potential problems 

when they arose? 

Preparation: Proactively planning for a problem and monitoring public discussion of risk 

Crises will happen. Companies that understand this and are prepared to deal with 

them will survive. Those who are not risk losing their market—and often do. While 

proactively managing microbiological 

risk, organizations with a strong culture 

of food safety also anticipate that outbreaks 

of foodborne illness may occur 

despite the use of sound food safety 

systems. Industries strong in crisis management, 

including information sharing, 

monitoring and reactive crisis communication 

skills, can drastically reduce the 

impact of deleterious and harmful media 

if an outbreak arises. 8 Being prepared to 

speak openly about risk reduction strategies 

and demonstrating risk management 

practices can reduce financial impacts 

and rebuild public trust quicker than if a 

firm/industry had not planned. 9 

Management: Implementing the plan 

using multiple messages and media 

Recent foodborne illness outbreaks in 

the U.S. have also stimulated blogging 

by consumers and others on food safety 

issues. Producers, processors, retailers 

and regulators of agricultural commodities 

must now pay particular attention 

to evolving discussion and engage in 

the public discussion while the crisis is 

occurring. A firm or industry that is not 

forthcoming with information of who 

knew what, when and what decisions 

were made sets itself up for loss of trust 

because media and Internet discussion 

goes toward these questions. During a 

crisis, it is necessary for a company or industry 

to talk about the science, discuss 

risks and tell an interested public about 

what is known, what is unknown and 

upon what evidence decisions are made. 

Being available and understanding how 

media functions are also necessary skills 

for food industry members. Without 

recognizing deadlines or telling succinct 

stories of risk management, individuals 

risk the chance that others will fill the 

information void with misinformation. 

Recovery: Reassessing risk exposure and 

telling the story of changes 

A firm employing the best crisis 

management practices starts the recovery 

phase as soon as the problem emerges. 

Publicly, producers must address the 

problem, apologize to affected individuals 

and reach out to the media about risk 

reduction changes. It is best to establish 

a dialogue with groups to demonstrate 

the organization’s openness and com- 


mitment to public safety and health. 

Internally, a firm plans for reentry to the 

market, logistics and how new risk management 

strategies will influence other 

business activities. If there was media 

attention around the crisis event, the 

1-year anniversary will often spur further 

coverage. An organization must be able 

to demonstrate that they have learned 

something in response and assess internally 

whether the same risks to public 

health exist by asking, “Would we have 

the outbreak again today?” 

Preparation Essentials 

Crisis management and communication 

are not readily learned in a classroom. 

These skills need to be honed by 

observing where others have been successful 

or failed. Testing crisis management 

plans by running regular simulations can 

sharpen responses and expose gaps in a 

food safety management system. 

Companies repeatedly fall into certain 

pitfalls during a crisis, usually surrounding 

a statement of “we’ve done the same 

thing for X years and we’ve never had 

a problem.” Or “we follow the strictest 

government regulations.” Stating that any 

decision is based on science/evidence/ 

facts is never enough—the data need to 

be communicated in an open and transparent 

way. Consumers will rightly react 

based on the information available. Food 

production politics and emerging communication 

technology (like the ubiquity 

of smartphones) affect how crises evolve. 

Those who have adapted and embraced 

social media as an engagement tool (not 

just a place to put out press releases) are 

current. However, some other tool will 

ease communication and take off like 

Twitter, Facebook and Pinterest. Businesses 

that know where people are already 

talking about their products and actively 

converse with them will know where to go 

to listen and connect when a crisis hits. • 

Benjamin Chapman, Ph.D., 

is an assistant professor, food 

safety extension specialist, in 

the department of 4-H youth 

development and family & 

consumer sciences at North 

Carolina State University. 

Audrey Kreske, Ph.D., is an extension associate in the department 

of 4-H youth development and family & consumer sciences at North 

Carolina State University. 

Doug Powell, Ph.D., is a professor in the department of diagnostic 

medicine/pathobiology at Kansas State University. 

References 

1. Roberts, T. 2007. WTP Estimates of the societal costs of U.S. foodborne illness. Am J Ag Econ 

89:1183–1188. 

2. Scallan, E., R. Hoekstra, F. Angulo, R. Tauxe, M.-A. Widdowson, S. Roy, J. Jones and P. Griffin. 

2011. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—Major pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis 

17:7–15. 

3. www.producesafetyproject.org/admin/assets/files/Health-Related- 

Foodborne-Illness-Costs-Report.pdf-1.pdf. 

4. cspinet.org/new/pdf/ddreport.pdf. 

5. Lynch, M., R. Tauxe and C. Hedberg. 2009. The growing burden of foodborne outbreaks due to 

contaminated fresh produce: risks and opportunities. Epidemiol Infect 137:307–315. 

6. www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-08-28-261734902_x.htm. 

7. Yiannas, F. 2009. Food safety culture: Creating a behavior-based food safety management 

system. New York: Springer Science. 

8. Jacob, C., C. Lok, K. Morley and D. Powell. 2011. Government management of two mediafacilitated 

crises involving dioxin contamination of food. Public Understand Sci 20:261–269. 

9. Hrudey, S. 1997. Dioxins or chemical stigmata. In Mad cows and mother’s milk: The perils of 

poor risk communication, eds. D. Powell and W. Leiss. Quebec City, Canada: McGill-Queen’s 

University Press. 

| advanced ozone technology 

f o od s afet y s o l u t i o n s 

Improve 

food safety 

Direct Food Contact Surface Sanitation Cold Storage Clean in Place (CIP) 

Visit us at IFT – Booth #2828 

(800) 676-1335 x 255 

www.delozonefoodsafety.com 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 53

SPOTLIGHT: MEAT AND POULTRY By Navam Hettiarachchy, Ph.D., and Madhuram Ravichandran 

Potential Use of Edible 

Nanoscale Coatings for Meat 

Nanotechnology involves the preparation and 

use of submicroscopic particles with sizes ranging 

in nanometer scale, conferring special physiochemical 

properties to these particles and positioning 

nanotechnology as a critical research 

endeavor of this century. Their importance also 

magnifies the efforts needed to study their effects 

on biological systems, as drug delivery is one of the prime 

areas for which nanoparticles are being researched. 

Nanoparticles can be prepared from a variety of substances, 

ranging from metals to polymeric compounds to elements. 

Much work has been done in elucidating the role of metal 

nanoparticles in material sciences. However, such studies in 

nanomedicine indicated adverse effects that made them unsuitable 

for use in therapeutic research. In addition, nanomedicine 

uses materials approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) that are both biodegradable and biocompatible. 

PLGA (polylactic glycolic acid), an FDA-approved compound, 

is a copolymer of lactic and glycolic acids and has been used in 

nanotechnology extensively (Figure 1). 

New technological 

applications for 

meat safety 

Biodegradation of PLGA 

Nanoparticles 

PLGA biodegradation occurs both in vitro 

and in vivo in aqueous environments by hydrolysis 

of the backbone ester linkages. The 

biodegradation rate depends on the molar ratio 

of lactic and glycolic acids in the polymer, 

the molecular weight, the degree of crystallization and the glass 

transition temperature. PLGA degrades into lactic and glycolic 

acids; lactic acid enters the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle and 

is then metabolized and eliminated from the system as water 

and carbon dioxide, whereas glycolic acid may undergo similar 

metabolism in the TCA cycle or is excreted by the kidneys unchanged. 

Biocompatibility of PLGA Nanoparticles 

PLGA nanoparticles have been shown to possess advantageous 

properties, such as low immunogenicity, good mechanical 

properties, low toxicity and predictable biodegradation 

mechanisms that make them ideal compounds for use in thera- 


MORE THAN JUST 

AN ATP SYSTEM... 

• Coliform - Results in 7 hours or less 

• E. coli - Results in 7 hours or less 

• Total Viable - Results in 6 hours 

• ATP Monitoring - Results in 15 seconds 

• Alkaline Phosphatase - Results in 5 minutes 

NEW 

MicroSnap is a rapid test for detection and 

enumeration of Coliforms and E. coli in product or 

environmental samples. Single figure organisms 

can be detected within 7 hours, yielding same 

shift or day results. 

FREE 

TRADE-UP 

PROGRAM 

Trade up your non-Hygiena system for free in 2012. 

Customers who switch to Hygiena’s EnSURE from 

another system are able to improve the quality and 

consistency of a hygiene monitoring program while 

also cutting the company’s hygiene monitoring 

budget up to 50%. Call Hygiena today to find out more.

SPOTLIGHT: MEAT AND POULTRY 

Figure 1: Schematic of an Antimicrobial Encapsulated by a PLGA 

Nanoparticle 

peutics. 1 Its very low immunogenicity makes it an extremely 

suitable candidate for use in biomaterials and biomedical applications, 

including sutures, nerve/dental/bone repairs, etc. 

Additionally, it is important to note that PLGA/PLA (polylactic 

acid) nanoparticles can easily be modified on their surfaces to 

further increase resistance to opsonization and macrophagemediated 

degradation by coating with hydrophilic compounds. 

Biodistribution of PLGA Nanoparticles 

Because they’re so small, PLGA nanoparticles can cross 

extremely selective biological barriers and are hence able to 

deliver drugs to otherwise difficult-to-access body organs. 

PLGA nanoparticles are found in all major organs after administration, 

with highest concentrations seen in the liver and 

kidneys. 2 Further, once in the organs, they are readily degraded 

as described above, leading to no accumulation over time. In 

addition, the organs exposed to PLGA nanoparticles show no 

signs of reduced viability or alterations of metabolic processes, 

confirming studies conducted in cell culture models. 

All studies to date have shown the beneficial effects of 

PLGA nanoparticles that make them suitable candidates for 

use in nanomedicine. PLGA has already been used to administer 

specific cancer drugs, nutraceuticals and drugs to treat 

brain ailments, not only elucidating their biosafety but also 

illuminating their release kinetics, increase in efficiency of the 

drug/compound and increased beneficial results with possible 

mechanisms of the test compounds delivered by these particles. 

Additional studies that can confirm their biosafety profile 

might lead to their use at a commercial level in a wide range of 

applications, spanning foods, drugs, dental/bone fills, etc. With 

this approach, PLGA/PLA nanoparticles definitely will have a 

revolutionary impact on the way molecules are delivered. 

Application of Nanoparticles in Meat 

Systems 

We have experimented with the use of phenolic compounds 

in PLGA nanoparticles in poultry meat systems, using broth 

studies. In both raw and cooked chicken, nanoparticle delivery 

of benzoic acid was efficient against Salmonella Typhimurium 

and Listeria monocytogenes [1.0 and 1.6 log colony-forming units 

(CFU)/g reduction in Salmonella Typhimurium and 1.1 and 

3.2 log CFU/g reduction of L. monocytogenes compared with 

1.2 log CFU/g without nanoparticles on days 9 and 14 of storage, 

respectively]. These findings demonstrate the efficacy of 

pathogen reduction by phenolics delivered by nanoparticles; 

however, since meat is a complex system and has shelf-life issues, 

better methods for delivering nanoparticles containing 

antimicrobials to meat systems might prove beneficial. 

