Food Safety Magazine, February/March 2012

Editor’s LetterAntibiotic Resistance at theForefront of Food SafetyWhile a long time coming, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA) has recently announced the prohibitionof the extralabel use of some cephalosporins in food-producinganimals, concerned that such continued use may lead to theemergence and dissemination of cephalosporin-resistant strains offoodborne bacterial pathogens. If these drug-resistantbacterial strains infect humans, it is likely thatcephalosporins will no longer be effective for treatingfoodborne illness in those people. FDA is particularlyconcerned about the extralabel use ofcephalosporin drugs that are not approved for usein food-producing major species because very littleis known about their microbiological or toxicological effects whenused in this manner. FDA has determined that such extralabel uselikely will cause an adverse event, presenting a risk to public health.Antibiotics are given to food animals for many reasons: for infectiousdisease treatment and control or for disease prevention beforea herd- or flock-wide outbreak occurs. In the past, usingantimicrobials for growth promotion was widely advocated to enhancethe feed-to-weight ratio for poultry, pigs and beef cattle, providinga huge economic incentive.Our cover story by Susan Vaughn Grooters, M.P.H., entitled“Antibiotic Resistance: An Emerging Food Safety Concern,” focuseson the food safety implications of the misuse and overuse ofantibiotics in food animal production. She states, “The emergenceof antibiotic-resistant foodborne pathogens is inherently linked tohow antibiotics have been used in food animal production. Everytime an antibiotic is used, its efficacy diminishes. Once bacteria developresistance to a given antibiotic, they often lack susceptibilityto other antibiotics that share a similar mode of action or coexiston the same bacterial plasmid. Creating policies, both in humanmedicine and animal husbandry, which will minimize the overuseand misuse of antibiotics is essential.”One only need to have a friend or family member preparing formajor surgery to be reminded of the tremendous risks associatedwith MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) in hospitalsettings. And how many parents are able to say no to a prescriptionfor an antibiotic for a child with an ear infection? No matter wherewe look, antibiotic resistance touches our lives. However, in thearena of foodborne illness, it is critical that the issues be examinedvery carefully and that the correct policies be mandated.While the matter is still debated, we can all agree that antibioticresistance is a complicated issue that needs urgent attention andcontinuing dialogue as the policies of food production begin toshift to protect these essential drugs from losing their effectiveness.Best Regards,Barbara VanRenterghem, Ph.D.Editorial DirectorCEO, The Target Group Inc. Don MeekerPublisher Stacy AtchisonLucky Charm Bobby MeekerEditorial Director Barbara VanRenterghem, Ph.D.Art Director/Production Craig Van WechelCirculation Manager Andrea KargesAdministrative Manager Allison Demmert-PolandPublishing Office 1945 W. Mountain St.Glendale, CA 91201Main (818) 842-4777Fax (818) 955-9504customerservice@foodsafetymagazine.comEditorial Office 1945 W. Mountain St.Glendale, CA 91201Phone (508) 210-3149Fax (508) 210-3139barbara@foodsafetymagazine.comProduction Office 1113 Ellis StreetFt. Collins, CO 80524Phone (970) 484-4488craig@foodsafetymagazine.comAdvertising SalesBobby Meeker (818) 842-2829bobby@foodsafetymagazine.comAdam Haas (407) 601-5440adam@foodsafetymagazine.comFOOD SAFETY MAGAZINE (ISSN 1084-5984) is published bimonthly byThe Target Group Inc., 1945 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201;(818) 842-4777; Fax (818) 769-2939; E-mail info@foodsafetymagazine.com.Periodicals Postage Rate paid at Glendale, CA, and additionalmailing offices. Subscriptions: Free to qualified subscribers asdefined on the subscription card; $85.00 per year for nonqualifiedsubscribers. Back Issues: $10.00 per copy, prepaid. Change of Address:Notices should be sent promptly; provide old mailing label aswell as new address. Allow two months for change. Editorial Contributions:Unsolicited manuscripts should be submitted to: Food SafetyMagazine, 1945 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201. Notice—Everyprecaution is taken to ensure accuracy of content; however, the publisherscannot accept responsibility for the correctness of the informationsupplied or advertised or for any opinion expressed herein.POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Food Safety Magazine, 1945W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201. ©2012 by The Target Group Inc.All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without written permissionis strictly prohibited. The publishers do not warrant, either expresslyor by implication, the factual accuracy of the articles ordescriptions herein, nor do they so warrant any views or opinions offeredby the authors of said articles and descriptions.6 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Freedomis here.Catch the newwave in automatedpathogen testing.Introducing theRoka Automated Instrument *Unparalleled automation, ease of use, and efficiencyfor food safety testingK True walk-away automationK Rapid, accurate resultsK Simplified 3-step, sample-to-results processK Flexible continuous-access sample loadingK Complete sample-to-result traceabilityK Proven molecular testing technologyIt’s the technology you’ve been waiting for.It’s the freedom you deserve.We’re Roka. And we’ll help you get there.1.855.ROKABIO | www.rokabio.com© 2011 Roka Bioscience, Inc.* Roka Automated Instrument manufactured by Gen-Probe Incorporated

News BitesFDA Sued Over NanotechnologyConcerned by the growing body of scientific reports cautioningagainst the unregulated use of nanotechnology in consumerproducts, a coalition of nonprofit consumer safety and environmentalgroups is suing the U.S. Foodand Drug Administration (FDA)—thefirst lawsuit over the health and environmentalrisks of nanotechnologyand nanomaterials.The lawsuit demands FDA respondto a petition that the public interestorganizations—Friends of the Earth,Food and Water Watch, the Center forEnvironmental Health, the ETCGroup and the Institute for Agriculturaland Trade Policy—first filed withthe agency in 2006.The 80-page petition documentsthe scientific evidence of nanomaterialrisks stemming from their unpredictabletoxicity and seemingly unlimited mobility, requestingFDA to take several regulatory actions, including requiringnano-specific product labeling and health and safety testing,and undertaking an analysis of the environmental and healthimpacts of nanomaterials in products approved by the agency.Since 2006, numerous studies and reports, including publicationsby the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office ofthe Inspector General and the U.S. Government AccountabilityOffice, acknowledge significant data gaps concerning nanomaterials’potential effects on human health and the environment.OMB Says Food Safety Merger NextA single federal foodsafety agency will happen ifCongress grants the Obamaadministration authority to reorganizethe government.In itsJanuary 13,2012, edition, The HagstromReport said Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) Directorfor Management JeffZients said that if Congressgrants President BarackObama the power to consolidatefederal agencies, the firstproposal will be to merge thesix business-oriented agencies,folding together theCommerce Department’score business and trade functions,the Small Business Administration,the Office of theU.S. Trade Representative, theExport-Import Bank, the OverseasPrivate Investment Corporationand the U.S. Tradeand Development Agency.Zients added that a followupproposal would be to consolidateU.S. Department ofAgriculture’s Food Safety andInspection Service with thefood safety unit at the U.S.Food and Drug Administration.The Government AccountabilityOffice has called forconsolidation of all foodsafety functions into a singleagency, an end to fragmentedoversight supported by most,but not all, outside foodsafety advocates, which generallysee such “consolidationpowers” for Obama as a rareopportunity to achieve along-elusive goal.NEWS FLASH:Highlights of the FSM eDigestAn article in our January eDigest(available at the eDigest archives atwww.foodsafetymagazine.com/exclusives.asp)focused on global imports and exports, and howthe Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 affectssuch international trade. In “Quality and FoodSafety in the International Arena of FoodProduction,” Herbert Weinstein, Ph. D.,discusses the best ways for foreign foodproducers to successfully produce anddeliver products that meet thesenew specifications.Report Details EU Food Safety Testing MarketLarger than U.S. MarketEurope is a substantial market for food microbiology testing. The population of the27 countries of the European Union (EU) is 500 million,nearly 60 percent greater than the U.S. population. Altogether,the countries of the EU performed an estimated275 million food micro tests in 2011,according to Food Micro, Sixth Edition: FoodMicrobiology Testing in Europe (FoodMicro—6), a new market report from StrategicConsulting Inc. In comparison, therewere 213 million tests conducted in theU.S. in 2010. The report analyzes the distinctand important EU food microbiologytesting market in relation to that in the U.S.In addition to size, the European foodsafety testing market differs from the U.S.market in areas such as methods used, organismstested and current and pending regulations.For more information about the report,visit www.strategic-consult.com.Recent Articles Available Online atwww.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature.aspMicrobial contamination is a constantthreat to the food products soldaround the world. In the Celsis RapidDetection article “Reduce the Impact ofContamination Events with Rapid MicrobialMethods,” approaches for managingrisk and enhancing food safety arediscussed in the context of rapid microbiologicalmethods. New tools and technologyfor preventing microbialcontamination of food are highlightedin the DeltaTRAK article “Focusing theSpotlight on Prevention.” Finally,Vedeqsa showcases their article “LauricArginate—A New, Active PreservativeDerived from Natural Materials.” Lauricarginate functions as an antimicrobialcompound.8 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

There is more to safetythan meets the eye.BioMonitoring byEMD Millipore.BioMonitoring is about more than just innovative microbiologytesting solutions. It is a comprehensive approach providingregulatory expertise, services, and trust. Our solutions help identifyunwanted contaminants in food quickly and reliably to providethat one invaluable result: Safe Products.Our broader portfolio including Biotest Microbiology(heipha/Hycon) products: Microbiological membrane filtration Traditional and rapidmicrobial detection & identification Ready-to-use and dehydrated culture media Viable and non-viable air monitoring Surface monitoringwww.emdmillipore.com/biomonitoringNOW: IncludingBiotest MicrobiologyPortfolio (heipha/Hycon)EMD Millipore is a division of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

7Entende-se, no entanto, que há obrigatoriedade da atuação sindical para aexistência dos instrumentos coletivos, conforme previsto no artigo 8 o , VI, da CF/88 10 .Enquanto a CLT obriga a participação dos sindicatos na negociação coletiva. Desta forma, seobserva uma tentativa do legislador em proteger uma parte mais „fraca‟, que seria oempregado. Muito embora, o que se negocie nos instrumentos coletivos valha para todos osempregados, a legitimidade para negociar é do sindicato. Portanto, infere-se como um deverdo sindicato, tanto a representação na negociação, quanto a substituição processual.Observa-se, porém, que só existe a necessidade de atuação sindical para osempregados, não retirando a possibilidade de os empregadores serem auxiliados pelos seuspróprios sindicatos.Não se pode deixar de falar que, mesmo sem o auxilio do sindicato, o pactopode não restar invalidado 11 . Apenas muda a natureza, que antes era coletiva, e ora ficouindividual. 12Percebe-se então o esforço legislativo para que sindicatos, desde a criaçãotenham a oportunidade de atuar na defesa de sua categoria, mas para Mozart VictorRussomano, "entre aquilo que o sindicato é e aquilo que o sindicato deve ser existem muitasvezes, distâncias e profundidades.” 131.2 PrincípiosO Direito Sindical brasileiro se firma sobre alguns princípios, e dentretodos, os mais importantes para o tema escolhido serão objeto de conceituação a seguir.Mauricio Godinho Delgado:O princípio mais relevante é o da liberdade de associação e sobre este ensina[...] o princípio da liberdade de associação assegura consequência jurídicoinstitucionala qualquer iniciativa de agregação estável e pacífica entre10 Art. 8º É livre a associação profissional ou sindical, observado o seguinte:VI - é obrigatória a participação dos sindicatos nas negociações coletivas de trabalho.11 Há de se observar o disposto nos arts. 9° e 444 da CLT, que vedam a autonomia de vontades quando nãoobservado os dispositivos legais.12 HINZ, Henrique Macedo. Direito coletivo do trabalho. 2. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2009. p. 85.13 RUSSOMANO, Mozart Victor. Princípios gerais de direito sindical. 2 ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 1995.p.77.

DB Prefilled Dilution BottlesNever Hassle with ShrinkBands Again!Easypull stripMuch easier to open and useRequest your FREE copytoday of our 265-pagebuyer’s guide!Call 800-328-8378 orvisit weberscientific.comHuge freight savings andfaster delivery nationwide.12 1 ⁄4”12 1 ⁄4”Legendary for great prices since 1959800-328-8378 • weberscientific.comEasier to storeGreener packaging60% smaller footprint and 3times less corrugated wastethan the competitionLABORATORY SUPPLIERAWARD WINNING

TESTINGsites for Listeria growth, the test methodyou choose should be broad based andcapable of detecting all six strains of Listeria.A method that detects all six Listeriastrains will provide the mostcomplete information about yourprocesses and facilities.L. monocytogenes testing for productsamples and direct product contact surfaces.Because of ourinterest in protectinghealth, we test productfor L. monocytogenes.This is your final opportunityfor assurancethat systems are workingproperly and theproduct manufacturedis indeed safe to eat.This part of your overalltesting program ensuresthat product iswithheld from commerceuntil test resultsfor product or productcontact surfaces have been received andresults are negativeNew Listeria Test MethodsAs food scientists, we can expect 2012to bring new, significant developmentsin sophistication of Listeria testing andmicrobiological testing generally. Somenotable and interesting new technologiesare being developed for both Listeriaspp. and L. monocytogenes testing.One innovative technology is basedupon highly accurate multiplex polymerasechain reaction (PCR) for simultaneousanalysis of 10 to 30 targets,building upon conventional PCR capabilityand combining DNA tagging withliquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.“Mass tags” are coupled to PCRprimers that, following amplification,provide two unique identifiers per genetictarget and appear in the mass spectrometricanalysis only if the target issuccessfully and specifically amplified.Results can be displayed and shared electronicallyutilizing easy-to-use applicationsoftware with no need forconventional PCR gel analysis.““Successful food”manufacturers makefinding Listeria apriority to be able toeliminate it fromtheir facilities.”In a departure from the amplificationand detection of DNA, another technologyinvolves an rRNA method combinedwith several sample preparationinnovations that offers unique advantages.Exploiting the relative abundanceof RNA over DNA in bacterial cells(100–1,000 times more), the methoduses enzymes and isothermal transcription-mediatedamplificationto produce anRNA amplicon underrapid kinetics, resultingin up to a billionfoldamplification in 15–60minutes. Target captureinvolving oligonucleotidesenhances themethod’s ability toovercome potential interferencesand inhibitoryeffectsassociated with the matrixor sample.Another advance involvesnew tests for Listeria spp. and L.monocytogenes that combine proven molecularscience with innovation in bioluminescence.The result of this innovativethinking is a user-friendly method thatincorporates isothermal amplification ofDNA coupled with simultaneous analysisof bioluminescence to produce ahighly accurate and flexible test platform.Choosing a Listeria TestIn determining which is your best testkit option, consider several factors inmaking your decision.Types of TestsPathogen testing methods may be categorizedinto two major types, culturalmethods and rapid methods. While culturalmethods are accurate and the costof materials is relatively low, they can belabor intensive and may require specializedskills and training to perform. Rapidmethods offer good value, even thoughthey may carry a higher materials cost,because they are accurate, faster thancultural methods and usually require lessspecialized training.Rapid MethodsRapid methods in the market todaythat are AOAC certified can be groupedgenerally into one of two broad categories:either protein-based detection orDNA-based detection. Protein methodsutilize immunoassay antibody technologyfor detection. Following incubation,an aliquot of enrichment media is transferredto the assay and a positive or negativeresult is indicated. The format ofimmunoassays can vary widely fromuser-friendly lateral flow devices to moresophisticated automated ELISA (enzyme-linkedimmunosorbent assay) systems.Molecular methods are based onDNA detection by PCR. Following incubationof the sample in enrichmentmedia, an aliquot is transferred for “amplification”of the target DNA using athermocycler, which measures thechange in concentration of DNA overtime to determine the status of the sample—positiveor negative. Some PCRmethods involve three steps: enrichmentfollowed by thermocycling and finallydetection using pulsed-field gel electrophoresisor another method.Validated & Certified MethodsChoosing a method that has beenvalidated and certified by an appropriateindependent authority increases your assurancethat your investment in testingwill withstand scientific scrutiny—andmeet regulatory requirements. It is importantto review the details of the methodsyou are considering to verify that themethod has been validated for the foodmatrix that you are testing and that youclearly understand other important factorssuch as sample size and enrichmenttime. You should use the online resourcesof the appropriate scientific authorityin addition to requestinginformation from the test kit supplier.AOAC International is the primary U.S.authority for certifying test methods. Dependingon your objectives, you maybenefit by visiting several other authoritiesonline, including the U.S. Food andDrug Administration, the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture Food Safety and In-14 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

TESTINGspection Service, Health Canada and theFood Chemicals Codex.Inclusivity & ExclusivityThese data tell you about the organismsthat the test will and will not detect.In addition to providing informationabout true positives that the test will detect,interpretation of the data helps youunderstand the potential for false-positiveand false-negative results.Inclusivity testing is performed by thekit manufacturer to determine from abroad range of organisms those that willproduce a positive result by the test. Inthe case of Listeria, a review of inclusivitydata will indicate which Listeria speciesare detected by the kit. If there are organismsthat produce a false positive onthe kit, these may be indicated in the inclusivitydata. By contrast, if there areListeria species that are not detected bythe kit, then the absence of these speciesmay be your indication that the methoddoes not detect all Listeria species. It isimportant to review the inclusivity datawhen choosing a kit.Exclusivity testing is performed by thekit manufacturer to test a broad range ofnon-Listeria organisms that produce anaccurate negative test result. These dataprovide additional information aboutthe test accuracy—in this case, the abilityof the test to accurately produce negativeresults for non-Listeria bacteria.Sensitivity & SpecificityThese measures capture the ultimatetest accuracy compared with a reliablebenchmark. Sensitivity and specificityare reported as a percent.Sensitivity of 100 percent indicatesthat during the validation, there werezero false-negative results—in otherwords, all of the intended Listeria weredetected by the method.Specificity of 100 percent indicatesthat during the validation there werezero false-positive results—only Listeriaintended to be detected were detected.Sample Enrichment MediaSample enrichment using nutritivemedia is necessary when testing foodand environmental samples because ofthe very low prevalence of Listeria andother pathogens in food products andfood manufacturing environments. Enrichmenttimes vary based on the performanceof the mediain resuscitating weak orinjured cells as well asthe detection capabilitiesof the test assay. Asyou consider differenttesting systems, youwill have the opportunityto discuss enrichmentmedia with yourtest supplier and evaluatethe potentialbenefits of using conventionalmedia or proprietarymedia. Hereare highlights of eachoption:Conventional enrichment using less expensiveconventional media may be acceptablewhen performance of the testassay is not affected. Cost savings are““As an industry, we”have the tools todetect and preventoutbreaks oflisteriosis and otherfoodborne disease.”Presumptive Sanitizer Testing:• Chlorine • Peroxide • Peracetic AcidUnique test strip chemistry allowsmonitoring of sanitizer levelstypically offset by the need for additionalenrichment time.Selective enrichment for Listeria takesadvantage of optimizationof the mediato grow Listeria to theexclusion of other organisms.Additives includedin the mediaformulation will preventthe growth ofnon-Listeria organismswhile nourishing Listeriato grow faster inan environmentwhere competitionhas been minimized.When making a decisionto use any media,it is important to confirm that themedium has been validated to workwith the test assay that you will beusing.(continued on page 64)Know Your Targetwww.precisionmicroslides.comDefinitive Microbe Testing:• Listeria • Salmonella • Shigella • E. ColiMicroslides ® rapid isolation systemto confirm contaminantsLaboratory Services performed by NRCM Certified Microbiologist on staffLet us help. 1-855-649-9008F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 15

REGULATORY REPORTBy Markus Lipp, Ph.D.Ingredient AdulterationUndermines Food SafetyIf the authenticity of aproduct’s building blocks isfraudulently altered, existingfood safety and quality systemscan be rendered useless.The food industry is no stranger to risk management.In the battle for consumer dollars,product recalls caused by contamination oradulteration can be catastrophic. Business,legal and moral repercussions resulting fromlapses in food safety and quality are top-of-mind issuesfor all manufacturers. Significant resources are dedicatedto minimizing these risks, generally through a variety ofindustry (and additionally, manufacturer- or retailer-specific)quality assurance (QA) systems. As global foodsourcing and international manufacturing sites have skyrocketed,risk management is an increasingly complexproposition, and quality and safety systems are challengedto keep pace.Contamination and adulteration are distinct threats.While both involve the presence of something thatshould not be in a food product, contamination is unintentionaland generally predictable (manufacturers areaware of potential risks that need to be controlled,though clearly a quality lapse has occurred in a contaminationevent). Economically motivated adulteration,however, involves purposeful and intentional replacementof the expected food substance with a cheaperone, including simply diluting the expected substancewith a solvent such as water. An important element isthat such replacement or dilution occurs without theknowledge of the seller. Consequently, this creates a singularityin the food safety system, insofar as nobody(aside from the perpetrator) is able to evaluate any consequencesfor the safety of consumersdue to the exposure to the said cheaperadulterant. Furthermore, to ensure repeatbusiness, economically motivatedadulteration is often designed to avoiddetection by standard QA testing.Adulteration, however, has yet tocatch the public’s attention as a foodsafety issue. Contamination—especiallymicrobial—tends to generate the majorityof the headlines and does, in fact,present potentially serious health consequencesto consumers. On the otherhand, intentional adulteration can be anequally critical issue. Though it has beenaround for hundreds (perhaps thousands)of years, intentional adulterationhas recently been spotlighted with therelease of a report by the U.S. GovernmentAccountability Office in November2011, evaluating the U.S. Food andDrug Administration’s (FDA) capacityto detect adulteration in food and drugs,the challenges the agency faces (largelyarising from globalization) and potentialoptions for preventing this threat. Thereport indicates just how far we stillneed to go in addressing this issue. Ofcourse, governments and industry havetaken other actions in the past few years,particularly in light of some high-profileadulteration episodes. FDA held its firstpublic meeting on economically motivatedadulteration in 2009. In 2010, theGrocery Manufacturers Association releaseda report it commissioned on thesubject. Among other findings, the reportstated that the cost of one incidentof product adulteration runs between 2and 15 percent of yearly revenues for acompany, which could translate to a$400 million impact for a $10 billioncompany. The report also laid out a hostof deterrence strategies, including developingfood ingredient specifications.Adulteration: A Long History,Modern UrgencyAdulteration is not a new threat. Notoriousexamples include episodes where16 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

REGULATORY REPORT“...the critical natureof existing qualitysystems should not bediscounted; they areindispensable toindustrial oil has been sold as cookingoil, with devastating results. Such wasthe case in Morocco in 1959, when oliveoil was adulterated with lubricating oilused in jet engines, and in Spain in 1981,when hundreds of people died fromtoxic oil syndrome that resulted fromthe sale of denatured rapeseed“oil labeledas olive oil. More recentepisodes of adulterationhave includedmelamine in pet foodin 2007 (originatingfrom China but causingserious illness anddeaths of pets worldwide)and milk productsin 2008 (seriousillness and deathslargely in China of infantsand others), dioxinsin animal feed in2011 (Germany andthroughout Europe)and waste (gutter) oilrecycled and sold ascooking oil in 2010–2011 (China).Although it hasbeen written about extensively,melamine presents an interesting examplein that the chemical, by itself, is relativelynontoxic. In fact, it has been usedwidely as a feed additive to boost thediet of calves. In the 2007 and 2008 incidents,the melamine used was likelyscrap melamine containing cyanuricacid. When combined, the two compoundscan form a stable and insolublecomplex crystal that can block renaltubules, which was the route of harm forthousands of consumers. Had nonscrapmelamine alone been used, it likelywould have gone undetected. Herein liesthe ultimate risk of adulteration. In casesof economically motivated adulteration(as opposed to bioterrorism), the incentiveis purely profit; there is no intent toharm. When people (or animals) are sickenedor die, that reveals evidence of tampering,increasing the likelihood ofgetting caught and preventing furtherprofits—an undesirable outcome to economicadulterers. But the perpetrators inthe melamine incidents were not awareof the serious consequences of using amixture of melamine and cyanuric acid,illustrating a central point. Adulterationputs everyone (industry, regulators, consumers—societyas a whole) at the mercyof the adulterer’s scientific knowledge (orlack thereof). As onlythat party knows whathas been added, adulterationintroducesnew and a priori unknownrisks into thefood supply withoutany oversight by anyone,including industryand regulators.Through adulteration,the identity of the foodis altered and foodsafety collapses intothat single element: theadulterer’s knowledge.It is important to notethat most (if not all) ofthe egregious examplesabove were revealedonly by adverse reactionsin consumers and pets (i.e., illnessor death), as routine QA checks were unableto detect the adulteration in thesecases. And it is likely that adulterationwill continue to slip through routine QAchecks as the adulterer aims to remainundetected. Hence, the central danger ofeconomically motivated adulteration isthat standard systems such as HazardAnalysis and Critical Control Points,Good Manufacturing Practices, ISO22000, the Global Food Safety Initiative,British Retail Consortium and similarfood safety plans and safety nets dangleempty and will not catch unexpectedrisks unless the authenticity of the foodingredient can be established andconfirmed.ensuring the safety”and quality ofour food.”Establishing Authenticity:The Role of StandardsOf course, the critical nature of existingquality systems should not be discounted;they are indispensable toensuring the safety and quality of ourfood. However, as we cannot test productsinto safety (production processeshave to be designed for safety), we alsocannot rely only on quality systems andsafety nets built on the assumption ofpredictable threats and risks. In an increasinglycomplex and global food supplychain, the collective response ofindustry, government and others mustevolve to incorporate new, undefinedthreats. An essential supplement to qualityand safety systems that anchors themin reality is periodic testing to verify theauthenticity of food ingredients—proofthat food ingredients are what they saythey are. Knowledge of food ingredients’authenticity—their identity, quality andpurity—should be considered fundamental,yet it is often taken for granted. Thisis where public quality standards canserve both industry and consumers.The Food Chemicals Codex (FCC),published by the U.S. PharmacopeialConvention (USP), is a compendium ofinternationally recognized standards designatingthe identity, quality and purityof more than 1,100 food ingredients. Itsscope is broad—any food ingredientlegally marketed anywhere in the worldis eligible to be included in the compendium.In addition to quality specifications,FCC provides test methodssuitable for the verification of these standardsand, in numerous cases, referencematerials as well, which allow manufacturersor regulators to verify the appropriateexecution of the test method.These standards are developed in collaborationwith industry, under a public reviewprocess that invites comments fromall stakeholders to arrive at the best possiblespecifications. Such food ingredientstandards are useful in a variety of ways,including maintaining regulatory complianceand conducting day-to-day businesstransactions as part of contractsbetween food manufacturers and ingredientsuppliers. Overall, they can helpkeep parties honest and ensure everyoneis speaking the same language on thesame level playing field and maintainingthe same expectations regarding quality.18 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

REGULATORY REPORTIn a globalized food industry where suppliersof varying sizes and sophisticationare relied upon forneeded food ingredients,public standardsprovide real benefitand could be one ofthe cornerstones for industry’sself-regulation.EnhancingStandards: Testingfor Modern-DayRealitiesOne of the mostpowerful uses of qualitystandards is in testingfor identity. Tokeep pace with thethreat of adulteration,the development of more specific identitytesting for food ingredients is a centralfocus in USP’s efforts regarding foodingredient standards. The rationale forthis approach is as follows: Rather thanadding tests for each potential adulterantfor a food ingredient, a more efficient(and effective) approach is to better definewhat something is (as opposed towhat it isn’t). Chasing whatever the nextfood adulterant will be always puts industry,regulators and others one step behindunscrupulous food adulterers, whoare constantly engaged in finding newways to gain illicit profit. USP’s efforts tocombat adulteration include modernizingexisting FCC monographs with betteridentity tests, particularly for thosefood ingredients deemed to be at higherrisk of adulteration, and incorporatingmore specific tests when developing newmonographs. Particular categories offood ingredients may be at greater risk,based on such considerations as consumerdemand, economic value and theexistence of scientific/analytical testingweaknesses that may be exploited.USP formed a Food Ingredients IntentionalAdulterants Expert Panel in2009 to examine, among other criticalissues, food ingredients that are morevulnerable to adulteration and to developwork plans to address these““An essential supple-”ment to quality andsafety systems thatanchors them in realityis periodic testing toverify the authenticityof food ingredients...”threats. At-risk food ingredients identifiedby the panel include novel sweetenerssuch asrebaudioside A (stevia),infant formula ingredients,spices, cocoapowder, meat powder,rice protein isolate andothers. In many ofthese categories, USPhas proposed newfood ingredient standardssince the expertpanel began its work.The latest edition ofthe food ingredientcompendium, FCC 8,will be released inMarch 2012 and incorporatesmuch of thiswork. The expert panel has also commissionedsome exciting larger-scale projects,including a Food Fraud Databasecompiling published instances of foodadulteration over the past 30 years,which will be used to guide USP’s futurework in this area and as a resource to industry’srisk management efforts.The Bottom Line: What We Don’tKnow Can Hurt UsEconomically motivated adulterationposes a host of risks—from business, legaland public health perspectives. Thesobering reality is that every safeguard inplace in our global multibillion-dollarfood industry is null and void if one cannotconfirm the authenticity of the foodingredients that make up a product.Once an unknown substance enters thefood supply chain, everything we do tomanage risk goes out the window, andwe can only hope for the best. In an industrythat touches us all, with so muchto lose, that simply cannot suffice. nMarkus Lipp, Ph.D., is the director, food standards,at USP.F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 19