Edible films: An ideal solution for the food industry to 

overcome food safety and environmental problems is to incorporate 

antimicrobial substances into edible coatings. 3 Antimicrobial 

packaging as edible films can be a challenging form of 

active meat packaging. Direct surface application of antimicrobials 

diffuses them rapidly into the food mass, minimizing their 

protective effect. Incorporating these antimicrobials into edible 

films could effectively sustain their inhibitory effects for an 

extended period of storage by slow migration of compounds, 

which would help maintain high concentrations when required. 

Several antimicrobial agents, including lysozyme, nisin, pediocin, 

p-aminobenzoic and sorbic acids, have been incorporated 

into edible films and shown to inhibit Escherichia coli O157:H7, 

Lactobacillus plantarum, L. monocytogenes and Salmonella Typhimurium. 

3, 4 Our laboratory has advocated the use of edible 

film technology to deliver malic and lactic acids containing 

nisin in soy protein films. 5 Malic acid (2.6%)-incorporated soy 

protein film has the fewest survivors of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella 

Gaminara and E. coli O157:H7 (5.5, 3.0 and 6.8 log CFU/ 

mL, respectively). Soy protein films incorporated with grape 

seed and green tea extracts and nisin were tested on turkey 

frankfurters and provided more than 2.0 log CFU/g reduction 

of L. monocytogenes during a 28-day storage period at 4 °C and 

10 °C. 6 

Preparation of nanoparticle-containing edible films: The method 

for preparing soy protein edible films was standardized by Eswaranandam 

et al. 4 A 10 percent solution of soy protein isolate 

in deionized water is prepared and stirred at room temperature 

for 1 hour for total dissolution of the protein. Glycerol, used as 

a plasticizer, is then added at a 35 percent (w/w) protein basis, 

and the solution is stirred for 30 minutes. After homogenizing 

for 2 minutes to ensure complete homogeneity of the sample, 

the solution is heated at 85 °C for 30 minutes and filtered 

through cheesecloth. Antimicrobial-containing nanoparticles 

are added at the desired concentration to the edible film protein 

solution and stirred for 1 hour. The solution is centrifuged 

at 10,000 rpm for 15 minutes to remove air bubbles and cast 

at uniform thickness on plastic sheets (i.e., to act as models for 

edible films) using a drawdown machine or used directly for 

coating meat (i.e., dipping meat in an edible film solution). 

While plastic sheets can be dried in humidity chambers (45 

°C/40% relative humidity/4 h) to obtain edible film models for 

testing textural properties of the films, antimicrobial properties 

of nanoparticles in edible films can be tested in meat models. 


SPOTLIGHT: MEAT AND POULTRY 

Technology Potential 

Edible films potentially could be developed that contain 

antimicrobially encapsulated nanoparticles for improving the 

safety of meat. This multiple-hurdle technology is commercially 

feasible, economical and environmentally friendly, owing to 

the readily available ingredients for making edible films and the 

biodegradable quality of edible films as opposed to non-edible 

synthetic films. This technique can offer decontamination of 

surface pathogens and protection from recontamination by 

pathogenic bacteria during both pre- and postpackaging of 

meat and serve as an anchor for the controlled release of antimicrobials 

for an extended period of time to maintain product 

quality and extend shelf life. We can expect that such new systems 

will have either substantially higher antimicrobial activity 

or higher stability than free antimicrobials. Because of the small 

size of the capsules trapped within a transparent edible film, no 

Navam Hettiarachchy, Ph.D., is a university professor in 

the department of food science at the University of Arkansas, 

Fayetteville. She earned a Ph.D. in molecular 

biochemistry at the University of Hull, 

England. 

Madhuram Ravichandran is a Ph.D. 

student in the laboratory of Dr. Hettiarachchy and received 

an undergraduate degree in biotechnology. 

change in appearance or texture of foods should be observed. 

This research could dramatically improve the safety of meat 

products. 

• 

References 

1. Lewis, D H. 1990. Controlled release of bioactive agents from lactide/ 

glycolide polymers. In Biodegradable polymers as drug delivery system, 

eds. M. Chasin and R. Langer. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc. 

2. Athanasiou, K. A., G. G. Niederauer and C. M. Agrawal. 1996. Sterilization, 

toxicity, biocompatibility and clinical applications of polylactic acid/ 

polyglycolic acid copolymers. Biomaterials 17(2):93–102. 

3. Padgett, T., I. Y. Han and P. L. Dawson. 1998. Incorporation of foodgrade 

antimicrobial compounds into biodegradable packaging films. J 

Food Prot 61(10):1330–1335. 

4. Cagri, A., Z. Ustunol and E. Ryser. 2001. Antimicrobial, mechanical and 

moisture barrier properties of low pH whey protein-based edible films 

containing p-aminobenzoic or sorbic acids, J Food Sci 66(6):865–871. 

5. Eswaranandam, S., N. S. Hettiarachchy and M. G. Johnson. 2004. 

Antimicrobial activity of citric, lactic, malic, or tartaric acids and nisin-incorporated 

soy protein film against Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia 

coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Gaminara. J Food Sci 69:79–84. 

6. Sivarooban, T., N. S. Hettiarachchy and M. G. Johnson. 2008. Transmission 

electron microscopy study of Listeria monocytogenes treated 

with nisin in combination with either grape seed or green tea extract. J 

Food Prot 71(10):2105–2109. 

INTRODUCING 

 

New Epower TM Certified Reference Material (CRM) is a quantitative 

microorganism preparation. 

For Testing Laboratories, Section 5.6.3.2 of ISO 17025:2005 states: 

“Referencematerialsshall,wherepossible,betraceabletoSIunits 

ofmeasurements,ortoCERTIFIED REFERENCE MATERIALS.” 

Includes Certificate of Analysis! 

www.microbiologics.com 

Reference Material Producer 

CERT # 2655.02 

29128_EPower_CRM_HalfPage.indd 1 

5/15/12 10:04 AM 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 57

Category: BEVERAGES 

By Gordana Ristovska, M.D., Ph.D., 

Maja Dimitrovska, M.Sc., and Anita Najdenkoska, B.Sc. 

Safety Issues Associated with 

Nonalcoholic Beverages 

Nonalcoholic beverages include water and 

carbonated water, fruit and vegetable juices 

and nectars, water-based, flavored carbonated 

and noncarbonated drinks and water-based 

brewed or steeped beverages, such as coffee 

and tea. Safety for the human consumption of these products 

is regulated in each country by national regulations based on 

codes and standards derived by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. 

1 European Union (EU) member states use European 

legislation for microbiological criteria, food additives and general 

hygiene requirements for the production, storage and trade 

of food products, as well as specific requirements for safety 

and quality of such beverages. The Republic of Macedonia has 

developed national legislation for food safety, primarily based 

on European legislation and Codex standards, so the safety of 

nonalcoholic beverages is covered by these regulations. 2, 3 

The basic ingredients of a beverage are water, sweetener, 

acid and flavor. Optional ingredients often include fruit and/ 

or fruit juice, carbon dioxide, preservatives and color. Water is 

always the major ingredient and represents approximately 86% 

of a carbonated drink, 90% of a fruit juice and 100% of bottled 

A close look at 

beverage safety 

waters. Nonalcoholic drink ingredients can be 

divided into two categories: food substances, 

like fruit, juice, sugars and starches, and additives, 

like sweeteners or preservatives. Additives 

are defined as substances added to food to 

maintain quality, texture, consistency, appearance, taste, alkalinity, 

acidity, etc. Some additives have adverse health effects 

in humans and have been banned for use in beverage production. 

International standards and national legislation prescribe 

detailed rules for the mandatory labeling of additives used in a 

product to enable informed choices by consumers and avoid 

consumption of additives when necessary. 1, 4 

Preservatives in Nonalcoholic Beverages 

Since nonalcoholic beverages are high in water activity and 

some are rich in vitamins and minerals, they are an attractive 

environment for microbes. However, the usually low pH of 

beverages, due to carbonation, the sugar content in some of 

them and the addition of preservatives help inhibit the growth 

of microbes. The type of chemical preservative that can be used 

in beverages depends on the chemical and physical properties 


Quality Assurance. 

Sept. 18–20 

FOOD & DIETARY 

SUPPLEMENT 

SYMPOSIUM 

www.usp.org 

Safeguard the quality of your ingredients by using Food Chemicals Codex 

(FCC) specifications and reference materials for determining food ingredient 

authenticity and purity. 

New 

Eighth Edition 

Save 

$100* 

FCC Highlights 

New 1,300-entry extract from 

USP’s Food Fraud Database featuring 

information on adulterants 

More than 1,100 monographs with 

essential specifications 

14 appendices detailing more than 

150 tests and assays 

Two-year print or online subscription; 

includes three supplements with updates 

Food ingredient reference 

materials sold separately. 

For more information and to order, visit www.usp.org/products or call USP 

Customer Service: +1-301-881-0666, 1-800-227-8772 (U.S. and Canada), or 

00-800-4875-5555 (Select Europe). 

Follow us on: 

facebook.com/USPharmacopeia 

linkedin.com/companies/u.s.-pharmacopeia 

twitter.com/uspharmacopeia 

FCC233A_2012-05 

* Offer good through September 30, 2012, with promotion 

code GW2BZZ06. For FCC print version only.


of both the antimicrobial preservative and the beverage. The 

pH of the product, the presence of vitamins, the packaging and 

the storage conditions will determine whether preservatives are 

necessary and what type should be used to prevent microbial 

growth. The main preservatives allowed and used in nonalcoholic 

beverages are sorbic and benzoic acids and their salts. 2, 4 

Sorbates are very effective preservatives against yeasts, 

molds and bacteria. The antimicrobial effectiveness of sorbates 

depends on the physical and chemical properties of the beverages. 

Sorbates and benzoates are often used in combination, 

especially in highly acidic drinks. Benzoic acid occurs naturally, 

notably in cranberries, cinnamon, plums and currants, and it 

has long been used to inhibit microbial growth in many products, 

including nonalcoholic beverages. Benzoate salts are more 

stable than the acid form and more soluble in water, making 

benzoates a favorable choice for the beverage industry. The 

salts are particularly well suited for use in carbonated, nonalcoholic 

and juice beverages because they work best between pH 

levels of 2 and 4. 4 

Therefore, we need techniques to detect and quantify benzoic 

and sorbic acids in beverages to prevent excessive human 

exposure. Traditional techniques such as titration and spectrophotometry 

usually require extensive sample pretreatment. 

Gas chromatography methods require complex pretreatments, 

such as several extraction, evaporation and derivatization steps, 

which might reduce analytical precision. High-performance 

liquid chromatography (HPLC) methods are more attractive 

for that purpose, offering the possibility to analyze the additives 

without prior steps but with high precision and accuracy. 

At the Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Macedonia, 

in the laboratory for food quality testing, we use an HPLC 

method for the quantification of additives. Samples are filtered 

through a membrane filter with a pore diameter of 0.45 μm 

and chromatographed. A method for benzoic and sorbic acid 

determination in beverages by liquid chromatography using 

a diode array UV-VIS detector (UV-VIS-DAD) involves a 

reversed-phase mode and a mobile phase of ammonium acetate/methanol 

buffer (50:40), with a pH of 5.2 (Figure 1). This 

HPLC method is complete within 5 minutes after sonication 

and filtration. The results showed sorbic and benzoic acid concentrations 

vary with different kinds of beverages, with lower 

than the maximum levels allowed by national legislation. 5, 6 

When ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is present as an ingredient 

in beverages along with sodium benzoate, benzene formation 

may occur under certain conditions. Formation of benzene is 

exacerbated in beverages if they are stored for extended periods 

at elevated temperatures. Although the levels and frequencies 

at which such benzene formation has occurred in the past 

have not posed a public health risk, the beverage industry has 

developed methods to prevent or minimize its occurrence. In 

recent years, the use of benzoates has been reduced because of 

new processing techniques, but it is still necessary to use these 

preservatives in some beverages to maintain quality. 7 

In 2006, the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency 

published the results of its survey of benzene levels in soft 

drinks, which tested 150 products and found that four contained 

benzene levels above the World Health Organization 

guidelines for drinking water (10 μg/L). 7 The U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) released its own test results of 

several soft drinks containing benzoates and ascorbic acid. Five 

tested drinks contained benzene levels above the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency-recommended standard of 5 ppb; 

despite these findings, as of 2006, FDA stated its belief that 

“the levels of benzene found in soft drinks and other beverages 

to date do not pose a safety concern for consumers.” 8 At present, 

we don’t have available data for benzene concentrations 

in nonalcoholic beverages from the market in the Republic of 

Macedonia. 

Dyes are added to some nonalcoholic beverages, but they 

must be labeled. Consumers thereby have the opportunity to 

Figure 1: Chromatogram of the beverage Play bitter lemon with a 

mobile phase of ammonium acetate/methanol buffer (50:40), a pH 

of 5.2 and an isocratic elution of 5 min. The flow rate of the mobile 

phase was 1.2 mL/min., and the wavelength of the detector was 

235 nm. 

Figure 2: Chromatogram of the beverage Bravo Multired with 

mobile phases A: phosphate buffer/water (1:3), B: phosphate 

buffer/methanol (1:3) and a gradient elution of 10 min. The flow 

rate of the mobile phase was 2 mL/min., and the wavelength of the 

detector was 518 nm. 



decide whether they will consume beverages with added dyes. 

HPLC with a UV-VIS-DAD was employed for the determination 

of synthetic dyes as well, 9 using reversed-phase conditions 

and a short monolith column (Chromolith RPe; 50-4.6 mm). 

Sample preparation by means of typical membrane filtration is 

unacceptable, as the synthetic dyes will be absorbed. To prevent 

the decreased intensity of dyes, samples are dissolved in a solution 

of methanol/water (1:1, v/v) (Figure 2). Using this method, 

we detected a few samples from imported fruit juices with 

added colors like E102 and E122, which are not allowed for use 

in this kind of product in Macedonia. 9 

Low-Calorie Sweeteners 

Sucrose has been widely used in beverages as a sweetener. 

However, the special dietary requirements of diabetics and 

health concerns about obesity and dental caries have triggered 

considerable research into the development of alternative sweeteners. 

Most low-calorie beverages on the EU market frequently 

use intense sweeteners, which were approved for use in the EU 

in 1994 as governed by an EU Directive for sweeteners in food. 

This legislation sets limits for the use of each intense sweetener 

in food and drink products. The law also states that when any 

intense sweetener is used, there must be a minimum 30% reduction 

in sugar content compared with regular products. The 

use of intense sweeteners in Macedonia is regulated by national 

legislation for food additives and food labeling, which has been 

harmonized with European standards. Acceptable daily intake 

levels are set for each intense sweetener by Codex Alimentarius 

Commission standards, which indicate safe consumption of 

intense sweeteners every day over a lifetime. 1, 3 

Because of high consumer demand and acceptance of lowcalorie 

beverages, the market for (continued on page 80) 

Figure 3: Chromatogram of the Tedi multivitamin, low-calorie, 

noncarbonated soft drink. See the text for chromatographic 

conditions. 


CONSUMER TRUST 

By Charlie Arnot, APR 

Building Consumer Trust Requires 

Redefining Today’s Food System 

In what culminated in the third-largest meat 

recall in U.S. history, the first reports of Salmonella 

linked to ground turkey began in March 

2011. By July, the product had been linked 

with the Arkansas plant where it was processed. 

In August, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) formally asked the plant to recall 36 

million pounds of ground turkey. 

The meat was believed to be linked to 77 Salmonella-related 

illnesses and one death. 

It was the second time in recent months that turkey had 

been tied to a food safety issue. A few months earlier, 12 people 

fell ill amid a Salmonella outbreak that prompted the recall of 

nearly 55,000 pounds of turkey burgers. 

Food safety advocate Bill Marler, an attorney who has represented 

victims of the foodborne illness outbreaks, told CBS 

News, “Consumers have no idea what to do except not eat 

ground turkey.” 

U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro, a longtime advocate for 

stronger food safety laws, wrote USDA and the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), asking why it took so long 

to announce the recall. 

A look at how 

the food industry 

can connect with 

consumers 

“It is simply unacceptable that after more 

than 4 months of illnesses and more than 10 

weeks of investigation by both the CDC and 

the USDA, we have so few answers to the 

obvious questions surrounding this outbreak,” 

wrote DeLauro. 

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, a longtime 

promoter of legislation to place limits on 

the use of antibiotics, issued a statement saying the recall was 

due to “antibiotic-resistant turkey products.” She asked the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner for stronger 

rules covering the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. 

All of this occurred mere weeks after President Barack 

Obama had signed legislation giving FDA authority to impose 

new rules to prevent contamination and allowing the agency to 

order, rather than simply suggest, the recall of tainted foods. 

Laying Blame 

When a food safety incident requiring a recall occurs, there 

may be only one source, in this case, the processing plant in 

Arkansas. But according to Dr. David Acheson, former FDA 

associate commissioner of foods, the suffering is widespread. 


6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W | Des Moines, Iowa 50322-2864, USA 

+1 800.369.6337 | +1 515.276.3344 | Fax +1 515.276.8655 

www.foodprotection.org


“Damage to an entire industry can be massive,” said Acheson. 

“We’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars. Data 

indicate consumption of a commodity can drop 50 percent 

overnight.” 

Food companies lacking the ability to address a food safety 

concern quickly and efficiently will find themselves with deeper 

problems. 

“It is critical that record-keeping systems are adequate to 

support what I call a ‘surgical recall’—get minimum product 

off the shelves at maximum speed,” said Acheson, who is now 

a food safety consultant. “If you can hold the incident to one 

press release, it can go almost unnoticed. If you have to expand 

the recall, it can become a nightmare very quickly.” 

Ground beef, onions, spinach, peanuts, peppers and eggs 

have all in recent years had their turns in the public spotlight 

due to food safety concerns. There’s no doubt that pressure on 

the food production system is increasing. With each incident, 

consumer confidence erodes and the food system’s operating 

environment becomes more difficult. 

Since 2006, the Center for Food Integrity (CFI) has conducted 

broad-based consumer market research to measure and 

track attitudes toward the U.S. food system. The findings have 

consistently shown that the food safety issue trails only the 

economy, rising health care costs, unemployment, rising energy 

costs and personal financial situations on a long list of consumer 

concerns. 

CFI’s 2011 study showed that consumers rank safe, affordable 

and nutritious food as their top priorities (Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Priority Goals Driving Consumer Food Choices 

Consumers are increasingly raising questions about today’s 

food production and processing practices. Nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs) opposed to today’s production systems 

are pursuing litigation, pressuring customers and initiating 

legislation to change the way the food system operates. Customers 

and consumers are asking questions, as was the case 

with ground turkey in 2011, about food safety. Sustainability, 

nutrition, animal well-being and immigration are also issues of 

increasing consumer concern. 

The changing structure of our food system, the increasing 

influence of global brands, the sophistication and influence of 

interest groups and the explosion of social networking and new 

media have created a novel environment requiring the food 

production system to explore new ways to build consumer 

trust and protect its freedom to operate. The rational majority 

needs to be shown that even though the size and scale of today’s 

highly integrated and tightly coordinated food system has 

changed, the commitment to do what’s right is stronger than 

ever. 

Today’s food system needs to be redefined to build consumer 

trust. 

Our Changing Structure 

Changes taking place in food production over the past 100 

years have been remarkable. Technology our grandparents 

never dreamed possible is commonplace. The adoption of technology 

and the related increase in efficiency and productivity 

have resulted in fewer Americans working in food production. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1900, 36 percent of 

all U.S. occupations were “agricultural pursuits.” By 1950, 11.6 

percent of all U.S. occupations were farmers, farm managers 

or farm laborers. In 2010, 0.6 percent of the U.S. population 

was employed in farming, according to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. Consolidation and integration have dramatically 

impacted every sector of the food system, from the farm to the 

consumer. 

We see the consolidation reflected in the handful of organizations 

that now control or manage significant segments of the 

food system. Today, 

• The top 10 food retailers sell more than 75 percent of food. 

• The top 10 chicken companies produce 79 percent of the 

chicken. 

• The top 50 dairy cooperatives produce 79 percent of the 

milk. 

• The top 60 egg companies produce 85 percent of all eggs. 

• The top 20 pork producers produce more than 50 percent of 

all pork (2% of pork producers produce 80%). 

• The top 10 pork packers process 87 percent of all pork. 

• The top four beef 

packers process 

more than 80 percent 

of all beef. 

Increased integration 

and the use of 

technology brought 

with them improved 

food safety, increased 

product variety, improved 

consistency and 

a reliable and afford- 

Figure 2: Food Industry 

Interconnectedness 



able source of nutritious food for consumers. Unfortunately, it 

also means fewer people are connected to the food system and 

there is a reduced understanding and appreciation for how food 

is produced. The result is diminished consumer trust and confidence 

in today’s food production and a corresponding increase 

in consumer concern and NGO pressure (Figure 2). 

Brands as Agents of Social Change 

In today’s dynamic new environment, the link between 

NGOs, global brands and food production is short and direct. 

NGOs like Greenpeace, the Center for Food Safety and the 

Center for Environmental Health are now embracing marketbased 

campaigns as well as legislation and litigation to achieve 

their objectives. 

Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace, is quoted 

as saying that discovering brands was like discovering gunpowder 

and that Greenpeace attacks the weakest link in a brand’s 

supply chain. If specific practices in food production are 

perceived to be a threat to public health, sustainability or environmental 

integrity, the industry should expect groups to exert 

market pressure as well as legislation or litigation to change 

those practices. 