INTERNATIONAL FOOD SAFETYBy David NapperSupporting SustainabilityMeans an End to WasteThis is one in a series of“P3FC” articles (People,Planet, Prosperity and theFood Chain), essays andcomments from assortedauthors. All articles in theseries will address thechallenges of food productionto communicatebest practices in the industryand encouragethe adoption of sustainablepolicies. All authorsare food professionalscoming from diverseemployment sectors andfrom around the globe.The goal of P3FC is tohelp create a global foodsupply chain that takesinto account the wellbeingand prosperity ofpeople and the planet. Ifyou are interested in contributingan article to theP3FC series, please sendan email tokatherine.flynn@safeconsortium.org.The entire global food supplychain shares in the challengesfacing the food industry today.We recently had a most pleasing andfulfilling experience when we visitedthe person responsible for burningregulations in Denmark’s environmentalagency. Several efforts hadbeen made to burn some forms of organic waste withvarying degrees of success, but permission to introducenew technologies had not been achieved. Wonderingwhy, the applicants asked us to look into it.We started by looking at the legislation requirements(which was the last thing they had done). Naturally,everyone cannot burn everything they wish to createenergy, so their expressed disappointment over lack ofpermission was well founded.The pleasant part of the effort came from gettingan outline about how definitions can be changed withwell-founded documentation. If things are, by definition,waste, then there are prescribed handling procedures;if they are “value,” there are other options.Simple but straightforward.You many feel this does not have any significancefor our dialogue related to shouting about salvationof the planet, but let us not forget, waste is big business,and in quite a number of cases, it is a monopoly.As with all monopolies, whether political, economicalor social, over time, antibodies are formedfor the protection of the organism. All monopoliesgenerate resistance over time, and so has the waste industry.Western countries rely on revenue from thetax on energy. So it’s no surprise when efforts to use“waste” to create untaxed energy get slow or unenthusiasticsupport.The technical director of a small foodfactory explained to us that he did notintroduce energy-saving technology becausethe state required the tax on energysaved to be paid anyway. He waspaying as much for getting rid of organicsin the water as he was for buying thewater, and the state was taking a sliceequal to each of the others. That is, approximatelyone-third of his water billwas for purchasing water, one-third wasfor the treatment of the water and onethirdwent to the state tax. He was usingaround 1,000 m 3 water per day, whichcame into the factory at around 8 °Cand left at 28 °C—around 27,000 kW energywasted. Water cost in Denmark isaround €5/m 3 . If he released the waterat 8 °C by recapturing that 27,000 kW,he would pay the same for buying thewater and the same taxes. If he removesthe organics, he is able to use all or partof them by burning chicken fat for energyor extracting proteins and fat forpet food. The water would then be suitablefor regaining the energy and someof the water would be suitable for reuse.Consumption could be reduced to anestimated 300 m 3 /day. He is currentlypaying a surcharge for organic load inthe water, which would be eliminated.He was partially reducing organic loadin his effluent through the use of hazardouschemicals for flocculation, creating28.8 tons/day of hazardous waste,which had to be trucked away at his expense.Much of that can be changed, ifwe believe the new legislation.During another audit, which also involvedlocal government, a communeexpressed openly that the introductionof technology, which would both savethe small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs)energy and greatly reduce their organicload, would be detrimental because thecommune depends on the revenue fromwaste treatment and needs the organicsto keep the bacteria functioning well atthe wastewater treatment plant(WWTP). Their only alternative would20 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

INTERNATIONAL FOOD SAFETYbe to haul in molasses to feed the bacteria.They did not mention that the heatwaste from their factory was also of useas it increased the efficiency of theWWTP process.In Italy, only authorized companiescan collect used fats from deep-frying,but it is not specified what the propertreatment would be to render this materialsafe for the environment, so a numberof companies have sprung up,collecting the fat for the revenue but notbothering to handle it responsibly letalone convert it into energy in any way.We have followed many inspirationalpresentations from organizations such asCradle-to-Cradle, 1,2 which offer a verygood road map for many actions to betaken, but even logical actions will notnecessarily be allowed under current lawsand may be contrary to many interests.Now we have the “End-of-Waste” actionsand movements, which look quitepromising. In simple terms, EuropeanUnion Directive 2008/98/EC 3 opens thedoor for taking material out of the“waste definition” with attendant obligationsand allowing the concept of somethingof value, which provides anexception from “waste management”and allows value recovery. It may notsound like much, but opportunities areboundless for the food and beverage industry,where more than half of materialsproduced end as a problem for theenvironment.The European Commission’s JointResearch Centre in Seville, Spain has releaseda very good report on the matter,so anyone wishing to follow the widerdiscussion can visit susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Endofwastecriteriafinal.pdf. The executive summarycovers the matter extensively, so have alook and give us feedback.In the spirit of the efforts of theGlobal Harmonization Initiative, 4 thework recognizes the necessity of standardizedlegislation so speculation ondifferences between states can beavoided. The End-of-Waste legislationmandates harmonization, taking specialinterest decisions (whether hidden taxesor unjustified laxity or stringency) out ofthe picture.nDavid Napper is a member of the editorial teamof P3FC. He has worked extensively with EuropeanSMEs in attempts to identify trends that could influencetheir economic success. The solutions canoften be implemented incrementally with as littletechnology transfer and training as possible.References1. www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm.2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_to_Cradle_ Design.3. eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0098:EN:NOT.4. www.globalharmonization.net.F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 21

PACKAGINGBy Kenneth S. Marsh, Ph.D., CPPPackaging for EnhancedFood SecurityNew column focuses on criticalfood packaging safety issues.Ihave been asked to launch this new column tocommunicate the latest advances and trends inpackaging, spoilage and stability of packaged foods.This column will typically cover trends among thesophisticated food packaging players in the developedworld, primarily the U.S. and European Union(EU), and typically involve high technology. I will leavethese discussions to subsequent contributors, but I wishto present that the trend to replace absent or ineffectivepackaging with more protective food packaging is moresignificant to the growth of the packaging industry thanany particular new development. The combination ofincreased food protection and the continuing trend forproactive food processing control (maintained withpackaging) offers unprecedented potential to increaseglobal food security.Food security is achieved by people acquiring a safe,adequate and appropriate food supply. “Safe” is absenceof hazard; “adequate” is sufficient in both calories andnutrients; “appropriate” relates to taste and ethnicity (especiallyimportant when offering food aid to othercountries in response to emergencies, i.e., using readilyavailable food).Establishing Processes for Safe FoodA significant development in the promotion of foodsafety was the concept of process control versus samplingof finished product, that is, prevention rather thaninspection. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points(HACCP) was developed in the 1960s by NASA andPillsbury from the realization that foodborne disease inspace was to be avoided—accentuatedwith the potent image of an astronautvomiting in zero gravity. The goal, therefore,was to eliminate potential hazardsthrough a combination of multiple barriersto microbial growth and careful inprocessmonitoring to ensure thatcritical processes remained within acceptablelimits. Although HACCP wasmandatory for specific sectors, it wasvoluntary for most of the food industry.The seven principles of HACCP arelikely known to readers of this column,but are summarized here as a basis forextensions below:1. Conduct a Hazard Analysis (hazardsto consumer)2. Determine the Critical ControlPoints3. Establish critical limits4. Establish monitoring procedures5. Establish corrective actions6. Establish verifying procedures7. Establish documentation procedures.The U.S. Food Safety ModernizationAct was signed into law January 2011,with the aim to prevent contaminatedfood from entering the marketplace.HACCP programs are a central componentof this approach. The goal is to preventoutbreaks rather than respond tothem. Since outbreaks of foodborne diseaseimpact the confidence in our entireindustry, I applaud efforts that bringproven food safety programs into morewidespread use. They have initial costsbut add long-term profitability andviability.Where Does Packaging Fit In?Primary packaging, that is, packagingin direct contact with the product, iscritical to the success of any food processingeffort. Any processing is ineffectiveunless appropriate packagingprotection is employed. With thermalprocessing, be it canning (filling an unsterilemetal, glass, polymer or laminatecontainer with an unsterile product, sealingthat container and heat-processing22 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

PACKAGINGto commercial sterility) or aseptic packaging(introducing a sterile product—typically processed through high-temperature,short-time processing—into a sterilepackage in a sterile environment), ahermetic package is critical to foodsafety. Dried, fermented,natural andprocessed foods all requireappropriate packagecontainment andprotection.Food safety is typicallydefined in termsof food hazards thatresult in disease. Diseaseresulting from nutritionalinadequacy, ormore critically, starvation,is not typicallyconsidered in the foodhazard category. It isreasonable to extendthe definition of foodsafety to include adequacy.Packaging thatextends shelf life, helpsretain nutrients and allowsfood to be transportedto remote areasthen becomes an importantcomponent ofboth the food safety and adequacy componentsof food security. We can extendthe hazard list to include:• Chemical contamination: mostfeared by consumers• Physical abuse: most noticed byconsumers• Microbiological hazards: mostdangerous and already the majoremphasisWe can also include actions that reducethe food supply:• Biological attack (e.g., birds, rodents,insects)• Biological action of product (e.g.,senescence and sprouting)““A significantdevelopment in thepromotion of foodsafety was theconcept of processCan HACCP Incorporate All ofThese Hazards?I proposed a post-harvest HACCP(PHHACCP) plan in 2005 as an effectiveand rational means of ensuring foodprotection and delivery from harvestthrough consumption. The “Hazard”definition was extended to include anythingthat renders food unusable forhuman consumption, and therefore unableto sustain life.The Food Safety Alliancefor Packaging(FSAP; a technicalcommittee of the Instituteof Packaging Professionals)hasdeveloped HACCPmodels for a variety ofpackaging materials.These models are availableon www.foodsafetyallianceforpackaging.com andextend the HACCPprinciples to the manufactureof packagingmaterials.The post-harvestcomponent extendshazard concerns toother components ofthe distribution environment,includingstorage facilities, handling,transportationpackaging (in terms of protection fromexternal forces), transportation modesand environmental realities (includingweather and fauna).PHHACCP would add the followingto the HACCP principles:1. Include analysis for the entiredistribution chain2. Identify each mechanism of food loss(nutrition or quantity)3. Evaluate which mechanisms can becontrolled4. Evaluate which mechanisms shouldbe controlled5. Establish limits6. Continue with HACCP principlescontrol versus samplingof finished”product, that is,prevention ratherthan inspection.”Controlling Food LossesThere is a growing realization thathandling, processing, packaging, storageand transportation (collectively, post-harvest)have the potential to reduce globalhunger on par with increases in globalfood production. The Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations(FAO) presented two significant reportsthat were prepared for the Save FoodCongress held in association with Interpackin May 2011. The first report,“Global Food Losses and Food Waste”(www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf), estimatedworld food losses at 33 percent, or 1.3billion tons per year. The second report,“Appropriate Food Packaging Solutionsfor Developing Countries”(www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/AFP_web.pdf), describedpackaging roles to reduce food losses.This was a significant change from theFAO stance at the World Food Summit:five years later (Rome, 2002) at whichmost efforts to address hunger werebased on improving agricultural production.The U.S. sponsored a symposiumat that summit in which presidents ofthree African countries presented reportsthat genetically modified seeds improvedharvest yields by up to 500 percent. Imet with the Ghana minister of agricultureafter this symposium, and he confirmedthat Ghana’s infrastructure wasincapable of handling all of this increaseand food losses had risen. The increasedproduction, therefore, did not yield aproportional increase in the food supply.Shelf life or usable life defines thelength of time that a product can be distributedand used after distribution. Bananasoffer a simple example. Bananaslast for months in the green state anddays in the ripe, yellow state. Scrubbingthe growth hormone that triggers senescence,ethylene, maintains bananas inthe more stable state until just prior topoint of sale. Bananas are then exposed(during storage) to approximately 1 ppmethylene to resume the ripening process.The result is that we have bananas availableall year and those in a specific supermarkettend to be close to the samedegree of ripeness. The shelf life is definednot by the primary packaging, butrather by the entire distribution chain.24 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

PACKAGINGTransportation packaging is a criticalcomponent of food distribution. A studywas completed in Sri Lanka that demonstratedthat fresh produce packaged inthe traditional burlap (jute) bags experiencedbetween 22 and 28 percent loss enroute to the Colombo “green” market.This resulted from bottom bags beingcrushed, exacerbated by potholes andother road hazards. Crates restricted theforce of stacked produce and reducedthe loss to 5 percent. Programs that increasethe amount of already producedfood that reaches consumers can be costeffectiveand implemented more rapidlythan waiting for the next harvest.Food losses occur through manymechanisms and some cannot be partiallyor fully controlled. Losses will stilloccur when products (e.g., bananas) cannotbe sold after over-ripening, productis bruised and not salable, product is acceptablebut not salable due to overabundance(right after harvest) or even““Primary packaging,”that is, packaging indirect contact withthe product, is criticalto the success of anyfood processingeffort.”due to food regulations based on visual,size or shape attributes (discussed below)that are unrelated tohealth. Such fooditems cannot bebrought to market intheir existing state.Food safety can beachieved by alteringthe product from anunacceptable (buthealthy) state into anotherform. Food itemsmay be processed ormodified to improvetheir shelf life and/orvalue. This is outsidethe normal HACCPoptions, but theHACCP principlescould be applied to thepreparation of the new products.An innovative example of convertingfood otherwise wasted into viable productswas developed by Dr. Alastair Hicks,senior post-harvest officer for FAO at theSoutheast Asia regionalbranch. He developeda program on economicdevelopmentthrough village-levelfood processingthrough which ruralvillagers in less developedcountries weretrained in basic sanitationand food processingand offered basicequipment (e.g., dryingracks, netting, pressurecookers, fryers) to recoverfood that wouldnormally be lost anduse it as inputs forvalue-added food products(e.g., fried banana chips). Packagingthese products offers foods with extendedshelf life that provides more timeOur new Autoplate ® Spiral Plating System: the hot new lab accessory.Now you can spiral plate bacteria with blazing speed and performance that other platers can’t touch.Our new Autoplate delivers 35-second cycle times with three new spiral plating modes. Its innovativeauto-clean capability avoids cross-contamination. And it offers a quick learning curve plus state-of-the-artease of use via an intuitive Windows ® CE touchscreen. Get automated plating productivity from SpiralBiotech that’s so hot, it’s really cool!www.aicompanies.com +1 781.320.90001018002 Autoplate Food Safety.indd 1 1/15/10 5:28:55 PMF E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 25

PACKAGINGfor sale, and income to build small business.This process both recovers foodnormally lost and promotes economicdevelopment in these remote regions.The key is shelf life extension and safefood products.Effects of Restrictive RegulationsSome food losses result from foodregulations that are based on food attributesunrelated to foodsafety. Regulationsbased on color, shapeand size, for example,result in the destructionof tons of food.Other regulations maybe based on perceivedfood hazards that arenot scientifically established.The use of Alarthat decimated theapple industry in theU.S. Northwest andthe destruction offood that might containparts-per-trillionlevels of Sudan Red inthe UK, for example,were perceived threats that seriously impactedsegments of the food industry,but the regulatory reactions could not bejustified by a scientific risk/benefit analysis.Food safety is not served by such regulations(or public reactions based onfear), and significant food losses canresult.The Global Harmonization Initiative(GHI; www.globalharmonization.net)was formed through a network of scientificorganizations to facilitate the harmonizationof food safety regulationsand legislation. The objective emphasizesthat food regulations should bebased on a scientific evaluation of riskand strives to harmonize rules made byindividual governments and internationalregulatory bodies. GHI “anticipatesthat elimination of the regulatorydifferences will make it more attractivefor the private sector to invest in foodsafety R&D, consequently strengtheningthe competitiveness of each nation’s““Food safety can”be achieved byaltering theproduct from anunacceptable (buthealthy) state intoanother form.”food industry and of the industries supplyingthe food sector. Harmonizingglobal regulations will facilitate the applicationof new technologies, encouragingthe food industry to invest in such technologiesto ensure better safety and qualityfor consumers!” The result will bemore abundance of safe food.The FAO report on food losses presenteddifferences between food losses inthe developed and developingworld. Foodlosses in the developingworld tend to be relatedto financial, managerialand technicallimitations of food distributionbetween thefarmer and the consumer.Food losses andwaste in the developedworld mainly relate toconsumer behavior and“lack of coordinationbetween different actorsin the supply chain.” Apossibly surprising findingpresented in theFAO study was that“on a per capita basis, much more foodis wasted in the industrialized world thanin developing countries. We estimatethat the per capita food waste by consumersin Europe and North America is95–115 kg/year, while this figure in Sub-Saharan Africa and South/SoutheastAsia is only 6–11 kg/year.”Some of the food losses in the developedworld are based on regulations thatare not safety-based, as mentionedabove; some result from marketing practicessuch as refusing produce that is aless desirable size, shape or color or has aslight blemish and some are wastefulpractices. An example offered in theSave Food Congress was an EU regulationthat banned curved cucumbers.Farmers therefore could not sell curvedcucumbers, and they were not harvested.The EU later removed that regulation,but supermarkets still refuse to buycurved cucumbers, so they are still rolledinto the soil.Much waste is generated through avariety of practices at retail, restaurantsand hospitality entities and by consumers.Supermarkets, for example, stockshelves with every variety of baked productssuch that customers shopping nearclosing times have a full choice. Itemsnot sold become wasted. Restaurants,banquets and hospitality often serveconsiderably more food than required.Consumers often discard food productsthat reach their “best by” date, eventhough those products are perfectly safe.The approach to reducing these losses isprimarily education and a realization oftheir magnitude. I have offered ideas toeffect this through www.ift.org/food-technology/past-issues/2011/july/features/addressing-global-food-waste.aspx.ConclusionsPromoting food safety and securityon a global basis matters greatly to suppliersof processing and packaging materialsand machinery, as well as to thepopulations their products serve. TheU.S. population is about 310 million andthat of the EU around 500 million. Ourcombined total of 810 million, comparedwith the world population of 7 billion,means we constitute less than 12percent of the potential market for “appropriate”technologies. The remaining88 percent of the world’s population willrequire packaging materials and processingand packaging equipment to extendtheir food supplies. Development ofsmall-to-medium food enterprises willbegin a cycle of economic developmentthat builds resources to justify further development.The bottom line is that wecan extend safe and adequate food forhumanitarian and commercial impacts.nKenneth S. Marsh, Ph.D., CPP, is a consultant onfood, packaging and international trade throughKenneth S. Marsh & Associates Ltd.For more information on food packaging,please visitwww.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature.asp.26 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Solutions for Today,Planning for TomorrowducationNetworkingExhibition HallInd utions®April 17-19, 2012Washington, DCwww.foodsafetysummit.comPRESENTED BYGOLD SPONSORSILVER SPONSORBRONZE SPONSORA SUPPLEMENT TO A BNP MEDIA PUBLICATIONMEDIA PARTNERSQuality Assurance & Food Safety

WELCOMEWHO ATTENDS THE SUMMITSolutions for Today,Planning for TomorrowThe Food Safety Summit exists to meet the educational andinformation needs of the entire food industry. The Summitis carefully designed for growers, processors, retailers,distributors, foodservice operators, regulators and academia.The Summit provides a 4 day comprehensive educationprogram with expert speakers and trainers with real worldexperience; an expansive exhibition hall with specializedvendors demonstrating the latest technologies, products andservices; and relaxed networking events to exchange valuableideas and make meaningful connections.Dear Food Safety Professional,Solutions for today, planning for tomorrow.It is with this simple statement that the Food Safety Summit has carefullydeveloped an educational program designed to address the critical issues offood producers, processors, retailers, distributors, regulators and trainers. Ourgoal is to advance food safety by providing relevant food safety information andsolutions across the entire food supply chain, while keeping your business safe.The Food Safety Summit meets the needs of the entire marketplace.The Summit includes a four day, comprehensive education program with expertspeakers, an expansive exhibition floor where attendees will find solutions tocurrent challenges and networking events that offer the opportunity to exchangevaluable ideas with colleagues. The Food Safety Summit is the must-attendindustry gathering to focus on solutions you can immediately implement inyour business.The educational topics were developed by the 2012 Executive EducationalAdvisory Committee and explore such timely issues as an update of the realitiesof the Food Safety Modernization Act, working with public health officials,strategies for pre-harvesting, interactive food safety media training, orientationto and preparing for GFSI Audits and HAACP to Lean, Six Sigma to highlight a few.The Exhibition Hall is where solutions are found.The Food Safety Summit attracts highly qualified food safety and securitysolution providers. Nearly 150 top tier companies show off the latest technologies,products and services. Don’t miss this unique opportunity to learn from thebest and brightest the industry has to offer.Food Safety Vice PresidentsFood Safety DirectorsQuality Control DirectorsQuality Assurance ManagersLaboratory DirectorsLaboratory TechniciansAcademic/Scientific ResearchSanitation ManagersMicrobiologistsFoodservice OperatorsFood Retail OperationsFood ScientistsOperations ManagersFood TechnologistsSupply Chain DirectorsFood Safety RegulatorsCoordinators / InspectorsPlant ManagersChemistsEngineering SupervisorsHACCP Program ManagersLogistics ManagersPolicy MakersProgram DirectorsR & D Managers/TechniciansRisk ManagersSecurity DirectorsTechnical DirectorsRegulatory Affairs DirectorsFood & Beverage ProcessorsGovernment/ MilitaryRestaurant ManagementCompliance AgenciesAuditorsNow is the time for you to make a commitment to attend the Food Safety Summit.Please take a few minutes to review this comprehensive brochure and seethe valuable education and resources available to you at the 2012 Food SafetySummit. I encourage you to register today to take advantage of the early-birdsavings and to ensure your place at the most pretigious food safety event ofthe year.®Scott WoltersDirectorFood Safety Summitwolterss@bnpmedia.comApril 17-19, 2012Washington DCwww.foodsafetysummit.comtwitter.com/FoodSafetySumit2012 Food Safety Summit

SUMMIT AT-A-GLANCEMonday, April 16Program subject to change8:00a.m. – 5:00p.m. SERVSAFE ® TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION • PART 18:00a.m. – 5:00p.m.INDUSTRY-FOODBORNE ILLNESS INVESTIGATION TRAINING (I-FIIT)8:00a.m.– 5:30p.m. HACCP CERTIFICATION TRAINING • PART 1Tuesday, April 178:00a.m. – 12:00p.m. SERVSAFE ® TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION - PART 28:00a.m. – 5:30p.m. HACCP CERTIFICATION TRAINING • PART 28:00a.m. – 12:00p.m. Workshop 1 Effective Risk Communication in Order to Secure Food Safety ResourcesWorkshop 2 Interactive Media TrainingWorkshop 3 Pre-requisite Programs: Cleaning, Sanitizing, Pest Control1:00p.m. – 5:00p.m. Workshop 4 Interactive Workshop: Contemporary Issues in Retail, Foodservice & GroceryOperations: Best Practices and Practical ModelsWorkshop 5 Interactive Food Defense Workshop With Government and Industry RepresentativesWorkshop 6 How to Protect Your Company with an Effective Food Liability Program5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. EXHIBITION HALL OPEN / WELCOME RECEPTION ON EXHIBITION FLOORWednesday, April 188:00 a.m.– 10:00a.m. HACCP CERTIFICATION TRAINING • PART 38:30a.m. – 10:00a.m. Session 1 HACCP to Lean, Six SigmaSession 2 Strategies for Pre-Harvesting – Why Finished Product Testing Will Not WorkSession 3 Training for Results8:30a.m. – 4:00p.m.EXHIBITOR SHOWCASE THEATRES10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. KEYNOTE ADDRESS: OSCAR GARRISON / NSF FOOD SAFETY LEADERSHIP AWARDS11:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. EXHIBITION HALL OPEN – LUNCHEON ON EXHIBITION FLOOR2:30p.m. – 4:00p.m. Session 4 Imported Products – How to Minimize RiskSession 5 Field to Fork Traceability: Tracing a Produce Item from Field to PlateSession 6 Food Safety Modernization Act Update and the Reality of Meeting the DeliverablesMandated by Congress4:15p.m. – 5:45p.m. Session 7 How to Work With Public Health Officials (Retail, Manufacturing, Foodservice)Session 8 Food Fraud: Economically Motivated Intentional AdulterationSession 9 Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) - Then, Now, in the Future5:45p.m. – 7:00 p.m.FOOD QUALITY AWARDS & RECEPTION – SPONSORED BY DUPONTThursday, April 197:30a.m. – 10:30a.m.7:30a.m. – 8:30 a.m.9:00a.m. – 9:30a.m.EXHIBITION HALL OPENCONTINENTAL BREAKFAST ON EXHIBITION FLOOREXHIBITOR SHOWCASE THEATRES9:30a.m. – 11:00a.m. Session 10 Roundtable: What Happened at the Conference for Food Protection (CFP)Session 11 How to Prepare for a GFSI AuditSession 12 Q&A with the FDA and USDA11:15a.m. – 12:45p.m. Session 13 What is Reportable and What is NotSession 14 non-O157 STEC: The Prevalence of and the Strategies and Objectives of the IndustrySession 15 Transportation/Distribution – Food Safety Forensics What Can Happen During Transportation12:45p.m.GRAB & GO LUNCHwww.foodsafetysummit.com

Providing the highestquality education andtraining to the industryThe 2012 Food Safety Summit wishesto thank our Executive EducationalAdvisory Committee (EEAC). With thesupport of these progressive and insightfulthinkers, we are able to provide you anunequalled educational program.EEAC MEMBERSGary Ades, Ph.D.President,G&L Consulting Group, LLCWill DanielsSr. Vice President, Operationsand Organic IntegrityEarthbound FarmFour days of unparalleled solutionsbased education and trainingPre-Conference Training and CertificationThree pre-conference courses designed for all individuals who needfood safety training, certification and/or recertification.■ ServSafe ® Training and CertificationNEW THIS YEAR!■ HACCP Certification Training■ Industry-Foodborne Illness Investigation Training (I-FIIT)Tuesday Half-Day WorkshopsSix, 4-hour workshops offer attendees the opportunity to delve deeperin specific topics critical to the food safety professional.Wednesday & Thursday Conference SessionsFifteen 90-minute sessions on topics relevant to your current jobchallenges. Learn from experts, exchange ideas and find solutions.Oscar GarrisonAssistant Commissioner,Consumer Protection,Georgia Department of AgriculturePeter GoodOwner,Peter Good SeminarsCraig Henry, Ph.D.ERS Director,Deloitte & Touche LLPHal King, Ph.D.Sr. Manager, Food Safety,Chick-fil-ASusan LinnDirector Quality Assurance,Sysco CorporationGina Nicholson, RSSubject Matter Expert FoodSafety and Quality ManagerThe Kroger Co.Thomas PackerPartner,Gordon & Rees LLPJohn Spink, Ph.D.Associate Director & AssistantProfessor of Anti-Counterfeitingand Product Protection ProgramMSU, School of Criminal JusticeSharon WoodDirector, Food Safety andEnvironmental Affiars, HEB®2012 Food Safety Summit

WORKSHOPS TUESDAY, APRIL 171:00 PM – 5:00 PMWORKSHOP 4Interactive Workshop: Contemporary Issues in Retail, Foodservice& Grocery Operations: Best Practices and Practical ModelsGood science and broad research is key to sound practices. However, the age old questionstill remains regarding the successful execution of best practices by the actual operators.High turn over and a range of age and experience can lead to inconsistent execution offood safety practices on a daily basis. This interactive roundtable session will focus onsharing of best practices and strategies for sustainment and maintenance and will applyto those who want to take practical applications back to apply to their unique operations.There is much science, research and emphasis on the “farm to fork” food safetyapplications, however, the concentrated efforts up stream in the food supply canbe negated by improper execution at the retail level. Participate in breakout stationsfocused on Time and Temperature, Training and Tools, Root Cause Analysis andCorrective Action and Behavior Modification Techniques.SESSION OBJECTIVES■ An interactive presentation of best practices as well as practical, innovativeand efficient tools to reduce risk and assist in maintaining proper execution■ Presentations by academic and industry experts as well as break out visitsto “stations” in the room offering tools and information, and finishing up witha powerful sharing sessionSPEAKERSSharon WoodDirector, Food Safety & EnvironmentalAffairs, HEBPeter GoodOwner, Peter Good SeminarsBenjamin ChapmanAssistant Professor and Extension FoodSafety Specialist, NC State UniversityLinda Gilardi, RSVice President Quality Assurance,Compass Group North AmericaPeter Hibbard REHS (invited)Senior Manager - Total Quality,Red Lobster - Suncoast Division,Darden Restaurants Inc.O. Peter Snyder, Jr., Ph.D.Hospitality Institute of Technology andManagementWORKSHOP 5Interactive Food Defense Workshop With Governmentand Industry RepresentativesIndustry and government food defense representatives will provide insights on fooddefense that are sure to compliment current industry based food defense planningefforts, and, at the same time, satisfy the appetites of those attendees that are in theprocess of developing a food defense program. The final segment of this workshop willbe an interactive facilitated exercise that will offer a glimpse into the function and utilityof a recently completed food defense exercise program – the FDA’s FREE-B - that wasdeveloped in collaboration between the government and industry food defense experts.SESSION OBJECTIVES■ Conduct a high level overview of the various food defense tools and resourcesthat have been developed by government■ Provide known industry leaders in the food defense arena an opportunityto share their stories on how these Food Defense tools and resources havebeen incorporated into existing operations■ An 'update' of the current status of the various food defense elements of the FSMAWORKSHOP 6How to Protect Your Company with an Effective FoodLiability ProgramCreating a successful food liability program can be extremely difficult if you aren’tknowledgeable about where to start or what to do. Learn about the best way to preventcompany liability through a thorough risk assessment, the proper crisis-managementteam you must have in place, and most importantly, how to resolve any claims that aremade, including how to work with your insurance carrier.SPEAKERSUSDA and FDA RepresentativesUSDA/FSIS; FDA, Food DefenseOversight TeamHal King, Ph.D.Sr. Manager, Food Safety, Chick-fil-ARichard RyanAssistant Deputy Director,ADM Corporate SecurityBill RamseyDirector of Corporate Security,McCormick & Company, Inc.Randy GordonVice President, Communicationsand Government Relations,National Grain and Feed AssociationCraig Henry Ph.D.ERS Director, Deloitte & Touche LLPSPEAKERSTom PackerPartner, Gordon & Rees LLPJerry BlackwellFounding Partner and Chairman,Blackwell Burke, PASESSION OBJECTIVES■ This is a must-attend session for anyone involved with corporate liability issues■ Learn from professionals from the food, legal and insurance industrieswww.foodsafetysummit.com