Global food companies have invested millions of dollars in 

building and protecting their brand, and they can ill afford to 

have the practices of their supply chain put the brand at risk. It 

is no more the job of McDonald’s or Walmart to defend practices 

that threaten their brand than it is of the food system to 

defend those who supply the industry inputs. 

At the same time, McDonald’s, Walmart and other companies 

with global brands have a vested interest in a consistent, 

safe and affordable food supply produced responsibly. Food 

producers and processors can help secure the support of customers 

by working to build consumer trust and understanding 

of today’s production and processing systems. Research indicates 

consumers want permission to believe the food they eat is 

safe and produced in a responsible manner. 

Market leaders across the globe are fully aware of the relationship 

between NGOs, brands and the supply chain, and 

they work to manage the risk to their brand and their customers. 

The food system can build customer support by increasing 

consumer trust and confidence, and ensuring today’s practices 

are consistent with the values and expectations of their stakeholders 

and that robust quality systems are in place and a commitment 

to food safety is engrained in the company culture. 

The Social License to Operate 

Every organization, no matter how large or small, operates 

with some level of social license. Social license (Figure 3) is the 

privilege of operating with minimal formalized restrictions (e.g., 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 65


Figure 3: The Social License to Operate 

legislation, regulation or market mandate) based on maintaining 

public trust by doing what’s right. You are granted social 

license when you operate in a way that is consistent with the 

ethics, values and expectations of your stakeholders. Your stakeholders 

include customers, employees, the local community, 

regulators, legislators and the media. 

Once lost, either through a single event or a series of events 

that reduce or eliminate public trust, social license is replaced 

with social control. Social control is regulation, legislation, market 

mandates or litigation designed to compel you to perform 

to the expectations of your stakeholders. Operating with social 

license is flexible and low cost. Operating with a high degree of 

social control increases costs, reduces operational flexibility and 

increases bureaucratic compliance. 

Once public trust is violated, the tipping point is crossed 

and high-cost bureaucratic regulation or stringent market 

requirements replace flexible, lower-cost social license. Once 

social control is in place, it can be modified, but social license 

is never fully recovered. 

The question then becomes, what can be done to maintain 

public trust that grants the social license and protects freedom 

to operate? 

A New Model for Building Trust 

In 2006, CMA (an issues management and communications 

firm) commissioned a meta-analysis of available research on 

the question of trust in the food system. Through that analysis, 

done in partnership with Dr. Stephen Sapp of the Sociology 

Department at Iowa State University, it was determined that 

three primary elements 

drive trust. Those three 

elements are confidence, 

competence 

and influential others 

(Figure 4 1 ). 

Confidence is 

related to perceived 

shared values and ethics 

and a belief that an 

individual or group 

will do the right thing. 

Competence is tied 

Figure 4: Primary Elements That Drive 

Trust 1 

to skills, ability and 

technical capacity. Influential 

others include family and friends as well as respected, 

credentialed individuals like doctors and dietitians. 

In late 2007, CMA launched a nationwide consumer survey 

on behalf of CFI to determine the role that confidence, competence 

and influential others play in creating and maintaining 

trust. Consumers were specifically asked to rate their level of 

confidence, competence and trust in various groups of influential 

others in the food system. Questions were asked about food 

safety, environmental protection, nutrition, animal well-being 

and worker care. 

The results of the survey were consistent and conclusive. 1 

On every single issue, confidence, or shared values, was three to 

five times more important than competence for consumers in 

determining whom they trust in the food system. In the words 

of Theodore Roosevelt, “They don’t care how much you know 

until they know how much you care.” 

These results should serve as a call to action for the entire 

food system. No longer is it sufficient to rely solely on science 

or to attack those who attack the food system as a means of 

protecting self-interest. This new environment requires new 

ways of engaging and new methods of communicating if the 

food system is to build trust, earn and maintain social license 

and protect the freedom to operate. 

The Global Food Challenge 

The food system has an incredible challenge and opportunity 

ahead. By midcentury, food production must double to 

feed a total of 9 billion people around the globe. To meet that 

challenge, the food system must embrace new models of public 

engagement that build and maintain public trust and the social 

license to operate. Social license is required to continue to innovate 

and find ways to produce additional safe, affordable 

food using fewer natural resources. 

Consumers need help in understanding that the industry’s 

use of technology is consistent with their desire for safe food 

produced responsibly. 

Figure 5: Balancing for Success 



Food industry claims must be verified with objective science 

and companies also must be able to operate profitably if they 

are to survive. 

Only those systems that maintain a balance of being ethically 

grounded, scientifically verified and economically viable 

are truly sustainable (Figure 5). Each side of the sustainability 

triangle has stakeholders focused on maintaining the strength 

of that side, even at the expense of maintaining balance. There 

may be times when stakeholders have to look beyond shortterm 

self-interest to foster sustainability of the system. 

Those in the food system need to develop new skills and 

new models to work effectively in the space where public, private 

and NGO interests meet on food issues. 

If food system practices are not ethically grounded, they 

will not achieve broad-based societal acceptance and support. 

If they are not scientifically verified, there is no way to evaluate 

and validate the claims of sustainability, and if they are not economically 

viable, they cannot be commercially sustained. For a 

system to be truly sustainable, it has to be ethically grounded, 

scientifically verified and economically viable. This model 

encourages stakeholders to look for balance in an effort to find 

true sustainability. 

There is likely to be some tension inherent among stakeholders 

who place greater value on a single side of the sustainability 

triangle. 

Ethically Grounded 

Those who focus on ethics want food system practices that 

are consistent with the shared values of compassion, responsibility, 

respect, fairness and truth. They want to ensure that the 

increasingly sophisticated and technologically advanced food 

system doesn’t put profits ahead of ethical principles and that 

scientific verification is not confused with ethical justification. 

When this side of the triangle is out of balance, critics say there 

is no scientific basis for the claims being made and that the 

ethical demands will jeopardize the economic viability of the 

system. 

Scientifically Verified 

Those with a primary interest in scientific verification are 

data driven. They want specific, measurable and repeatable 

observations to provide the basis for their objective decisions. 

They believe science can provide the insight and guidance necessary 

to make reasonable determinations about how food systems 

should be managed. When this side of the triangle is out 

of balance, critics claim the organization is relying on science 

while ignoring ethical considerations and that research may be 

done and recommendations made without consideration of the 

economic impact. 


AOCS has the winning hand when 

it comes to your laboratory needs. 

AOCS Technical Services provides the necessary resources 

for your lab’s quality and reputation. A sure bet since 1909. 

● AOCS Methods 

● Laboratory Proficiency Program 

● Certified Reference Materials 

● Approved Chemist Program 

Learn more at www.aocs.org/LabServices 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 67 

Tech-Cards-FoodSafety-Half.indd 1 

5/10/12 9:42 AM


By Suchart Chaven and Ana Sedarati 

Food Safety Systems for 

Low-Acid Aseptic Beverages 

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points 

(HACCP) is a science-based system that identifies, 

evaluates and controls hazards of significance 

to assure food safety. Simply put, the 

focus of Hazard Analysis is that hazards and 

appropriate control measures are identified and Critical Control 

Points (CCPs) are further delineated as control measures essential 

to eliminate or reduce the hazard to an acceptable level. 

The boundaries that separate acceptability from unacceptability 

are defined as critical limits. 

Where manufacturing processes and control measure components 

have been predefined in product and process design, 

the application of HACCP can be a reflective process for the 

facility HACCP team as they evaluate each control measure in 

determining “What hazard is of significance and is the step specifically 

designed to eliminate or reduce the likely occurrence 

of a hazard to an acceptable level?” (see Figure 1). 

Aseptic processing and packaging refer to the processing and 

packaging of a commercially sterile product into sterilized containers 

followed by hermetically sealing with a sterilized closure 

to prevent viable microbiological recontamination. 

Defining critical 

limits for low-acid 

aseptic beverages 

Hazard Analysis and Control 

Measures 

For low-acid (pH > 4.6), shelf-stable, nonrefrigerated 

beverages, heat-resistant spores of 

toxigenic anaerobic microorganisms, such as 

Clostridium botulinum, are a biological hazard of significance 

that warrant absolute control. Foodborne botulism can be severe, 

resulting from the ingestion of foods containing the neurotoxin 

formed during growth of the organism if present and 

allowed to grow in the product. Thus, the primary strategies 

in minimizing C. botulinum risk are in having effective control 

measures for (i) sterilization and maintaining sterility of the 

processing equipment; (ii) destruction of heat-stable C. botulinum 

spores in product; (iii) sterilization of the packaging material 

and (iv) maintaining sterility during filling and packaging. 

For HACCP, the components of these essential control measures 

can be defined as CCPs. For a regulated scheduled process, 

these control measures can be described as critical factors. 

A critical factor is defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

(in 21 CFR 113.3) as any property, characteristic, 

condition, aspect or other parameter, a variation of which may 


what’s hiding 

Contaminants emerge where they haven’t been seen before. New regulations 

are enacted, raising the bar on processes and suppliers. From arsenic in apple 

juice to bromate in bottled water, to fungicides in orange juice, the world’s leading 

beverage manufacturers and regulatory bodies trust us for the validated methods, 

sensitive, reliable instrumentation, and laboratory information management 

systems to ensure compliance and maintain the confi dence of their customers. 

From our Food Safety Response Center, to our local expertise and support, 

we’re focused on ensuring the safety of the world’s beverages. 

inside? 

• your global resource at thermoscientifi c.com/beveragesafety 

Ion Chromatography 

© 2012 Thermo Fisher Scientifi c Inc. All rights reserved. Copyrights in and to the beverage safety image 

are owned by a third party and licensed for limited use only to Thermo Fisher Scientifi c by iStock. 

ICP-MS 

LC/MS 

GC MS/MS


Figure 1: HACCP Food Safety System 

affect the scheduled process and the attainment of commercial 

sterility. 1 The ‘scheduled process” means the process selected by 

the processor as adequate under the conditions of manufacture 

for a given product to achieve commercial sterility. 

This article provides some HACCP examples of control 

measures in which critical components and limits have been 

predefined in the design of a process to ensure commercial sterility 

for low-acid beverages. 

Equipment Sterilization 

Sterilization is a process aimed at the complete destruction 

of microorganisms and their spores. Before production startups, 

all components of the process equipment downstream 

from the sterilizer hold tube must be brought to a condition 

of commercial sterility and maintained during production to 

ensure commercial sterility. Typically, the equipment components 

would include an ultra-high temperature (UHT) sterilizer, 

all holding tanks and lines after the UHT sterilizer and 

the filler. For each of the components, Hazard Analysis and 

control measure evaluations by the HACCP team should take 

into consideration the time and temperature required for the 

coldest part of the process to meet sterilization parameters and 

that calibrated monitoring equipment is located appropriately 

to indicate desired performance. A common industry guideline 

is using the performance criteria of time and temperature to 

achieve inactivation of bacteria and bacteria spores (i.e., >121 

°C for 30 min.). 