®®EXHIBITOR SHOWCASETHEATRESThe Exhibitor Showcases are specialized, vendorproducedlearning areas that provide the Summitattendee with valuable information on food safetyand offer solutions you can use today from theseleading companies. Hear from Subject Matter Expertsand learn about new and exciting technologies infood safety and security.FREE to all registered attendees. Plan on attendingthese informative and valuable sessions duringyour visit to the Summit’s Exhibition Hall!WEDNESDAY, APRIL 188:30am – 9:00amEducation Floor9:00am – 9:30amEducation Floor9:30am – 10:00amEducation FloorinternationalfeaturedstandardsFoodIFS11:00am – 11:30amTheatre 2KEYNOTE PRESENTATIONWEDNESDAY, APRIL 1810:00 AM – 11:00 AMOscar GarrisonSPONSORED BYAssistant Commissioner, Division Director,Consumer Protection, Georgia Department of AgriculturePresident of the Association of Food & Drug Officials(AFDO)Building an Integrated Food System:How the Food Industry and Public HealthOfficials Must Collaborate to SucceedOscar Garrison is a leading, solutions oriented, forward thinking regulatorwho is a vigorous proponent of food safety. Mr. Garrison is the AssistantCommissioner, Division Director, Consumer Protection, Georgia Departmentof Agriculture and President of the American Association of Food &Drug Officials (ADFO). Mr. Garrison will present a compelling commentaryabout the challenges and implications to the food industry and regulators onthe implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Learn fromone of the country’s leading Public Health Officials on how they will need towork with the federal and private sectors on the four key parts of FSMA:■ Produce Safety■ Preventative Control■ Import Regulations■ New GMPs (Good Manufacturing Practices)You will not want to miss Mr. Garrison’s direct evaluation of what regulatorsand the industry can learn from each other and how ultimately both will needto work in unison to properly implement the Food Safety Modernization Act.11:30am – 12:00pmTheatre 112:00pm – 12:30pmTheatre 212:30pm-1:00pmTheatre 11:00pm – 1:30pmTheatre 21:30pm – 2:00pmTheatre 12:00pm – 2:30pmTheatre 22:30pm – 3:00pmTheatre 13:00pm – 3:30pmTheatre 23:30pm – 4:00pmTheatre 1THURSDAY, APRIL 198:45am – 9:15amTheatre 19:30am – 10:00amTheatre 210:00am – 10:30amTheatre 12012 Food Safety Summit

CONFERENCE SESSIONS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 188:30 AM – 10:00 AMSESSION 1HACCP to Lean, Six SigmaLean, Six Sigma or process improvement is typically done by business professionals whereHACCP is conducted by food safety professionals. This session will helping food scientistsspeak in Lean, Six Sigma language so they can be part of the process improvementmethodology conversation. Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) is amanagement system in which food safety is addressed through the analysis and controlof biological, chemical, and physical hazards from raw material production, procurementand handling, to food production, distribution and consumption of the finished product.Lean, Six Sigma is a methodology that provides businesses with the tools to improve thecapability of their business processes.SPEAKERGina R. Nicholson, RSFood Safety & Food Quality SubjectMatter Expert, The Kroger Co.SPONSORED BYSESSION OBJECTIVES■ Food scientists will learn how to take HACCP language and turn it into termsof Lean, Six Sigma■ What are critical differences and benefits to a food safety professionalSESSION 2Strategies for Pre-Harvesting – Why Finished Product TestingWill Not WorkThe majority of food processors apply food safety interventions duringprocessing and verify the effectiveness of their programs through finished producttesting. The goal of implementing pre-harvest food safety interventions and testing isto minimize opportunities for the introduction, persistence, and transmission of humanpathogens earlier in the food-supply chain.SESSION OBJECTIVES■ Attendees will learn the benefits of addressing food safety interventionsand testing at the pre-harvest levelSPEAKERSSusan LinnDirector Quality Assurance,Sysco CorporationWill DanielsSr. Vice President, Operations andOrganic Integrity, Earthbound FarmGuy Loneragan (invited)Epidemiologist, Texas Tech UniversitySPONSORED BY■ What professionals should know about finished product testingSESSION 3Training for ResultsCompleting a well-executed, detailed and comprehensive needs analysis, using provenadult learning techniques in the design and development of training programs, andlinking training program results to business objectives and sound delivery techniquesare critical when training for results.SESSION OBJECTIVES■ An invaluable guide through the process of assessment■ Learn how to develop and deliver training programsdesigned to achieve real and measurable resultsSPONSORED BYSPEAKERSPeter GoodOwner, Peter Good SeminarsVictoria GriffithPresident, Griffith Safety GroupBob Custard, REHS, CP-FSEnvironmental Health Manager,Alexandria Health Dept, VAClay HoshSenior Instructional Designer, NationalRestaurant Association10:00 AM – 10:15 AM (Immediately preceeding Keynote presentation)NSF FOOD SAFETY LEADERSHIP AWARDSRecognizing individuals and companies that have demonstrated excellence in thefoodservice industry. Winners are recognized in one of eight awards categoriesincluding the major award category of lifetime achievement, which is an awardfor contributions of more than 20 years in advancing foodservice food safety.www.foodsafetysummit.com

CONFERENCE SESSIONS THURSDAY, APRIL 197:30 AM – 8:30 AMCONTINENTAL BREAKFAST ON THE EXHIBITION FLOOR2012 Food Safety Leadership AwardsA continental breakfast will be served on the Exhibition Hall Floor on Thursday morning while the Exhibition HallWednesday, April 18 • 10:05a.m.–11:00a.m.is open. It’s a great time to wrap up business and network with friends and colleagues in a relaxed, informal setting.9:30 AM – 11:00 AMSESSION 10Roundtable: What Happened at the Conference for FoodProtection (CFP)The Conference for Food Protection will be taking place in Indianapolis immediatelypreceding The Food Safety Summit. The Conference seeks to balance the interests ofregulatory, industry, academia, and consumer groups while providing an open forumfor the consideration of ideas from any source. Though the Conference has no formalregulatory authority, it is a powerful organization that profoundly influences model lawsand regulations among all government agencies and minimizes disparate interpretationsand implementation. Representatives who attend CFP will provide a recap of the emergingissues of food safety that were addressed and recommendations of changes for the FDAmodel food code.SPEAKERGina Nicholson, RSFood Safety & Food Quality SubjectMatter Expert, The Kroger CoSESSION OBJECTIVES■ Hear from council members who attended the CFP and get a first handrecap of the conference■ Recap of emerging issues that were addressed and recommendations of changesSESSION 11How to Prepare for a GFSI AuditThe GFSI initiative has become the recognized global benchmarking standard for conductingfood safety audits around the world. During this session you will hear from organizationsthat have completed the GFSI Audit process. They will share their experiences duringthe preparation, audit and post-audit phases. The organizations will discuss expectationsvs. actual experience and things you “need to know” when preparing for the audit.SPEAKERDennis KolsunFormer Director of Regulatory Affairs,HeinzSPONSORED BYSESSION OBJECTIVES■ What is a GFSI Audit■ What auditing companies comply with the standards■ How you can most effectively plan for this type of auditSESSION 12Q&A with the FDA and USDAMichael R. Taylor was named deputy commissioner for foods at the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) in January 2010. He is the first individual to hold the position,which was created along with a new Office of Foods in August 2009. Mr. Taylor isleading FDA efforts to develop and carry out a prevention-based strategy for foodsafety; plan for new food safety legislation and ensure that food labels contain clearand accurate information on nutrition.SPEAKERSMichael TaylorDeputy Commissioner for Foods,Food and Drug Administration (FDA)Elisabeth Hagen, M.D. (invited)Under Secretary for Food Safety,U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)SESSION OBJECTIVES■ Hear from the top government official whose agency is responsible for theimplementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act■ Submit a question for the Commissioner on www.foodsafetysummit.comso Mr. Taylor can address the needs of the audience2012 Food Safety Summit

CONFERENCE SESSIONS THURSDAY, APRIL 1911:15 AM – 12:45 PMSESSION 13What is Reportable and What is NotIndustry is required to submit mandatory food safety reports to the FDAReportable Food Registry (RFR). Since 2009, when the RFR was launched industry hasbeen required to comply anytime there is reasonable probability that an article of foodwill cause serious adverse health consequences. Many industry stakeholders have nottaken advantage of the 2010 FDA RFR annual report which provides excellent insighton products presenting food safety risk. FDA is directed to work with their regulatorypartners and industry to investigate and address these reports. Significant guidancehas been provided by the FDA related to the interpretation and specific situations thatqualify a reportable food. Industry should take heed to the Food Safety ModernizationAct which directs FDA to enhance the RFR to provide consumer oriented information oneach report, as needed, and to require the grocery stores who sold the reported food toprominently display the information in a conspicuous location.SESSION OBJECTIVES■ This session will provide the latest insight into how FDA is proceeding with theimplementation, modifications, and public health benefit of the RFR.■ Industry representatives will provide their perspective on the impact of the RFRon business and improving food safety.SPEAKERSCraig Henry, Ph.D.ERS Director, Deloitte & Touche LLPFaye FeldsteinSenior Advisor, Deloitte Consulting,previously Office Director, EmergencyResponse for the FDA.Ted ElkinDirector, Office of Food Defense,Communication and EmergencyResponse, CFSAN/FDAClay DetlefsenVice President & Counsel, InternationalDairy Foods AssociationJohn W. BodePrincipal, John Bode LLCSESSION 15non-O157 STEC: The Prevalence of and the Strategies andObjectives of the Industrynon-O157 STEC’s are emerging as a potential threat to consumers and regulatoryagencies are taking a hard look to ensure public health. Learn from regulatory agencieshow they are viewing non-0157 STECs in the face of the FSMA, escalating outbreaks andpressure from legislators. Learn from industry their approach to non-0157 STEC’s andthe changing regulation that will shape the future.SESSION OBJECTIVES■ Provide attendees with an overview of the organisms called non-O157 STECS■ Provide an update from the USDA on how the new regulation on non-O157 STECSwill be enforced■ Provide attendees with some strategies for managing new regs and the organismsSESSION 15Transportation/Distribution – Food Safety Forensics What CanHappen During TransportationSection 111 of the Food Safety Modernization Act addresses the sanitary transportationof food. In order to prepare for this new regulation, industry must understand the impactof temperature control during the shipment of perishable products on the safety of theproducts. An overview of key, but often overlooked factors in refrigerated transportation,insights on how to use cold chain data effectively and results from recent studies conductedon shipments of temperature sensitive food products will help attendees understandthe variables they need to consider when evaluating temperature control during transit.SESSION OBJECTIVES■ Ensure your company is ready when the FSMA regulations are enacted■ Speakers will explain the importance of monitoring temperatures during transitand understand how to maintain appropriate temperature controlSPEAKERSWill DanielsSr. Vice President, Operations andOrganic Integrity, Earthbound FarmEmilio Esteban, DVM, MBA,MPVM, Ph.D.Scientific Advisor for LaboratoryServices, USDA/FSIS/OPHSRajal Mody, M.D. MPH, LCDRUS Public Health Service, Epidemiologist,Enteric Diseases Epidemiology Branch,DFWED/NCEZID/CDCMansour Samadpour, Ph.D.Principal, IEH LaboratoriesSPEAKERSSusan LinnDirector Quality Assurance,Sysco CorporationRyan FriedmanFood Project Team Manager,Sensitech, Inc – Professional ServicesErik LiebermanRegulatory Counsel, Food MarketingInstitute12:45 PMGRAB & GO LUNCH2012 Food Safety Leadership AwardsGrab a boxed lunch and enjoy it in our Keynote Theatre or take it with you to the airport, it’s travel friendly!Wednesday, April 18 • 10:05a.m.–11:00a.m.www.foodsafetysummit.com

EXHIBITION HALLWhere Solutions Are FoundAntimicrobialAuditingBacteriological TestingBird ControlCleaning SuppliesComputer SoftwareContract LaboratoriesConveyor Belting & Food Processing Equip.Data Collection & ReportingE.Coli TestingEnvironmental MonitoringFiltration And Filtration EquipmentFood Allergen TestsFood ForensicsFood Rotation Systems & LabelsHACCP ConsultingHygiene MonitoringIdentification ProductsInformation Management SystemsIrradiationLaboratory Accreditation & ValidationLaboratory Information Mgmt SystemsLaboratory Instruments & SuppliesLiquid Filtration & Straining EquipmentListeria TestingLubricants, Food GradeMaintenance SoftwareMetal Detectors/X-Ray Inspection Equip.Pasteurization SystemsPathogen Control & DetectionPest ControlPlant AutomationPlant Ventilation & SecurityProduct Inspection EquipmentProduct RetrievalQuality Control Software (Spc)Rapid Microbiological TestingRegulatory SupportSalmonella TestingSanitation Supplies & ServicesShelf Life ExtensionSpecialized IngredientsSwabs & SamplingTemperature MeasurementTraceback SystemsTracking Services/SoftwareTransportation SecurityUltraviolet Units…And More!EXHIBITION HALL HIGHLIGHTSOpening Night Reception • 5:00pm-8:00pmNetwork and conduct business on the Exhibition Hall Floor at the OpeningNight Reception. The Hall will be open for business while you enjoy food,drink, entertainment and more!Luncheon • 12:00pm – 1:00pmConnect with new contacts and strengthen old relationships while youenjoy lunch on the Exhibition Hall Floor.Breakfast • 7.30am – 8.30amStart the day off right with breakfast served in this casualand relaxed setting on the Show Floor.Food Factor CompetitionThe First Lego League is a program for middle schoolaged children to solve real world problems using science and technology.This year’s challenge is “Food Factor”, designed to highlight differentaspects of food handling and processing. Stop by the First Lego Leaguecompetition area in Aisle 600 to join in celebrating these team’sachievements and learn from their discoveries.Passport to Food SafetyTAKE THE TOUR…AND REGISTER TO WIN!As you Tour the Exhibition Hall stop by participating exhibitor boothsto collect a passport stamp and qualify for our prize drawing.Expanded Exhibition Hall Hours!Opening Night ReceptionOn The Exhibition Hall Floor!SPONSORED BYSPONSORED BYSPONSORED BY®2012 Food Safety Summit

HOTEL INFORMATIONBook Your Hotel Now!The Food Safety Summit has secureddiscounted room rates at the followinghotels, conveniently located near theWashington DC Convention Center:Embassy Suites DCFrom $286900 10th Street, NWDistance: 1.5 blocksHenley Park HotelFrom: $259926 Massachusetts Ave., NWDistance: 1 blockFour Points by SheratonFrom: $2351201 K Street, NWDistance: 4 blocksWashington Plaza HotelFrom: $25910 Thomas Circle, NWDistance: 5 blocksHamilton Crown PlazaFrom: $2691001 14th Street, NWDistance: 5 blocksREGISTRATIONREGISTER TODAY!www.foodsafetysummit.comPRE-CONFERENCE TRAINING & CERTIFICATION COURSESThese training courses are not included in any other conference packages.You may purchase these individually or in addition to any full conference package.ServSafe® Training and Certification $275Industry-Foodborne Illness Investigation Training (I-FIIT) $350HACCP Training & Certification $795Includes: Opening Night Reception, sessions, exhibition hall, networking, mealsFULL CONFERENCE PACKAGESIncludes: Keynote, Sessions, Workshops (depending on package type),Exhibition Hall access, Networking and meal functions.NON-PROFITFOR-PROFITBefore After Before AfterMarch 2 March 2 March 2 March 23-Day Package $750 $825 $875 $975Tuesday –Thursday2-Day Package $550 $625 $775 $850Tuesday/Wednesday or Wednesday/ThursdayEARLY-BIRDPRICING ENDSMARCH 21-Day Package $350 $425 $575 $650Doubletree HotelFrom: $2391515 Rhode Island Ave.Distance: 8 blocksTo book your hotel and for complete traveland housing information, please visit:www.foodsafetysummit.comor call 800-221-3531.EXHIBITION HALL ONLYAccess only to Exhbition Hall during scheduled hours.Excludes lunch served on Exhibition Hall.Before March 2 After March 2Retailers, Academia, Government/Military, FREE $150Trade Associations and Foodservicepersonnel/companiesAll other Industry suppliers and those $250 $250allied to the tradeHOW TO REGISTERVisit www.foodsafetysummit.comRegister Onlinewith credit card paymentDownload the Registration Formand mail or fax with form of paymentBuy 2 Get 50% off all Additional RegistrationsTo qualify for the group rate:• All registrations must be made together with the same method of payment(to do this, have 1 person register the entire group together)• All registrations must be for the same package-type *Excludes Add-on Workshops• 50% off discount applies starting with the third attendee• Does not apply to Pre-Conference Training & Certification CoursesHave Questions?Please contact: Tracy Kraft, 847-405-4124 or kraftt@bnpmedia.comwww.foodsafetysummit.com