The process authority may indicate additional critical factors 

to the equipment manufacturer for the process. A process 

authority is a competent person having expert knowledge of 

aseptic processing and packaging for making determinations of 

a scheduled process. 

Corrective actions, when the sterilization temperature and 

time fail to reach the critical limit, are controlled by the equipment 

through automatic stoppage (Table 1). The sterilization 

program should be reset and the machine restarted. Checking 

the temperature monitoring devices prior to start-up will verify 

that the system is functioning; however, this should not be 

considered as a validation that is required during the process 

commercialization. 

Product Sterilization 

The process authority, in conjunction with the equipment 

manufacturer, defines the scheduled process, taking into consideration 

critical parameters, such as incoming spore load, 

product formula, pH, rheology, heat penetration, flow rate, 

residence time and equipment surface contact area. 2 The typical 

acceptability for the process is often defined by a multiple of 12 

for the D value (i.e., the time required at a certain temperature 

to kill 90 percent of the organism) of C. botulinum, or its equivalent. 

To compare thermal processes calculated for different 

temperatures, a standard F o 

value is assigned for each product. 

This F o 

value is the time in minutes (at a reference temperature 

of 250 °F and with a z = 18 °F) to provide the appropriate spore 

inactivation to achieve commercial sterility. The sterilization 

parameters are usually both product and process specific. 

In a continuous product flow process, the time for which 

the product must be held at the defined temperature to attain 

sterility is achieved in the section of the hold tube. The flow 

rate of each particle of the hold tube is critical. It is essential 

that the rate of flow for the fastest particle or the shortest particle 

retention time be accurately determined for each product 

flow rate, length, dimension and design of the hold section and 

product type and characteristics. The use of dye or salt injection 

can be employed to determine minimum residence time. Mathematical 

models that incorporate the flow rate, product rheology 

and the dimensions and design of the hold tube are used 

to calculate the minimum residence time required to achieve 

Process step Hazard Critical limit Monitoring Corrective action Records 

UHT Biological: Time and Continuous Stop sterilization Online 

sterilizer, C. botulinum temperature PLC process; restart records, 

holding spores to achieve monitoring sterilization when charts and 

tanks, equipment to include CL is achieved calibration 

transfer lines sterility the coldest records 

and filler (time: point of the 

30 min.; process 

temp.: 

125 °C) 

UHT: ultra-high temperature; PLC: programmable logic controller; CL: critical limits 

Table 1: Example of Equipment Sterilization Process Documentation 



product sterility. For situations in which flow characteristics are 

unknown, experimental design studies may be used to validate 

the thermal process. 

Corrective actions, when the sterilization temperature and 

time fails to reach the critical limit, automatically divert the 

product for reprocessing or destruction (Table 2). 

Packaging Sterilization 

The objective of packaging sterilization is the same as for 

equipment sterilization: the destruction of bacteria and spores 

on packaging surfaces to ensure commercial sterility for cold 

filling and packaging of the product. The packaging material, 

preformed containers and their closures are usually sterilized 

inside the packaging machine or externally and introduced 

aseptically into the aseptic zone of the packaging machine. 

For sterilization inside the packaging machine, it is usually accomplished 

by heat or through a combination of chemical and 

physical treatments. 3 

In the example of using hydrogen peroxide for packaging 

sterilization, most of the validation and performance acceptance 

levels are conducted by the manufacturer, leaving the final 

validation to be conducted by the commercialization facility 

and verified by the HACCP team (e.g., using Bacillus subtilis for 

modeling temperature and time requirements for equipment 

and packaging sterilization). The critical factors, defined by the 

equipment manufacturers, may include sterilant concentration, 

mode of application, temperature, contact time and packaging 

contact surface size with acceptance criteria of 4–5 log reduction 

for spores. Additionally, there may be other regulatory 

limits such as the minimum concentration of 30% with residual 

hydrogen peroxide regulated at a maximum level of 0.5 ppm. 

Corrective actions for the packaging and filling operations of 

these complex systems are often predefined by the equipment 

manufacturer and the process authority (Table 3). 

In addition to the above equipment and process steps, the 

HACCP team should conduct Hazard Analysis and evaluate 

control measures that are essential to maintaining process sterility. 

The evaluation should include components such as steam 

barriers, overpressure and associated HEPA filtration systems. 

Verification 

The facility HACCP team, during the HACCP reviews, verifies 

the critical limits that control the specific hazards and ensure 

product safety. The verification process may be performed 

by an individual who is qualified in the particular field and is 

not responsible for the routine monitoring of the critical limits. 

One such example is verification of the reliability of the results 

through calibrations being performed to acceptable international 

standards by an independent third party, thus showing 

that measuring devices are accurate and precise. 

Measurement of critical limits in each of the components 

of the scheduled process can be verified independently, for 

example, divert checks performed on the UHT sterilizer at the 

start-up of production to show that product that has undergone 

Our technical and customer service 

staff averages over 20 years of 

experience, ensuring you: 

The right testing protocol, 

for your food and feed analysis 

The most cost-effective solution 

(only the tests you need) 

A personal commitment to work 

in partnership with you 

Trusted Testing Solutions Since 1916 

To put us to the test, visit our website at 

www.npal.com 

or call us at 800-423-6832. 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 71



Product Biological: Time and Continuous Diversion of the Online 

sterilization C. botulinum temperature PLC product and stop records, 

at UHT spores to achieve monitoring production; charts and 

sterilizer commercial of the RTD segregate and calibration 

sterility sensor on hold affected records 

(time: exit of the product for 

4 sec.; hold tube disposition 

temp.: 

135 °C) 

UHT: ultra-high temperature; PLC: programmable logic controller; RTD: resistance temperature detectors 

Table 2: Example of Product Sterilization Process Documentation 

insufficient temperature treatment will be diverted away from 

filling. Another effective method for verifying the effectiveness 

of product sterilization is through media fill trials, where 

a microbiologically sensitive medium, such as Linden Grain, is 

sterilized, aseptically filled into sterile packs and plated for total 

viable count, yeast and mold. The microbial content of the 

media-filled packs must show an absence of growth. 

Conditions required for the sterilization of filling machines 

can be verified by placing Bacillus stearothermophilus spore strips 

of known spore loads in target locations and measuring the log 

reduction following equipment sterilization. 

Alarms on filling machines with a hydrogen peroxide immersion 

system can be tested to show they sound when the 

hydrogen peroxide bath level is below a minimum volume. 

A more quantitative method for verifying the effectiveness of 

packaging sterilization is by inoculation pack testing, where preformed 

packaging is inoculated with a known amount of bacterial 

spores and introduced into the packaging machine where 

it is sterilized. The packaging then undergoes microbiological 

testing to determine the log reduction post-sterilization. Results 

from package integrity testing where filled packs are inspected 

for leakages or incorrect sealing can also verify that the product 

has been hermetically sealed at the filler. Record keeping is an 

important part of the verification process, as it serves as documented 

evidence that critical limits have been reviewed and 

verified to be fully functional at maintaining aseptic control. 

The Insights You Need to Succeed 

In The Food Microbiology Testing Market 

Now more than ever, accurate and in-depth information about food micro 

testing methods, trends and technologies is critical to success. At Strategic 

Consulting, we’ve been tracking this market for more than 15 years. 

Our market research reports can help. 

JUST PUBLISHED – NEW OVERVIEW 

• Food Micro, Seventh Edition: 

Comparison of the Food Microbiology Testing Markets in the U.S. and E.U. 

ALL NEW EDITIONS 

• Food Micro, Fifth Edition: Microbiology Testing in the U.S. Food Industry 

• Food Micro, Sixth Edition: Food Microbiology Testing in Europe 

To order or request a prospectus, 

call (802) 457-9933 or visit us online at 

Strategic-Consult.com 

EVERY STRATEGIC 

CONSULTING REPORT 

CONTAINS 

Extensive Primary Research 

We conduct detailed 

interviews with foodprocessing 

plants, senior 

quality officers, key opinion 

leaders, regulatory experts 

and contract test labs. 

Detailed Data Summarized 

in Clear Charts and Graphs 

Test volumes, market values, 

routine and pathogen testing 

by organism and methods, 

and more. 

The Information You Need 

to Make Sound Business 

Decisions 

Track key drivers and trends, 

and project future growth. 

Strategic Consulting, Inc. • www.Strategic-Consult.com • (802) 457-9933 

Follow Strategic Consulting’s President on Twitter @TomWeschler 




Package Biological: Equipment- Continuous Refer to defined Online 

sterilization C. botulinum critical factors PLC equipment-critical records, 

and aseptic spores for hydrogen monitoring factors; stop charts and 

filling peroxide as production; corrective 

sterilant for segregate and action records 

packaging 

hold affected 

sterilization 

product for 

(contact time, 

disposition 

temperature 

and concentration) 

PLC: programmable logic controller 

Table 3: Example of Packaging Sterilization Process Documentation 

Summary 

Low-acid aseptic beverage systems represent a highly complex 

sector of the food industry. Historically, these processes 

represent a successful story, as most of the food safety design 

requirements are predefined by equipment manufacturers and 

Suchart Chaven is a food safety director 

for PepsiCo AMEA (Asia, Middle East & 

Africa) in Dubai. 

Ana Sedarati is a microbiology and 

sanitation manager at PepsiCo AMEA in 

Dubai. 

the process authority in the commercialization process with 

final verification by the HACCP team. A strong partnership 

must be maintained among all parties, as there can be little 

room for error when C. botulinum is the primary hazard. 

References 

1. Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. 2011. 

2. Code of Hygienic Practice for Aseptically Processed and Packaged 

Low-Acid Food. CAC/RCP 40-1993. 

3. Ansari, M.I.A. and A. K. Datta. 2003. An Overview of Sterilization 

Methods for Packaging Materials used in Aseptic Packaging Systems. 

Trans ChemE 81:57–65. 

• 

Find it before someone else does. 

Accurate lab results are the most important item on 

the menu. That’s why API, a leader in proficiency 

testing for labs, has developed a proficiency testing 

program that meets the unique needs of the food 

industry. Developed with food industry leaders, 

our A2LA-accredited proficiency testing program 

was developed to meet the needs of laboratories 

seeking to achieve or maintain ISO/IEC 17025 

accreditation. Don’t wait for today’s special to be 

tomorrow’s news. 

foodpt.com • foodtest@api-pt.com 

U.S. & Canada 800.333.0958 

International 1.231.941.5887 

NOW A2LA ACCREDITED TO ISO/IEC 17043 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 73

Product Showcase 

y 

Sample Prep Superiority 

for Meat and Poultry 

KNIFE MILLS 

GRINDOMIX GM 200 & GM 300 

• Ideal for samples high in water and oil content 

• Homogenization of up to 700 ml (GM 200) 

or 4.5 liters (GM 300) sample material 

• Variable speed from 2,000 – 10,000 rpm 

(GM 200) or 500 – 4,000 rpm (GM 300) 

• Autoclavable grinding tools 

• Patented gravity lids ensure homogenization 

of the ENTIRE sample 

• Sturdy industrial motor 

74 Walker Lane | Newtown, PA 18940 | info@retsch-us.com 

1-866-4-RETSCH 

WWW.RETSCH.COM 

E. coli O157 Vaccine 

Pfizer Animal Health has introduced the 

Escherichia coli Bacterial Extract vaccine with 

SRP ® technology as the first and only vaccine 

conditionally licensed by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture to reduce the amount of E. coli 

O157 pathogens in the intestines of cattle. This 

advanced technology reduces the amount of 

the pathogen in cattle before they enter the 

slaughtering facility and decreases the amount 

of E. coli O157 shed in the feedlot, minimizing 

environmental contamination. 

Pfizer Animal Health, 800.733.5500 • www.srpecoli.com 

Pesticide Reference Standards Catalog 

Crescent Chemical Company has announced a new catalog, 

which includes 8,000 reference materials, such as pesticides, 

herbicides, fungicides, metabolites and other difficult-tofind 

food contaminants. Custom solution mixes are available 

upon request. The catalog also has updated U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency method mixes and petroleum standards. 

Crescent Chemical Company, 800.877.3225 • www.crescentchemical.com 

Antimicrobial Ozone System 

DEL Ozone’s Platinum Series of centralized 

aqueous ozone systems provide 

processors with a U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration/U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(FDA/USDA)-approved antimicrobial 

disinfectant for use on food commodities, 

food contact and nonfood contact surfaces as 

well as clean-in-place applications. The series 

also provides processors with an FDA/USDAapproved 

gaseous antimicrobial disinfectant 

and ethylene reducer for use on food commodities 

in a controlled environment. 

DEL Ozone, 800.676.1335 • www.delozone.com 

Food Case Packing 

Douglas Machine Inc. has announced the introduction of 

the Ascend bottom-load case packer, the latest addition to 

their extensive line of case packing products. The Ascend is 

a compact, fully automated machine designed to efficiently 

bottom-load products into cases. The bottom-load case packer 

is ideally suited for products such as gable-top and tuck-lid 

cartons, bottles and tubs. It offers a variety of advanced in-feed 

solutions to collate and stack products prior to gentle case 

loading, and top and bottom case flaps are sealed prior to 

discharging cases. 

Douglas Machine Inc., 320.763.6587 • www.douglas-machine.com 

74 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e 

Food Safety 06Jun2012-GRINDOMIX.indd 1 07.05.12 15:03

Pathogen Detection 

Neogen Corporation has launched the amplified nucleic 

single temperature reaction (ANSR) isothermal pathogen detection 

system along with its first assay for Salmonella. The 

ANSR system is very easy to use, accurate and dependable. 

The system incorporates advances in DNA detection technology 

that enable the creation of a system that is much easier 

to use and provides much faster results than PCR-based 

platforms. 

Neogen, 800.234.5333 • www.neogen.com/ansr/ 

Portable FTIR Gas Analyzer 

Gasmet Technologies Oy has 

announced the launch of the 

DX4040, a portable Fourier transform 

infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) 

gas analyzer that enables the field 

measurement of literally thousands 

of gases in field applications, such 

as fumigants/pesticides, soil gases 

and contaminated soils. 

Gasmet Technologies Oy, 

+358 9 7590 0400 • www.gasmet.fi 

Farm Management Solutions 

LEAFTRACK has introduced hardware and software solutions 

for any-size farm to effectively manage traceability, crops, 

employees, materials and equipment, and comply with the 

Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The solutions provide 

seed-to-consumer traceability of products, integrated webbased 

farm management tools, remote environmental monitoring, 

Good Agricultural Practices and FSMA-required record 

keeping and employee time and productivity tracking. 

LEAFTRACK, 303.862.3000 • www.leaftrack.com 

Hygienic Clean-Fill Machine 

Bosch Packaging Technology has presented a thermoforming 

clean-fill (TFC) machine that features operational height, 

easy accessibility and hygienic design. The TFC clean-fills 

fresh products and foods that require a cooling chain, such as 

yogurts and desserts. The production of multiple cup and label 

heights without tool changes allows manufacturers to adapt 

the machine to different production and market needs. The 

cylindrical thermoforming mold can be automatically adjusted 

by the user and is then synchronized with the labeling system. 

Bosch Packaging Technology, +49 (0)711 811-0 • www.boschpackaging.com 

Get into the Product Showcase 

Please send your product or service press releases and images to 

Barbara VanRenterghem at barbara@foodsafetymagazine.com 

Pickering_AminoAcid_FoodSafety.p1 Pickering_AminoAcid_FoodSafety.indd 1 1 

5/19/10 2:00:32 PM 

• Air sAmpling 

• surfAce sAmpling 

• ATp TesTing 

• TesT swAbs & 

sponges 

• Allergen TesT 

kiTs 

5/18/10 5:43:25 PM 

SANITATION & 

ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 

Air sampling 

microbiological 

Testing 

Allergen Testing 

kits 

We have the hygiene monitoring products 

to support your HACCP program: 

Request our Sanitation 

& Environmental Testing 

flyer today! 

1-800-826-8302 

www.nelsonjameson.com 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 75

SANITATION 

(continued from page 23) 

remove large particles. 

Potable rinse. The temperature of rinse 

water to remove initial soil should be between 

120 and 130 ºF to break down fats, 

but should not exceed 140 ºF to prevent 

creating baked-on soil conditions or mineral 

scale formation that will make removal 

of the biofilm even more difficult. 

Apply detergent. In general, the use of 

a chlorinated alkali or a combination 

of oxidative agents and acids, such as 

hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid, is 

recommended to break the chemical bonds 

of food soils. Depending on the food materials 

that the plant makes, the processes 

involved and the soils created, it may be 

necessary to work closely with the sanitation 

chemical supplier to determine the 

specific combinations of cleaning chemicals 

and sanitizers to use. Application 

of the recommended chemicals over an 

extended exposure time (> 5 min.) will also 

be necessary to allow them to begin breaking 

down and removing the coating layer. 

Mechanical action (scrubbing on surfaces) 

or agitation, such as in a clean-out-of-place 

“Biofilm formation 

can contaminate 

product through the 

introduction of pathogenic 

Reduce cost and save time! 

LaMotte introduces a new breakthrough 

in microbiological testing. BioPaddles 

are flexible dual-sided agar paddles each 

containing microbe-specific media 

enclosed in a sterile vial. Identify and 

quantify microbes in air, water, soil or on 

any surface. BioPaddles don’t require any 

other testing equipment—only a magnifier 

and warm place to incubate! 

• Free App! Helps identify colonies 

• Ready to use 

• Longer shelf-life than 

traditional Petri dishes 

• No refrigeration needed 

• Simple incubation requirements 

• Unique design enhances colony 

morphology characterization 

For more information 

check out our website! 

See us at IFT • Booth 1978 

PO Box 329 • Chestertown, MD 21620 • 800.344.3100 

www.lamotte.com/biopaddles.html 

microorganisms or 

spoilage bacteria.” 

tank for small parts, is the most effective 

means of biofilm removal and must be 

applied to completely remove the top 

layers of soil and subsurface attachment 

conditioning layer. Scrubbing with abrasive 

pads or brushes will help break down the 

films for removal; however, the scrubbing 

must not be so intense as to etch or scratch 

the equipment surface. Etching the surface 

only creates additional niches where films 

can form and makes removal more difficult. 

Final warm water rinse. Again, the rinse 

water temperature should be approximately 

140 ºF to remove all cleaning chemical and 

bound soils. 

Sanitize. Some bacterial cells may remain 

after cleaning, so the application of 

sanitizer should reduce remaining bacterial 

count to negligible levels. Cleaning must 

be thorough, since simply applying sanitizers 

to soiled surfaces is ineffective and 

a waste of money because the efficacy of 

sanitizer is reduced by the presence of soil. 

However, once the soil is removed and the 

biofilm is exposed, a higher concentration 

of sanitizer should be applied because lower 

levels will be less effective at killing the 

microorganisms in the film. As an example, 

apply sanitizer at 800–1,000 ppm and 


SANITATION 

allow it to work for a period of time. Use 

a clear rinse and reapply sanitizer at the 

allowable level of 200 ppm without rinsing 

off. On weekends, apply a quaternary ammonium 

compound at a level of 800–1,000 

ppm and leave it on over the weekend to 

take advantage of its residual property. Acid-based 

sanitizers may be used to remove 

mineral film, and ozone use should also be 

considered as it is a strong oxidant that acts 

quickly against a wide array of microorganisms 

and has not been shown to result in 

organism resistance. 

Inspect: This will be using physical 

senses, ATP bioluminescence or microbiological 

testing to verify that the cleaning 

has been effective. 

Current Research 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has 

conducted studies on biofilm formation 

and composition, including means of prevention 

and removal. ARS has already determined 

that a strong negative electrostatic 

charge to biofilms on stainless steel may 

reduce bacterial surface contamination. In 

the study, researchers at the Meat Quality 

Research Unit found that stainless steel 

surface-finishing treatments, such as polishing, 

sandblasting and grinding, reduced 

buildup of biofilms. They indicated that 

electro-polishing, placing the stainless steel 

in an acid bath and running an electric 

current through the solution, prevented 

biofilm formation. Bacteria are negatively 

charged, and the current through the acid 

media may change the charge on the metal, 

reducing the ability of bacteria to attach 

and form biofilms. A study by Dr. Michael 

Doyle at the University of Georgia Center 

for Food Safety, funded by the American 

Meat Institute, has shown that strains of 

lactic acid bacteria can inhibit growth of 

Listeria in a biofilm over extended time. 

The lactic acid bacteria did not grow at 

39 ºF but did produce an anti-Listerial metabolite 

to keep levels of Listeria low. 

The future application of the extensive 

research information may lead to additional 

methods of both preventing and 

controlling biofilms. Until then, food 

manufacturing plants will have to rely on 

methods that include sanitary design, effective 

sanitation and monitoring for changes 

in the production environment. • 

Michael Cramer is the senior 

director, food safety and quality 

assurance, for Windsor Foods. 

References 

1. Carpenter, B. 2011. Biofilms 

and microorganisms on surfaces after cleaning 

and disinfection. Food Safety Magazine 

17:26–29. 

2. Deibel, V. and J. Schoeni. 2002/2003. Biofilms: 

Forming a defense strategy for the food plant. 

Food Safety Magazine 8:49–54. 

3. Mejias-Sarceno, G. 2011. Inadequate sanitation 

results in biofilm formation. Food Safety Magazine 

17:16–18. 

SAFELINE 

Metal Detection & X-ray Inspection 

HI-SPEED 

Checkweighing 

CI-VISION 

Vision Inspection 

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 

safety regulatory environment with confidence. 

Visit www.mt.com/PINA-FoodSafetyResources 

to learn more! 