155 N. Pfingsten Rd., Suite 205Deerfield, IL 60015Solutions for Today,Planning for Tomorrow®April 17-19, 2012Washington, DCwww.foodsafetysummit.comEARLY-BIRDPRICING ENDSMARCH 2OWNED AND PRODUCED BY

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

FOOD SAFETY INSIDERNovel Developments inATP BioluminescenceSeveral industrial applications of ATP bioluminescence have been developedsince the 1970s. These have largely been non-specific applicationsused primarily for the direct objective assessment of cleaningverification and as a gross monitor of microbial biomass. Over the past 5years, significant developments have been made, leading to the first specifictest for the detection of low numbers of pathogenic and indicator organismsin 7 hours.The most widely used application of ATP bioluminescence is for surfacehygiene monitoring. This test is very rapid, giving results in seconds andproviding a direct objective test for cleaning verification. However, becausethis type of test looks for ATP, a universal energymolecule that is abundant in most organic materials,the test cannot differentiate between ATP from differentsources. Recently, Hygiena has developed anovel reagent technology to make an ATP test that isboth specific and sensitive to microorganisms, whilereducing the total test time to 7 hours or less. Thenew test platform is called MicroSnap.New Bioluminogenic AssayMicroSnap uses a novel reagent formulation where some of the essentialcofactors of the standard luciferase reaction are immobilized onto aIncubationLowesttimeinoculum(37 °C/hours) detectedTable 1: Detection Limit of MicroSnapwww.hygiena.net1 500,0002 100,0003 10,0004 1,0005 1006 107 1-5specific substrate that can only be released inthe presence of specific enzymes. Light generationwill only occur if the substrate is utilized.The enzyme activity and copy numbersare greater than microbial numbers, thus providingan early amplified signal such that oneorganism can be detected in 7 hours or less(Table 1).The test is dependent only on the specificenzyme-substrate reaction so there is little interferencefrom the sample, which has historicallylimited the applications of ATPbioluminescence for the detection of microorganisms. This allows for awide range of products to be tested.A Quick and Easy-to-Use TestThe MicroSnap system consists of two easy-to-use components:• Sample collection and an enrichment device• MicroSnap end detection deviceThe first two MicroSnap tests that have been launched and are expected tohave AOAC-RI approval in the second quarter of this year are for coliformsand E. coli. Tests for Listeria monocytogenes and total viable count are expectedto be launched by the end of 2012.The sample collection and enrichment device is fitted with a swab fortesting. Alternatively, a liquid sample (1 ml) can be added directly to theswab tube. The liquid can be a suspension of solid sample prepared in thesame way and with the same materials as traditional microbiological methods.After adding or collecting the sample, the device is activated by breakingthe patented Snap-Valve and squeezing the bulb to mix the samplewith the enrichment broth. The whole deviceis then incubated for up to 7 hours at37 °C. At the desired time points, analiquot (0.1 ml) of enrichment culture istransferred to the device. The device is activatedby breaking the valve and is incubatedfor 10 minutes at 37 °C; and thenplaced in the Hygiena hand-held luminometer.Results are generated in 15 secondsand are displayed in relative lightunits (RLUs). Pass/fail levels can be set for"go" or "no go" decisions or enumerationcan be done.The MicroSnap has been independentlyverified by a leading food safety andquality laboratory and shown to have asensitivity of 89 percent and a specificity of99 percent, which is better than alternativeculture method (Table 2).Testing methods for E. coli detectionDry media Dry media MicroSnapformat 1 format 2 E. coliSensitivity (%) 40 33 89Specificity (%) 91 79 100Table 2: Specificity and Sensitivity of MicroSnapFor low numbers of organisms (1-5),the detection time was confirmed as 7hours (Table 1) in both pure culture andinoculated foodstuffs, even where the targetorganism was outnumbered morethan 10,000:1 by competing natural microflora.The traditional method detected95 percent of samples, whereas MicroSnapdetected 99 percent of samples. Thespecification for many industrial applicationsfor coliforms and E .coli is lessthan10 per gram, which is effectively apresence/absence test for a 1 in 10 dilutionof a solid sample (

FOOD SAFETY INSIDERPublic Enemy #1: Biofilmwww.spartanchemical.comSanitation efforts will/can be very challenging as the “quiet assassin”biofilm forms in the environment of the food processing facility. Althoughat times the sanitation team feels like they have a “thanklessjob,” they are a key component of biofilm prevention.Biofilm is composed of a complex aggregation of microorganisms thatgrows on a solid substrate.Biofilms affectmany parts of everydaylife. People experiencebiofilm on a regularbasis: plaque that formson your teeth, causingtooth decay, the “gunk”that clogs drains or if you walk in a stream or river, you may slip onbiofilm-coated rocks.Sanitation ControlsAs for sanitation, biofilm can be a challenge to hinder the productionof the quality/wholesome products you plan to deliver to the consumer.Biofilms form when a bacterium adheres to surfaces in an aqueousenvironment. They begin to excrete a slimy, glue-like substance (polysaccharides)that anchor them onto surfaces. Biofilms may be present onfloors, walls, pipes and drains and surfaces on equipment, including materialssuch as stainless steel, aluminum, nylon, Teflon, etc. Food contactsurfaces such as conveyor belts, gaskets, dead spaces, as well as areasthat are hard to clean may harbor biofilms. Biofilm-forming bacteria includeListeria, Salmonella, Campylobacter, Escherichia coli andPseudomonas, which may occur as mixed cultures, but often, one specieswill dominate.Prevention of biofilms may be accomplished by avoiding conditions thatlead to cell attachment and selecting conditions that make the environmentunfavorable for microbial growth. However, as we typically know insanitation, this is often not possible. Proper cleaning and sanitation workbest for biofilm prevention. These processes lead up to making sure yoursanitarians are properly trained to “fight back” the bacterial culprits.Let’s use Listeria as our example. Does your sanitation crew know thatthe size of Listeria, measured in microns, is so small compared to moldor mildew that it is like finding “a needle in a haystack?” Do they knowthat bugs multiply every 20 minutes—one bug at noon will multiply toover 2 million by 7 pm? Do they know that bacteria like to “hitchhike”around the building? Or have they heard the story of FAT TOM—Food, Acid(bugs grow at a pH range of 4.1–9.6), Time, Temperature, Oxygen, Moisture—theseare what bacteria need for growth. Thus, the better they thinklike a “bug,” the more aware and prepared they will be to efficiently dotheir job. In addition, do they know that Listeria has the capability to“layer up” (view this as a “building block” process, one on top of theother), which implies that sanitation crews must be very disciplined withtheir scrubbing processes.Controlling biofilm formation will take a dedicated team effort toavoid cell attachment and the “slimy, gooey like substance” that adds tothe challenges with sanitation. The traditionalway to assist with biofilm control isthe following:• Use a proper cleaner, such as a highalkaline and/or high alkaline, chlorinatedcleaner• Allow the product to have sufficientcontact time on the surface (5–10minutes)• Agitate using mechanical/physical action• Rinse using the proper rinse watertemperature• Select the proper sanitizerQuaternary ammonium (quat) sanitizersare most popular, but depending onthe product you produce and other concernsyou may have, peracetic acidand/or chlorine dioxide can be acceptablealternatives. Today’s technology continuesto change in order to adequatelyaddress biofilm removal. There are companiesthat supply alternative options: atwo-part system that has a quat propertyas one part and hydrogen peroxide asthe other has been proven to be successful.Chlorine dioxide is another viable alternativeoption. Some of these productsare specifically targeted to drains, as theyare often the most difficult to clean.ConclusionsIn closing, the solution to biofilm controlwill be “your choice.” As you haveread, there are very good options available,but it all comes back to the basics:understand biofilm and the areas inwhich it is prone to grow. Teach and trainyour employees so that they are moreaware of what they are looking for andwhy their responsibilities are so importantto the process. Importantly, selectthe right cleaner/sanitizer program thatfits your needs and expectations. In additionto using a traditional/fundamental“cleaner,” there is no substitute for thescrubbing action needed to disrupt thebiofilm. However, today’s new technologycertainly challenges that thought processand can provide alternativeproducts/processes.As we have all come to learn, thereare no shortcuts to administering an effectivesanitation program. It is all aboutmaking “the right choice” in taking ownershipof your program. We are confidentthat with your knowledge and the resourcesavailable to you, the “rightchoice” becomes easier.30 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Chris CelustaFood Processing ManagerSpartan Chemical Company, Inc.www.spartanchemical.comWho can streamline your sanitation chemicals?… Customize and simplify your training procedures?… And reduce your overall production costs?If you’re in the food industry, you want to get to knowChris Celusta, the Manager of Spartan’s Food Processing Division.Why call Chris? He has many, many years of practical, hands-onexperience working with Food Safety and Quality Professionalslike you – in Commercial, Institutional, Industrial and Governmentsectors throughout the U.S. Chris understands what you need tomake your job easier!SPARTAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.1110 Spartan Drive Maumee, OH 43537Toll-free 1 (800) 537-8990 www.spartanchemical.com© SCC 12/11

FOOD SAFETY INSIDERIntegrated Plant ApproachProvides SustainableImprovementswww.ecolab.comToday’s food and beverage processors face increasing operationalchallenges. Conserving water and energy and improving efficiencywhile protecting food safety and quality are major priorities formany processors.To succeed, you need totake a proactive approachand scrutinize your entireplant operations. A partnerthat understands your operationand can tailor solutionsto take advantage ofhidden opportunities betweeninterconnected systemsis the key to achievingmeasurable results thattranslate to a significant,sustainable business value.Do not underestimatethe impact of taking a comprehensive,systematic approachto improving plantoperations. One global foodand beverage processor ison track to save an estimated29 million gallons ofwater annually—the equivalentof 3.8 billion glasses of drinking water—as a result of its partnershipwith Ecolab and Nalco, an Ecolab company. Nalco (the world’s largestsustainability services company focused on industrial water, energy andair applications) recently merged with Ecolab (a global leader in cleaning,sanitizing, food safety and infection prevention products and services) tocreate a global company that leads the way in water, hygiene and energysolutions.Measurable Results in Sanitation ProgramTo optimize clean-in-place (CIP) system water usage, Advantis ® 330, ahot CIP program for beverage processing, helped reduce CIP water usageby 45 percent while reducing CIP labor cost by 48 percent. The innovative,three-step system eliminates two water-intensive CIP steps to reducethe amount of water and energy needed for cleaning and rinsing.The processor also used several other Ecolab sanitation solutions toachieve measurable improvements, including Surpass ® 100, an EPA-registeredproduct that provides bacteria and fungi control in bottle and canwarmers so warmer water does not have to be dumped daily. The antimicrobialadditive provides water, time and utility savings while reducingmicroorganism risk. The DryExx ® Conveyor Management System saved 3million gallons of water annually for a five-line plant location; it also eliminatedexcess water and foam on plantfloors, thereby creating a safer workplace.Exelerate ® HS liquid pretreatment reducedcleaning time and saved water infryer boil-out cleaning while helping protectworkers through lower operatingtemperatures.Cooling Water ManagementAs is common in beverage plants, themanufacturer uses two evaporative condensersfor cooling and HVAC. By implementingthe innovative 3D TRASAR ®cooling water automation, Nalco enabledthe systems to operate at a lower blowdownrate, thereby conserving 24 milliongallons of water per year.Water Treatment ProcessesThe manufacturer’s water pretreatmentsystem was plagued by a numberof issues, including oxidized membranes,poor reverse osmosis (RO), excessivewater consumption and high operatingcosts. 3D TRASAR ® Technology for Membranesprovided superior dosing control,which reduced chemical use and decreasedRO reject water by 27 percent.The company saved 2 million gallons peryear while reducing its energy consumption(by significantly lowering operatingpump pressure).After Nalco conducted an extensiveaudit of the wastewater treatmentprocesses, the manufacturer was able toreduce its sludge hauling by 90 percent,saving more than 1,000 million metricBritish thermal units of energy and avoiding100 tons of carbon dioxide emissionsper year. The plant’s initial aeration tankflow was re-engineered and a belt presschemical approach and feed system wastailored to increase production of profitableanimal feed sludge.Proactive PartnershipFor companies looking to achievemeasurable results and optimize operations,it pays to take a proactive approachand examine all plant processes. Byworking with the combined Ecolab-Nalcoteam, you can have confidence that everypart of your operation is protected. Ourunique Total Plant Assurance approachhelps ensure you meet your goals in foodsafety and quality, sustainability and operationalefficiency, while providing consistencyacross your operations.32 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Discover a million reasonsTotal Plant Assurance pays.Our integrated approach examines the complex connections betweenyour systems, and then tailors solutions to help you take advantage ofhidden opportunities across your entire operation. Learn how Ecolabservice, solutions and expertise can help you gain a competitive advantage.Ecolab. Everywhere It Matters.Call 1 800 392 3392 or your Ecolab representative to learnwhat happens when expert solutions meet your business needs.©2012 Ecolab USA Inc. All rights reserved.