Contact us for more information at 800-221-2624 

or visit www.mt.com/pi 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 77 

FSM11_MT_1111_HP.indd 1 

11/25/2011 10:50:29 AM



when he or she comes onto the loading 

dock. All they should be doing is checking 

the load and signing off. Once this 

is done, the person should be escorted 

back to the shipping 

office. As noted earlier, 

they really have no 

business in the warehouse. 

If the trucker 

does wish to check the 

load, treat the individual 

as a visitor and 

make sure that he or 

she signs in, is made 

aware of company 

rules and is properly 

dressed. 

“The receiving docks 

may also be an 

integral part of the 

allergen control policy 

developed by many 

food processors.” 

Food Defense 

Given the concerns 

about bioterrorism and 

food security, processors should seriously 

consider utilizing tamper-evident seals or 

packaging on their products. The shipping 

people can verify this prior to loading. 

Most companies that pack drums 

or totes, whether they contain juice concentrates 

or dried onion powder, utilize 

a seal on these kinds of containers. More 

and more processors 

are using tamperevident 

stretch wrap 

or other tools to help 

protect cased goods. 

This may well become 

mandatory in the future, 

so it would not 

hurt to begin looking 

now at such products. 

It is often very useful 

to photograph each 

load prior to closing 

up the container or 

van. Photographs 

can document that 

the shipper has been 

properly loaded and that dunnage has 

been used to minimize potential load 

shifts during transit. Some operations 

photograph every pallet prior to loading 

to document that orders have been properly 

filled. This is a useful tool if a customer 

claims that they were “shorted.” 

Photographs can also be used to solve 

complaints. One company with whom 

I worked many years ago was shipping 

bulk tomato paste (totes) to the East 

Coast by rail. The customer complained 

constantly that there was excessive 

damage when received. The processor 

addressed the issue by photographing 

every rail car before it was sealed to show 

that the car had been loaded properly 

and that they had used the necessary 

cushioning. They also loaded motion 

sensors in each car. The motion sensors 

and the photographs clearly showed that 

the fault was with the railroad. The trains 

descended the eastern slopes of the Sierras 

at speeds that caused the totes to shift 

and suffer damage. 

When the product is loaded and 

signed off by the driver, it is time to 

close the doors. Once the doors are 

closed, they should be locked and sealed. 

The same applies whether a company 

has loaded a tanker truck, a rail car for 

liquids or dry goods or container for 

export. The seal must be recorded on the 

BOL. Hopefully, it will be intact when 

the product arrives at its destination. 

The global economy, renewed interest 

and commitment to food safety and 

concerns about acts of bioterrorism have 

changed the way the food industry does 

business for the better. A key part of 

that improvement is how products are 

shipped and received. Take a look at how 

you are managing these programs now 

and ask yourselves, “Can we do better?” 

I would hazard a guess that the answer 

will be yes, so get to it. 

• 

Richard F. Stier is a 

consulting food scientist with 

international experience in 

food safety (HACCP), plant 

sanitation, quality systems, 

process optimization, Good 

Manufacturing Practices compliance and 

microbiology. Among his many affiliations, he is a 

member of the Institute of Food Technologists and 

an editorial adviser to Food Safety Magazine. He 

can be reached at rickstier4@aol.com. 




Cambro pan with water added using 

microwave energy. Again, the product 

was steamed for 2 minutes and held for 

2 minutes. Temperatures ranged from 

176 °F to 193 °F, well above the required 

145 °F internal product temperature. The 

standard deviation was 4.371 (Table 4) 

or well within the average variation of 

traditional steamed-cooked shrimp. Additionally, 

the evenness of heating was 

quite evident. 

“There are many 

advantages to using 

microwave energy to 

generate steam to cook 

seafood in covered 

Cambro pans.” 

In all experiments, the sensory quality 

of the seafood in the covered Cambro 

pan with water and microwave-generated 

energy was excellent. The appearance, 

texture, color, flavor and overall eating 

quality were equivalent or better than 

traditional steam cooking. 

There are many advantages to using 

microwave energy to generate steam 

in covered Cambro pans. 3, 4 First, the 

microwave units are portable and don’t 

require expensive and complicated steam 

and wastewater plumbing hookups. Second, 

the pans are available in different 

sizes to economically accommodate the 

volume of food items being prepared. 

Third, the stainless steel microwave units 

as well as the Cambro pans are easily 

cleaned and sanitized. Fourth, cooking 

time is reduced significantly in that 

a traditional 1.5-pound lobster can be 

steamed to a minimal internal temperature 

of 145 °F in a total of 4 minutes (2 

minutes cooking and 2 minutes holding). 

Fifth, there is a large savings in energy 

costs using microwaves to generate 

steam as opposed to using conventional 

steamers. 

Section 3-401.12 of the 2009 edition 

of the FDA Food Code requires that 

raw animal foods, including seafood, 

heated via microwave energy must attain 

an internal temperature of at least 165 

°F. 1 However, traditional steam heating 

of seafood products need only attain 

an internal temperature of 145 °F. This 

study has shown that cooking seafood in 

covered Cambro pans with added water 

and using microwaves as the energy 

source to produce steam is equivalent to 

cooking seafood in conventional steamers. 

In keeping with the scientific evidence, 

the next logical step is to petition 

FDA for an amendment within the Food 

Code to allow for the steam heating of 

seafood products to a minimum internal 

temperature of 145 °F using microwave 

energy as the source. 

• 

References 

1. FDA Food Code. 2009. U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Public Health 

Service. 

2. www.panasonic.com/business/commercial- 

food-services/includes/pdf/2010-Sonic- 

Steamer-Ad-insert.pdf. 

3. Jean, B. R. 2007. A microwave sensor for 

steam quality. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 

5:113–125. 

4. Pingkuan D., D.P.Y. Chang and H. A. Dwyer. 

2000. Heat and mass transfer during microwave 

steam treatment of contaminated soils. 

J Environ Eng 126(12):1108–1115. 

John J. Specchio, Ph.D., is a professor of food 

science at Montclair State University, Montclair, 

NJ, and principal in Regtech LLC, a consulting 

company specializing in food safety and 

regulations. 

John P. Schrade is a retired FDA regional state 

programs director and principal in Regtech LLC. 

Mandy Unanski is a graduate student in 

nutrition and food science at Montclair State 

PresicionMicroslides_Layout 1 3/27/12 5:09 PM University. Page 1 

Know Your Target 

www.precisionmicroslides.com 

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 

Laboratory Services performed by NRCM Certified Microbiologist on staff 

Let us help. 1-855-649-9008 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 79



artificially sweetened foods has increased 

significantly. The demand for detection 

and quantification of these additives in 

beverages has also increased for safety 

reasons. The majority of recently published 

protocols for the determination of 

sweeteners are based on HPLC methods, 

which offer great advantages over more 

traditional analyses. HPLC methodology 

may not require very complicated 

sample preparation when beverages are 

analyzed since it is easier to work with a 

liquid matrix. 10 

There are many methods available 

for determination of artificial sweeteners. 

Most of the HPLC methods used 

are based on isocratic- or gradient-grade 

reversed-phase chromatography with 

Safety. Simplified. 

With Ready-to-Use Solutions & Standards. 

Our job is to make your job easier. We have the right BEVERAGE 

testing chemical solutions and standards, ready when you need 

them. Source with us to: 

• Save on manpower costs 

• Free up personnel for more productive activities 

• Avoid hazardous operations and the need to store/handle 

hazardous chemicals 

• Simplify purchasing 

• Eliminate the need to purchase multiple raw materials 

to make one solution 

• Reduce paperwork and overhead 

Our dedicated team of technical service 

experts will ensure that you receive the 

products you need to perform your job 

in the lab or on the production floor. 

Contact us at: 

Phone - (888) GO-RICCA (467-4222) 

Email – customerservice@riccachemical.com 

Web – riccachemical.com 

UV detection. However, methods capable 

of determining several sweeteners 

simultaneously are required because 

there are more compounds available 

that are used as a blend. Thus, there is 

a continuous search for simpler, faster 

and more sensitive methods capable of 

detecting several sweeteners in a single 

analytical run for routine analysis in the 

quality control of various food products. 

10–12 

One method that has been successfully 

applied at the Institute of Public 

Health performs the simultaneous determination 

of saccharine, acesulfame 

K and aspartame in a phosphate buffer 

(0.1 M NaH 2 

PO 4 

) acidified to pH 3.5 

by phosphoric acid. The mobile phase 

consists of methanol and buffer in a 

ratio of 25:75. Separation of the sweeteners 

is achieved using a reversed-phase 

select B chromatography column (125 

min., 4 mm). Isocratic elution is applied 

with a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min. The 

compounds of interest are detected at 

a wavelength of 210 nm. A chromatogram 

of a noncarbonated soft drink 

containing saccharine, acesulfame K 

and aspartame is shown in Figure 3. 

Conclusions 

Laboratory techniques for the detection 

and quantification of chemicals in 

nonalcoholic beverages are essential to 

identify potential health risks. Foodborne 

diseases constitute a substantial 

public health concern, and most are 

largely preventable by proper application 

of appropriate food technologies. 

At an industrial level, applications of 

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 

Points systems combined with controls 

performed by health and food control 

authorities are effective in ensuring 

the safety of nonalcoholic products. 

Consumers are still in need of further 

education on the use of additives in 

nonalcoholic products and their potential 

effects on human health. The food 

industry can help inform consumer 

choice by emphasizing this topic in 

health education programs and posting 

relevant information on company websites. 

• 



Gordana Ristovska, M.D., 

Ph.D., is a specialist in hygiene 

and environmental health and 

head of the department for 

food safety at the Institute of 

Public Health of the Republic of 

Macedonia. 

Maja Dimitrovska, M.Sc., 

is a specialist in sanitary 

chemistry in the food control 

laboratory at the department 

for food quality at the Institute 

of Public Health of the Republic 

of Macedonia. 

Anita Najdenkoska, B.Sc., 

is a senior food analyst at the 

department for food quality at 

the Institute of Public Health of 

the Republic of Macedonia. 

References: 

1. www.codexalimentarius.net/gsfaonline/ 

docs/CXS_192e.pdf. 

2. European Parliament and Council Directive 

95/2/EC (1995) on food additives other than 

colours or sweeteners. Official Journal of the 

European Communities L61, 18.3.95, 1–40. 

3.Regulation (EC) No. 1333/2008 of the 

European Parliament and of the Council of 

16 December 2008 on food additives. Official 

Journal of the European Union L354, 

31.12.2008, 16–33. 

4. www.unesda.org/drinkopedia/ 

preservatives. 

5. Pan, Z., L. Wang, W. Mo, C. Wang, W. Hu 

and J. Zhang. 2005. Determination of benzoic 

acid in soft drinks by gas chromatography 

with on-line pyrolitic methylation technique. 

Anal Chim Acta 545:218–223. 

6. Saad, B., F. Bari, M. Saleh, K. Ahmad and K. 

Talib. 2005. Simultaneous determination of 

preservatives (benzoic acid, sorbic acid, methylparaben 

and propylparaben) in foodstuffs 

using high-performance liquid chromatography. 