FOOD SAFETY INSIDERMonitor Sanitation and HACCPPrograms with theLIGHTNING MVP ®www.biocontrolsys.comWhile food safety is the obvious goal of every food safety program,protecting your company’s assets is another essential requirement.The strength of your brand relies on your company’sability to produce a quality product—and you are on the front line.Food safety professionals have aunique approach to their HazardAnalysis and Critical Control Points(HACCP) program; however, one thingis constant: If you don’t start with aclean plant, eventually, your foodsafety program will fail. To establish agood basis for quality food processing,a complete sanitation program—consistingof both cleaning and monitoring—mustbe established andregularly reviewed to ensure itsongoing effectiveness.How to CleanA primary tool in the effectivecleaning of a food plant is the correctconcentration of cleaners and sanitizers.While titration kits and chemicalstrips provide indications of chemicalconcentration, neither is ideal. Titration kits are very dependent upon theuser’s training and can be time-consuming to use. Conversely, chemicalstrips are easy to use and provide quick results, but are also relatively inaccurateand have intrinsic variability of 25 to 33 percent. Additionally,neither provides a strong audit trail requiring users to manually recordtime and concentration data.The LIGHTNING MVP from BioControl Systems, Inc. offers a more advancedmethod for determining chemical concentrations, combining theaccuracy of titration kits with the ease of use of chemical strips. Bestknown for its accuracy in ATP detection, it also offers a reusable probethat accurately measures and automatically records the concentration ofcleaners and sanitizers. This unique method, based on the principle ofconductivity, is a fast and reliable way to measure chemical concentrationsto ensure your cleaners and sanitizers are always mixed correctly.Users can enter the target concentrations of their chemical solutions intothe MVP software, which will provide a clear pass or fail determinationwhen these solutions are tested throughout the manufacturing process.Finally, the concentration values are saved with a time-and-date stamp inthe system’s software and can easily be downloaded into reports, ensuringa strong audit trail.Did It Work?Once cleaning has been completed,monitoring to ensure it was accomplishedproperly is the next step sinceeveryone knows that, “What gets monitoredgets done.” Changes in cleaningstaff, raw materials, chemicals, seasonalityand many more variables impose challengeson any sanitation program andtimely and reliable feedback on its effectivenessis vital.ATP monitoring using the LIGHTNINGMVP provides that immediate feedback,allowing timely intervention if the dailycleaning was ineffective. The systemmeasures the amount of ATP in organicresidue on equipment and other surfacesafter cleaning. The higher the readings, thegreater the amount of organic residue onthe surfaces that can lead to growth of microorganisms.By monitoring in this fashion,requirements of vendors, governmentauditors and your HACCP plan are met,protecting your company’s brand.Reporting and periodic review of asanitation program is one of the mostoverlooked yet vital aspects of any monitoringsystem. While monitoring allowson the spot decisions without looking attrends, a large part of the value of anymonitoring system is lost. Trend reportingprovides insight into effectiveness ofchemicals, impact of wear and tear onequipment and trouble spots that requirea closer look.If monitoring multiple plants, BioControl’ssystem provides a unique service.Results from multiple plants can be submittedto the company where databaseexperts compile a confidential report,compare plants and provide benchmarksagainst others in the food processing industry.Without requiring busy quality assurancedepartments to do complexcomputer work, multi-plant sanitationprograms can be both compared andcontrasted, allowing for optimization ofthe program and a safe, high-qualityproduct.When it comes to protecting yourcompany’s assets, the effective implementationand monitoring of a HACCPplan is critical. Behind every successfulHACCP program are effective tracking andmonitoring systems that ensure qualitycontrol criteria are consistently beingmet. Tools, like the LIGHTNING MVP provideaccurate and convenient monitoringand assurance that your company’s brandis protected.34 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

control yourWOrLdwith 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, chemicalconcentration, 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 andrecordkeeping to ensure GMP and HACCP compliance.Find out how the LIGHTNING MVP can streamline your testing program,saving you money.•ATP•Concentration•pH•Conductivity•TemperatureVisit us at www.biocontrolsys.com or contact us at 1.800.245.0113.PATHOGEN TESTING • HYGIENE AND HACCP MONITORING • QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING

By Susan Vaughn Grooters, M.P.H.Antibiotics 1 are drugs capable of killing bacteriaor disrupting their reproduction without harmingtheir host, and have been used for morethan 70 years to treat people with infections and formore than 50 years in veterinary medicine. They haveundoubtedly saved millions of lives, but the establishmentof antibiotic-resistant bacteria is jeopardizingtheir effectiveness. Misuse, overuse and injudicioususe of this important class of drugs are being debatedby academics, veterinarians, regulators and consumersalike. What all parties can agree upon is thatantibiotic resistance is a complicated issue that needsurgent attention and continuing dialogue, as the policiesof food production begin to shift to protect theseessential drugs from losing their effectiveness.The need to promote the judicious use of antibioticsin human medicine has long been underway.Many patients are now aware or are being advised bytheir physicians that antibiotics will not treat viruses,and much public information 2 has been made readilyavailable to thwart the overprescribing of antibiotics.Similar discussions are happening in the veterinary36 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

community, which is heralding more veterinary oversightin the treatment of food animals.Antibiotic resistance emerges through evolutionarypressure. Genetic mutations are expected as bacteriaconstantly evolve to inhabit their surroundingenvironments. Reservoirs for many foodborne bacteriaare often the gastrointestinal systems of animals.How and what we treat animals with, be it for growthpromotion, disease treatment, disease prevention ordisease control, can help tip the selection pressuresand render chosen antibiotics useless in animal and,ultimately, human medicine.The emergence of antibiotic-resistant foodbornepathogens is inherently linked to how antibiotics havebeen used in food animal production. Every time anantibiotic is used, its efficacy diminishes. Once bacteriadevelop resistance to a given antibiotic, they oftenlack susceptibility to other antibiotics that share asimilar mode of action or coexist on the same bacterialplasmid. Creating policies, both in human medicineand animal husbandry, which will minimize the overuseand misuse of antibiotics is essential.F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 37

Antibiotics are given to food animals for many reasons, such as for infectious diseasetreatment and control, and for disease prevention before a herd- or flock-wideoutbreak of disease occurs. During the 1950s, antimicrobial use for growth promotionwas widely advocated. The practice enhanced the feed-to-weight ratio for poultry,swine and beef cattle. This buoyed the economic incentive for using subtherapeuticquantities of the antibiotics tetracycline and penicillin in dosages from a tenth to ahundredth of a therapeutic dose, and the use of antibiotics in food animal productionfor feed efficiency took root.A Tale of Two AntibioticsIn August 1977, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) examined new evidenceshowing that subtherapeutic use is not safe for humans, and FDA proposed towithdraw approval for all use of penicillin in animal feed. That same year in October,evidence surfaced that subtherapeutic use“The emergence ofantibiotic-resistantfoodborne pathogens isinherently linked to howantibiotics have beenused in food animalproduction.”of tetracycline in animal feed is not safefor humans, and FDA proposed to withdrawits approval as well.Much of this thinking may have beensparked by a study published in the NewEngland Journal of Medicine by Levy et al. in1976: “Changes in the intestinal flora offarm personnel after introduction of atetracycline-supplemented food on afarm.” 3 This study tested isolates fromchickens and people on a farm and foundlow initial levels of tetracycline-resistant intestinalbacteria. As expected under thepremise of selective pressure, within 2weeks after the chickens were fed tetracycline-supplementedfeed, 90 percent of thechickens were excreting tetracycline-resistantbacteria. Yet the problem wasn’t isolated to tetracycline; many of the bacteria developedresistance to four antibiotics despite their exposure to tetracycline only.Within 6 months of the administration of tetracycline-spiked feed to chickens, a majorityof the people from the farm were excreting antibiotic-resistant bacteria as well.Significantly, when these same persons were tested 6 months after the tetracycline-supplementedfeed was discontinued, no detectable tetracycline-resistant organisms werefound in the majority of the farm participants. This study showed that the resistantbacteria contained transferable plasmids that conferred multiple antibiotic resistances,not just resistance to tetracycline. The evolutionary pressure imposed by the tetracycline-supplementedfeed for multiple drug resistance in chickens extended to humansin contact with the chickens and the feed, but luckily not in statistically significantamounts to their neighbors. (Comparatively, 7 of 11 farm residents compared withonly 3 of 24 neighbors, p < 0.01, during the 5- to 6-month feeding period showedfecal samples with greater than 80% tetracycline-resistant coliforms.)The 1977 Bureau of Veterinary Medicine (today’s equivalent of the Center for VeterinaryMedicine—CVM—of FDA) concluded that growth-promotion uses of penicillinand tetracycline (two human medicines) in animal agriculture cause theemergence of resistant strains of bacteria, which can move from agriculture onto thedinner plates of the American public through contaminated food, and thus threatenthe health of the general population. For those reasons, they sought, through two Noticesof Opportunity for a Hearing (NOOH) published in the Federal Register, to revokeapprovals for penicillin and tetracycline. 4 This serves to underline the fact thatFDA has consistently believed, for several decades now, that there are human healthrisks in using subtherapeutic doses of medically important antibiotics in animalagriculture.Let’s now jump to December 22,2011, when FDA withdrew the two 1977NOOHs to reverse its approval to administerpenicillin and tetracycline infeed. 5 Instead, FDA stated that they areclosing the dockets because they are engagingin other ongoing regulatorystrategies developed since the publicationof the 1977 NOOHs to address microbialfood safety issues.Although not explicitly stated, thisleads one to the conclusion that FDA isturning to the food animal agriculturalindustry to enforce judicious use itself,and asking that forthcoming voluntaryguidance 209 and its companion document213 be followed.The FDA states in its recent decisionthat it “intends to focus its efforts fornow on the potential for voluntary reformand the promotion of the judicioususe of antimicrobials in the interest ofpublic health. Importantly, this strategyleaves open the possibility of pursuingwithdrawal proceedings at a later time ifFDA’s proposed strategy does not yieldsatisfactory results.” 5Reading Tea LeavesSo what does the future look like?Based on the timeline provided (see “ATimeline of Antibiotic Regulation,” p.40), anything is possible. What can be ascertainedis that using medically importantantimicrobial drugs to increaseproduction in food animals is not consideredby FDA to be judicious use.Guidance 209 has not been formally issued.However, according to 209, theDraft Guidance “The Judicious Use ofMedically Important AntimicrobialDrugs in Food-Producing Animals” givesvast insight into what can be expected.FDA defines judicious use as “using an antimicrobialdrug only when necessaryand appropriate.” The effects of medicallyimportant antibiotics used asgrowth promoters in food animals andtheir effects on increasing antibiotic resistanceare clear, and FDA makes somestrong statements in the guidance draftto tackle this practice.“Antimicrobial drugs that are importantfor treating infectious diseases inpeople, particularly infections caused bybacteria” are considered the working def-38 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

For the first time, a vaccine can help reduce the prevalence and shedding of Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157much earlier in the chain — in the cattle — creating a way for cattle producers and veterinarians to team upwith packers, retailers and consumers. Escherichia Coli Bacterial Extract vaccine* with SRP ® technology, used atthe feedlot, has been shown to reduce the number of cattle entering the plant with E. coli O157 by 85 percent. 1Less E. coli O157 entering the plant enhances your efforts to help eliminate foodborne pathogens. To learnmore, visit www.SRPEcoli.com.Together, we can reduce E.coli O157.*This product license is conditional. Efficacy and potency test studies are in progress.1Thomson DU, Loneragan GH, Thornton AB, Lechtenberg KF, Emery DA, Burkhardt DT, Nagaraja TG. Use of a siderophore receptor and porin proteins-based vaccineto control the burden of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2009;6:871-877.All brands are the property of their respective owners. ©2011 Pfizer Inc. All rights reserved. SRP11028

inition in the draft of medically important antimicrobial drugs. An excerpt from the“Questions and Answers on FDA’s Draft Guidance on the Judicious Use of MedicallyImportant Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals” clears up any misconceptionsof FDA’s position on growth promotion:“Is using medically important antimicrobial drugs to increase production in foodproducinganimals a judicious use?No. FDA thinks that using medically important antimicrobial drugs to increase productionin food-producing animals is not a judicious use.”It is therefore reasonable to infer that the FDA is looking to industry to rein in theuse of medically important antibiotics for growth promotion/feed efficiency purposes.To evaluate antimicrobial resistance associated with antimicrobial drugs used in foodproducinganimals, FDA relies on the current approach outlined in the Guidance forIndustry (GFI) 152, “Evaluating the Safety of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs withRegard to Their Microbiological Effect on Bacteria of Human Health Concern.” GFI152 recommends several measures to reduce the risk of antibiotic resistance.Risk Analysis—Lack of ResourcesGuidance 152 lays out a risk analysis methodology and the recommended processfor evaluating antimicrobial drugs for use in food animals as they have the potential tocause antibiotic-resistant illnesses in humans. Considered in the risk-ranking schemesare food consumption and food contamination data, as well as the duration of druguse and its intended administration, be it on individual, select or entire flocks or herdsof animals. Out of scope of the guidance are the concerns over residues in food of animalorigin. 6 Instead, it focuses on the potential that antimicrobials used in food animalscontribute to the emergence of antibiotic strains of foodborne bacteria. “TheFDA believes that human exposure through the ingestion of antimicrobial-resistantbacteria from animal-derived foods represents the most significant pathway for humanexposure to bacteria that have emergedor been selected as a consequence of antimicrobialdrug use in animals.” 7Perhaps the most important componentof GFI 152 is found in the Appendix,where antimicrobial drugs areranked Critically Important, Highly Importantor Important, according to theirsignificance in human medicine. 7 Antimicrobialdrugs that are approved foruse in animals are marketed as prescriptions(Rx), over the counter or under veterinaryfeed directive. FDA asserts thatfor certain antimicrobial drugs, veterinarysupervision is essential in ensuringjudicious, and safe, use.The guidance describes some examplesof risk management steps, and howsteps might be applied to manage estimatedrisk levels. Three categories (1, 2and 3) are given to associate the overalldrug risk estimation (high, medium orlow). In general, Category 1 includesthose drugs ranked “high” in the risk estimation,Category 2 includes thoseranked “medium” and Category 3 as“low.”Researched & designed by Stanley E. Rutledge fromSTOP based on information compiled by KAW.A Timeline of Antibiotic Regulation40 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

What GFI 152 has done is pave theway for recent and future FDA actions.As illustrated in the guidance, drugs inCategory 1 are subject to the most restrictiveuse conditions as they are associatedwith a high-risk ranking. For drugsthat are to be marketed as Rx only, extralabeluse restrictions would exist, aswell as postapproval monitoring by theNational Antimicrobial Resistance MonitoringSystem (NARMS). GFI 152 alsooutlines that certain Category 2 drugs(medium risk) may be restricted by limitingextralabel use. “Drugs considered tobe of high concern (with regard to potentialhuman health impact) would typicallybe associated with more restricteduse conditions.”Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulationspermits FDA to prohibit the extralabeluse of an approved new animaldrug or class of drugs in food-producinganimals if they determine that “the extralabeluse of the drug or class of drugspresents a risk to the public health.”However, every page of Guidance 152cautions that it “Contains Non-BindingRecommendations” and further statesthat “guidances describe the Agency’scurrent thinking on a topic and shouldbe viewed only as guidance, unless specificregulatory or statutory requirementsare cited. The use of the word ‘should’ inAgency guidances means that somethingis suggested or recommended, but notrequired.” Given such ambiguities, it islittle wonder that advocates for reformshave long been frustrated. FDA has triedfor years to rein back what it deems inappropriateusage. Fluoroquinolones aside,the agency’s initiatives seem to fail togain sufficient support to achieve meaningfulregulations. Lack of funding or resources,or pressures external to theagency, may all be stymieing forces.History in the MakingRecently, a breakthrough and a showof consistent concern came when FDAissued an order prohibiting certain extralabeluses of some cephalosporin antimicrobialdrugs in production of majorspecies of food animals. In GFI 152,third-generation cephalosporins are classifiedas Critically Important, while firstandsecond-generation are classified asImportant along with cephamycins, and all other fourth-generation cephalosporins aredeemed Highly Important. Cephalosporins are among the most significant antibioticsin human medicine. Two populations that are most at risk of foodborne illness arechildren and immune-compromised individuals, and they are also the patients most inneed of an effective antibiotic treatment for salmonellosis with minimal side effects.Indeed, ceftriaxone or cefotaxime, third-generation cephalosporins, are often the treatmentof choice for severely complicated pediatric salmonellosis because unlike otherantibiotics, such as fluoroquinolones and tetracyclines, there are no warnings for usein children. Cephalosporins are part of the broader group of antibiotics known as b-lactams. Other b-lactams include penicillins as well as tetracyclines, and all work to de-AdvancingFood ScienceThroughout theGlobal Food ChainSilliker is dedicated to helpingcompanies worldwide findpractical solutions to food safetyand quality challenges throughoutthe supply chain.Our commitment to helping processors,retailers and distributors find workablesolutions has made us the trustedfood safety and quality resource ofcompanies around the globe.As the leading international network ofaccredited laboratories, we deliver fastand reliable results.Email us today to receive our “FoodSafety Modernization Act: Markinga New Era in U.S. Food Safety”white paper.Silliker, Inc.111 E. Wacker DriveSuite 2300Chicago, IL 60601 / USAemail. info@silliker.comwww.silliker.comemail. info@silliker.comF E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 41