J Chromatogr A 1073:393–397. 

7. webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ 

20120206100416/http://food.gov.uk/ 

multimedia/pdfs/fsis0606.pdf. 

8. web.archive.org/web/20080326000150/ 

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/benzdata. 

html. 

9. Kiseleva, M. G., V. V. Pimenova and K. I. 

Eller. 2003. Optimization of condition for the 

HPLC determination of synthetic dyes in food. 

J Anal Chem 58:685–690. 

10. Zygler, A., A. Wasik and J. Namies’nik. 

2009. Analytical methodologies for determination 

of artificial sweeteners in foodstuffs. 

Trends Anal Chem 28(9):1082–1102. 

11. Zhu, J., Y. Guo, Y. Mingli and S. J. Frits. 

2005. Separation and simultaneous determination 

of four artificial sweeteners in food and 

beverages by ion chromatography. J Chromatogr 

A 1085:143–146. 

12. Cantarelli, M. A., R. G. Pellerano, E. J. 

Marchevsky and J. M. Camiña. 2009. Simultaneous 

determination of aspartame and acesulfame-K 

by molecular absorption spectrophotometry 

using multivariate calibration and 

validation by high performance liquid chromatography. 

Food Chem 115(3):1128–1132. 

The AIB Food Protection 

Advantage 

GFSI 

Audit 

Schemes 

AIB 

Inspection 

AIB 

Food 

Protection 

Education 

AIB 

Leverage the synergies of the best global 

Let AIB provide the 

INTEGRATED single-source solution 

to your Food Protection needs. 

Food Protection products and services to lower 

your risk and protect your company’s brands 

800-633-5137 www.aibonline.org 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 81



Wireless Monitoring! 

HACCP Control Point 

Monitoring Via 

● LAN 

● Wi-Fi 

● Cellular 

Economically Viable 

Those responsible for the bottom line 

are focused on profitability. They work 

every day to respond to demand, control 

costs and increase efficiency to maximize 

the return on investment. They have to 

manage the increasingly complex demands 

of competing in a global marketplace 

with volatile commodity markets 

and ruthless competition. When this side 

of the triangle is out of balance, critics 

claim profits outweigh ethical principles 

and that business decisions are made 

without the benefit of scientific verification, 

placing those decisions at risk when 

questioned by those who value validation. 

If a system is unable to operate while 

maintaining a balance of practices that 

are ethically grounded, scientifically verified 

and economically viable, it will collapse. 

The collapse may subject producers, 

processors, restaurants or retailers to 

undue pressure that includes consumer 

protests or boycotts, unfavorable shareholder 

resolutions, uninformed supply 

chain mandates, regulation, legislation, 

litigation or even bankruptcy. 

Maintaining balance is never easy. 

Success demands an increased level of 

communication and engagement and 

willingness to look for solutions that are 

ethically grounded, scientifically verified 

and economically viable for each 

segment of the food system. Only by 

working with stakeholders across the 

food chain can companies maintain the 

integrity of a sustainable system. 

● Monitor Multiple Locations 

● Walk-In Freezers and 

Refrigerators 

● Automatic Record Keeping 

for HACCP Control Points 

● E-Mail & Text Warnings 

Without a PC 

● Reduce Waste & Spoilage 

Data Loggers from TANDD 

TandD US, LLC. 

inquiries@tandd.com (518) 669-9227 www.tandd.com 

Conclusion: It’s About Trust 

As the distance most consumers have 

from the food they eat increases and the 

level of technology that is implemented 

in food production and processing increases, 

we must dramatically improve 

the ability and commitment to build 

trust with customers and consumers. 

This will require a new way of thinking, 

a new way of operating and a new way of 

communicating. Albert Einstein is quoted 

as saying, “We cannot solve problems 

using the same thinking we used when 

we created them.” The old model of relying 

solely on science and attacking your 

critics is not sufficient to protect your 

freedom to operate in today’s environment. 

Building trust requires an increase in 

early stakeholder engagement, transparency, 

professionalism, assessment and 

verification at all levels. Customers, 

policymakers, community leaders and 

consumers must be given permission to 

believe that today’s food production is 

consistent with their values and expectations. 

Failure to provide that assurance 

will increase pressure to revoke the food 

system’s social license to operate and 

replace it with greater social control of 

production practices, environmental 

practices and the use of technology. 

To be successful, the food system 

must build and communicate an ethical 

foundation for, and engage in valuesbased 

communication to build, the trust 

that protects freedom to operate. That 

requires a consistent demonstration of a 

commitment to practices that are ethically 

grounded, scientifically verified and 

economically viable. 

• 

Charlie Arnot is chief 

executive officer of CFI 

(www.foodintegrity.org), 

a nonprofit organization 

established to build consumer 

trust and confidence in today’s 

food system, and president of CMA. 

References 

1. Sapp, S. G., C. Arnot, J. Fallon, T. Fleck, D. 

Soorholtz, M. Sutton-Vermeulen and J.J.H. 

Wilson. 2009. Consumer trust in the U.S. food 

system: An examination of the recreancy 

theorem. Rural Sociol 74(4):525–545. 

To read more about building consumer trust 

and engaging customers, please visit our 

Signature Series articles 

on our website at 

www.foodsafetymagazine.com/ 

signature.asp 


Advertisers Index 

Advanced Instruments, Inc. • 781.320.9000 • www.aicompanies.com....... 49 

Agilent • www.agilent.com/chem/food........................................................28-33 

AIB International • 800.633.5137 • www.aibonline.org..................................81 

American Oil Chemists’ Society (AOCS) • www.aocs.org/LabServices..... 67 

American Proficiency Institute • 800.333.0958 • www.foodpt.com........... 73 

Beckman Coulter, Inc. • www.beckmancoulter.com/foodsafety................. 84 

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. • 800.4BIORAD • www.bio-rad.com................... 3 

BioControl Systems, Inc. • 800.245.0113 • www.biocontrolsys.com........... 35 

Cosmed Group, Inc. • 208.880.0746 • www.cosmedgroup.com...................61 

Covance Inc. • 855.83MICRO • www.nutri.covance.com................................. 9 

DEL Ozone • 800.676.1335 x 255 • www.delozonefoodsafety.com.............. 53 

EMSL Analytical, Inc. • www.FoodTestingLab.com.........................................15 

FoodHACCP.com • www.foodhaccp.com.......................................................... 83 

Food Safety Connect • www.foodsafetyconnect.com.....................................41 

Hygiena, LLC • 805.388.8007 ext 300 • www.hygiena.com........................... 55 

International Association for Food Protection (IAFP)............................... 63 

800.369.6337 • www.foodprotection.org 

Junction Solutions, Inc. • www.JunctionSolutions.com/KnowYourFood.... 25 

LaMotte Company • 800.344.3100 • www.lamotte.com/biopaddles.html.. 76 

Marel Inc. • 888.888.9107 • www.marel.com/usa........................................... 37 

Mettler-Toledo, Safeline, Inc. 800.221.2624 • www.mt.com/pi................... 77 

Michelson Laboratories, Inc. • 888.941.5050 • www.michelsonlab.com... 74 

Microbiologics Inc. • www.microbiologics.com.............................................. 57 

Microbiology International • 800.EZ.MICRO • www.800ezmicro.com...... 65 

Nelson-Jameson, Inc. • 800.826.8302 • www.nelsonjameson.com............. 75 

Neogen Corp. • 800.234.5333 • www.neogen.com.......................................... 5 

NP Analytical Laboratories • 800.423.6832 • www.npal.com......................71 

Oxoid • oxoid.food@thermofisher.com.............................................................. 7 

Pack Expo • www.packexpo.com/food............................................................. 39 

Parker Balston....................................................................................................... 1 

800.343.4048 • www.balstonfilters.com/compaircontamination 

Pickering Laboratories, Inc. • www.pickeringlabs.com................................ 75 

Precision Microslides, LLC................................................................................ 79 

855.649.9008 • www.precisionmicroslides.com 

Puritan Medical Products Co, LLC................................................................... 27 

800.321.2313 • www.puritanmedproducts.com/envirostudy 

Q Laboratories, Inc. • 513.471.1300 • www.qlaboratories.com..................... 78 

Retsch • 866.4.RETSCH • www.retsch.com....................................................... 74 

RICCA Chemical Company • 888.GO.RICCA • www.riccachemical.com.... 80 

Roka Bioscience, Inc. • 855.ROKABIO • www.rokabio.com........21, 43, 45, 47 

Romer Labs Inc. • 800.769.1380 • www.romerlabs.com/allergens...............19 

Silliker, Inc. • www.silliker.com...........................................................................17 

Sterilex Corp. • 800.511.1659 • sales@sterilex.com........................................ 23 

Strategic Consulting Inc. • 802.457.9933 • www.strategic-consult.com...... 72 

TandD US, LLC • 518.669.9227 • www.tandd.com........................................... 82 

Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc............................................................................. 69 

www.thermoscientific.com/beveragesafety..................................................... 

U.S. Pharmacopeia • 301.881.0666 • www.usp.org/products........................ 59 

Waters • www.waters.com/ft...............................................................................13 

Weber Scientific • 800.328.8378 • www.weberscientific.com........................11 

Go Digital 

Food Safety Magazine offers a state-of-the-art 

green option for subscribers. 

When you choose our digital subscription, instead of 

receiving a printed magazine we will notify you by email 

that your digital edition is ready for viewing. 

• Speed • Immediacy • Global Accessibility 

• Intuitive User Interface 

Preview the enhanced 

digital interface at 

www.foodsafetymag -digital.com 

> Read the entire issue page-by-page 

> Go to any story from Table of Contents 

> Share with colleagues 

> Go directly to advertiser websites by clicking their links 

> Searchable archives 

> Download the magazine to your computer 

J u n e • J u l y 2 0 1 2 83

Visit us at IFT 2012 

Tasty. Safe. 

Booth #3651 

Let us help you keep it that way! 

For more information please visit 

www.beckmancoulter.com/foodsafety 

Beckman Coulter…Providing Excellence 

in Characterization for over 50 Years 

A complete understanding of food and beverage characteristics is 

paramount to their consistency and quality. Our particle characterization 

and capillary electrophoresis technologies deliver superior analysis 

capabilities with high resolution, accuracy, and reproducibility. Simple, 

automated technology, fast analysis times, and application versatility 

provide the information needed to keep your food products safe and 

sought after. 

Beckman Coulter offers you technology for: 

• Automated, quantitative analysis of anions, cations, organic acids, 

proteins, and carbohydrates 

• Characterization of a wide array of material including dry powders, 

emulsions, and liquids 

• Counting and sizing of all types and sizes of molecules, cells, and 

particulates 

Beckman Coulter and the stylized logo are trademarks of 

Beckman Coulter, Inc. and are registered with the USPTO. 

© 2012 Beckman Coulter, Inc.

Food Safety Magazine, June/July 2012

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?