stroy bacteria in a similar fashion. The World Health Organization considers bothpenicillins and tetracyclines to be Critically Important in human medicine, unlike theFDA, which considers them only Highly Important. Another drug class, fluoroquinolones,considered Critically Important by FDA, was successfully banned for extralabeluse in food animals and any use was banned in poultry over concerns ofantibiotic resistance.Antibiotic resistance impacts public health when people consume food contaminatedwith antimicrobial-resistant bacteria resulting from the exposure of food animalsto antimicrobials, including cephalosporins. Gram-negative bacteria acquire or haveinnate resistance to cephalosporin through b-lactamases, which inactivate the drug itself.8 CMY-2, a type of AmpC enzyme, and the extended-spectrum b-lactamases(ESBLs) are found on the chromosomes ofmost Enterobacteriaceae and on plasmids inSalmonella, Escherichia coli and other Enterobacteriaceae.CMY-2 and ESBLs provideresistance to first-, second- and third-generationcephalosporins. CMY-2 is the b-lactamasemost associated with Salmonellafrom isolates that display resistance to ceftiofurand increasing resistance to ceftriaxone.9–11 ESBLs present in bacteria ofhuman concern include CTX-M, which isplasmid-mediated and has the potential toprovide resistance to all cephalosporins.Although now dominant only in Europeancountries, CTX-M enzymes are gaining afoothold in the United States but do notyet predominate. 12, 13 When mobilized,CTX-M enzymes often can be found onlarge multidrug-resistant plasmids. FDA isconcerned that cephalosporin resistancemay escalate as CTX-M becomes more“...FDA has consistentlybelieved, for severaldecades now, that thereare human health risks inusing subtherapeuticdoses of medicallyimportant antibiotics inanimal agriculture.”widespread. Severe bacterial infections resistant to cephalosporins, without FDA’s continuedaction, may face treatment failures from ineffective antibacterial regimens, increasingthe likelihood of death.Of particular concern is the evidence of cross-resistance among drugs in the broadcephalosporin class and the increase in reports of CMY-2 and CTX-M b-lactamases,which transfer cephalosporin resistance between enteric bacteria. 9 The surveillance effortsof both the NARMS as well as the Canadian Integrated Program for AntimicrobialResistance Surveillance have noted both in animal and human isolates theacquired resistance to b-lactams. Resistance to ceftiofur corresponds with resistance toceftriaxone, conferred by CMY-2, and provides resistance to first-, second- and thirdgenerationcephalosporins. Resistance to ceftiofur compromises the efficacy of ceftriaxone,a first-line therapy for treating human salmonellosis. CMY-2, in addition toproviding ceftiofur and ceftriaxone resistance, conveys resistance to many other b-lactams,including ampicillin and amoxicillin. 14 The concern over the pervasiveness andrange of CMY-2 in the ceftiofur and ceftriaxone surveillance data helps provide thebasis for FDA’s action as it supports the findings that cephalosporin use in food animalsis contributing to an upsurge in cephalosporin-resistant pathogens. 15The recent issuance is not an all-out prohibition of cephalosporin use in food animals.Many have complained that it is watered down compared with what was putforth in 2008, while some former critics now indicate that it is more reasonable.Prohibition in the 21st CenturyAs stated in the prohibition issuance, and in many agency documents in regard tothe use of antimicrobial drugs in animals, “When considering the foodborne pathway,the potential for human exposure to antimicrobial-resistantpathogens is significantlyless for food derived from minorspecies than it is for food derived fromthe food-producing major species. Theexposure potential is less in part becausethe amount of food derived from cattle,swine and poultry is much greater thanthe amount of food derived from sheep,goats and aquaculture, the minor speciesfrom which the most food is derived.”Minor species are defined as animalsother than cattle, swine, chickens,turkeys, horses, dogs, cats and humans.At this time, FDA is not planning toprohibit extralabel use of cephalosporinsin food-producing minor species becausethey do not believe that this use representsa significant risk to the publichealth, since these species are consumedless frequently. 16 Also, becausecephalosporins are approved for use insheep and goats, there is less potentialfor extralabel use in these species, accordingto the agency. Although peoplemay consume these animal species lessoften, any practice that selects for resistancegenes is concerning.The ban is slated to officially take effecton April 5, 2012. Under Title 21 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations, parts530.21 and 530.25, the FDA order ofprohibition applies to certain extralabeluses of the cephalosporin class of antibioticsin food animals. This is a result offindings that such uses are likely to causean adverse event. The order of prohibitionstates that excluding cephapirin,cephalosporins are prohibited from extralabeluse in cattle, swine, chickens andturkeys for disease prevention purposes.Cephapirin is one of two cephalosporindrugs approved for use in food animals.Prohibition in the major species of foodanimals prevents using cephalosporins atunapproved doses. The ban prohibitsusing cephalosporins at unapproved frequenciesand durations, and for unapprovedroutes of administration. Alsoprohibited is use of cephalosporins whenthe drug is not approved for a particularspecies and production class. Said anotherway, since ceftiofur is the onlyother cephalosporin drug approved foruse in food animals, extralabel use ofceftiofur is permitted in food-producing42 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

major species to treat or control an extralabeldisease indication, but onlywhen it is approved for and labeled foruse in that particular species and productionclass. Prophylactic use of ceftiofur istherefore not permitted in major speciesof food animals. Additionally, ceftiofuris to be administered only at dose levels,frequencies, durations and routes of administrationthat are clearly stated on approvedlabeling for that particularspecies and production class. Othercephalosporin drugs, apart from ceftiofurand cephapirin, are prohibited for alluses in the major species of food animals.It is hoped that the ban will have apositive public health impact and helpend the use of cephalosporins that areproven to cause resistant infections inpeople.In the Midst of OutbreaksThe warnings and calls for actionhave been coming for years. From theSwann Report issued in 1969 to themore recent media coverage and public meetings, food safety concerns over antibioticresistance are increasing. We are beyond the hypothetical “if” people contract antibiotic-resistantfoodborne infections. As recent outbreaks prove, we are in a crisis.Outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant infections occurring from food products in 2011brought the concern again to the forefront of consumers’, and food companies’,awareness as regulators modified their recall notices to alert the public to the dangersof antibiotic resistance in meat and poultry products.Notable recalls of 2011 include the following:• December’s “Northeastern Grocery Chain Recalls Ground Beef Products Due toPossible Salmonella Contamination,” in which we learn that the outbreak strain ofSalmonella Typhimurium initially tested resistant to multiple commonly prescribedantibiotics, including drug classes such as b-lactams, aminoglycosides andcephalosporins. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and InspectionService (FSIS) along with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC) also noted that the strain’s resistance can “increase the risk of hospitalizationor possible treatment failure in infected individuals.” 17• September’s “Arkansas Firm Recalls Ground Turkey Products Due to Possible SalmonellaContamination,” which noted in an update on the 27th that the sample ofground turkey referenced in the September 11 recall was confirmed as the SalmonellaHeidelberg outbreak strain (XbaI PFGE pattern 58/BlnI pattern 76) and FSIShad lab results that indicated the isolate is resistant to ampicillin, gentamicin, streptomycinand tetracycline. FSIS noted that “this antibiotic resistance may be associatedwith an increased risk of hospitalization or possible treatment failure ininfected individuals.” 18• The August 3 recall “Arkansas Firm Recalls Ground Turkey Products Due to PossibleSalmonella Contamination,” which stated that 36 million pounds of groundEngineeredMetal DetectionYou have a lot on your mind when it comesto plant floor safety. A compromised qualitycontrol program can cause costly downtime andjeopardize worker safety - adding up to big fines. Detectable: compound is molded into plastic fordetection by metal and X-ray inspection machinesDurable: substrate-imbedded solid injection moldedgraphics last longer than standard materialsProven: 4,000 hrs. of exhaustive field testing; QUVaccelerated weathering and liquid penetrant inspectionCustomized: flexible graphic capabilities optimizevisual management and compliance programsCompliant: engineered to comply with your foodsafety programsFind out why leading food processors are switchingto Lomont’s new signage options. Contact Carl,carlf@lomont.com or call 800.776.0380, ext. 1589.LomontI M TIN-MOLD TECHNOLOGIESA PRODUCT OF LOMONT MOLDING, INC.www.lomontimt.com F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 43

turkey products may have been contaminated with a multidrug-resistant strain ofSalmonella Heidelberg and followed a July 29 FSIS Public Health Alert initiated dueto concerns about illnesses caused by Salmonella Heidelberg.• The April 2011 recall “Minnesota Firm Recalls Turkey Burger Products Due to PossibleSalmonella Contamination.” Implicated in this recall was Salmonella serotypeHadar. Although not noted in the FSIS recall, CDC in its outbreak reportingnoted, “The outbreak strain of Salmonella Hadar is resistant to many commonlyprescribed antibiotics, which can increase the risk of hospitalization or possibletreatment failure in infected individuals.” Salmonella Hadar was resistant to at leastampicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, cephalothin and tetracycline. This recallsparked much consumer concern becauseof the labeling “All Natural.” Thevast majority of the consuming publicdoesn’t recognize that the definition of“natural” would exempt antibiotics. 19Therefore going against most consumers’logic, the routine use of antibioticsis a “natural” way to raise foodanimals.The time to address the problem of antibiotic-resistantfoodborne infections islong overdue. How many more cases areneeded before the federal government imposesstricter regulations?The U.S. government can take immediatesteps to help further protect the publichealth. Draft Guidance for Industry 209should be finalized and issued by FDA toprotect against the inappropriate use of antibioticsas growth promoters or for feedefficiency in food animals; not doing so ina timely manner gives the impression toconsumers that the Obama administrationis not interested in addressing this public health emergency.“Antibiotic resistanceimpacts public healthwhen people consumefood contaminated withantimicrobial-resistantbacteria resulting fromthe exposure of foodanimals toantimicrobials...”How many more hospitalizations from antibiotic-resistant foodborne infectionsdoes it take before large numbers of industry leaders proactively work to protect theirbrands and the consumers who trust in the safety of their purchase?Brand Protection and Practices: A Way ForwardConsumers are showing more interest in the source of their food and, in the caseof food animals, how they are raised. The food industry is now, more than ever, recognizingthat “food safety” means more than just microbiological control—it also incorporatesconsumer perceptions of what is considered safe.Rather than enduring lawsuits and the pitiless media, meat and poultry industryleaders can proactively adopt practices and publicly declare their intentions to reduceuse of medically important antibiotics. Industry leaders who take responsibility andpride in their products should declare their policies and make consumers aware of thepractices they employ. Corporations should publish on their websites and in printedmaterials their policies on antibiotic usage, state support for judicious use and highlightthat antibiotics are not being used for growth promotion. Knowing that the mostimportant antibiotics should be preserved for human medicine, industry leaders maywant to voluntarily restrict use of classes of antibiotics—tetracycline, penicillin,macrolide, lincosamide, streptogramin, aminoglycoside and sulfonamide—except forthe treatment of sick or diseased animals.The outlined principles come from legislation introduced by Congress’s only microbiologist,Representative Louise Slaughter of New York. The Preservation of Antibioticsfor Medical Treatment Act(PAMTA) has historically received bipartisansupport, yet has not been able togain enough traction to make its waythrough a divided Congress.A novel idea would be for industryleaders, many of whom read this publicationand who are concerned about theinjudicious use of antibiotics, to adoptthe principles of PAMTA well in advanceof any forthcoming government regulations.This enlightened self-interest mayimprove their market base, public perceptionand ultimately their product. nSusan Vaughn Grooters, M.P.H., serves as directorof research and education at STOP FoodborneIllness (formerly S.T.O.P. Safe Tables Our Priority)and is an executive committee member for thecoalition Keep Antibiotics Working (KAW). Sheholds a B.S. in food sciences and nutrition from theUniversity of Vermont and an M.P.H. in epidemiologyfrom the University of Massachusetts–Amherst. An inducted member of Delta Omega,the National Honorary Society for Public Health,Grooters was also recently appointed by USDASecretary Tom Vilsack as the consumer representativefor the National Advisory Committee on MicrobiologicalCriteria for Foods.References1. “Antibiotic” is the commonly used term to describeantibacterial drugs and will be used assuch in this article. However, the author wouldlike to acknowledge the more strict definition of“antibiotic” as being a compound that is naturallyproduced or derived from a fungus orother microorganism that has the ability to inhibitbacterial reproduction that causes illnessesin humans and animals. However, some antibacterialdrugs may be synthetically producedand derived compounds (e.g., not “naturally”occurring, or produced by a fungus, etc.) andtherefore would not meet the strict definition ofthe term “antibiotic.”2. www.cdc.gov/getsmart.3. Levy S.B., G.B. FitzGerald and A.B. Macone.1976. Changes in intestinal flora of farm personnelafter introduction of a tetracycline-supplementedfeed on a farm. N Engl J Med 295(11):583–588.4. Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing (NOOH)that the agency published in the Federal Registeron Tuesday, August 30, 1977, for penicillinand a companion NOOH revoking approval fortetracycline (published in the Federal Register44 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Friday, October 21, 1977).5. Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246(Thursday, December 22, 2011), 79697–79701.6. Residue vs. resistance. This article purposefullydid not address drug residues that may beRecall_100_2011_Release/index.asp.18. www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_071_2011_Release/index.asp.19. According to the FSIS, “natural” is defined as: “A product containing no artificial ingredient oradded color and is only minimally processed. … The label must include a statement explaining themeaning of the term natural (such as ‘no artificial ingredients; minimally processed’).”present in foods of animal origin. The residue violatorlist, kept by the USDA, records both producersand violations. This helps not only toFor more information on FDA food safety legislation, please visitwww.foodsafetymagazine.com.keep a public record, but also to prevent actualdrugs showing up in the food that the publicconsumes. Although this might elicit the “yuck”factor, withdrawal times and other practices thatare in place help mitigate the risk that someonewould actually “eat” antibiotics in any givenmeal.7. www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/The AIB Food ProtectionAdvantageGuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/ucm052519.pdf.8. Livermore, D.M. 1995. Beta-lactamases in laboratoryand clinical resistance. Clin MicrobiolAIBRev 8:557–584.9. Li, X.Z. et al. 2007. b-lactam resistance and b-Inspectionlactamases in bacteria of animal origin. Vet Microbiol121:197–214.10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC). 2010. National Antimicrobial ResistanceMonitoring System for enteric bacteria(NARMS): Human isolates final report, 2008. Atlanta,Georgia: U.S. Dept. of Health and HumanServices.11. Glenn, L.M. et al. 2011. Analysis of antimicrobialresistance genes detected in multidrug-resistantGFSI AIBSalmonella enterica serovar TyphimuriumAuditFoodisolated from food animals. Microb Drug Resist17:407–418.SchemesProtection12. Lewis, J.S. et al. 2007. First report of theEducationemergence of CTX-M-type extended-spectrumbeta-lactamases (ESBLs) as the predominantESBL isolated in a U.S. health care system. AntimicrobialAgents Chemother 51:4015–4021.13. Sjolund-Karlsson, M. et al. CTX-M–producingnon-typhi Salmonella spp. isolated from humans,United States. Emerg Infect Dis 17:97–99.14. Zhao, S. et al. 2009. Beta-lactam resistance inLet AIB provide theSalmonella isolated from retail meats in theUnited States: NARMS: 2002–2006. Appl Environ INTEGRATED single-source solutionMicrobiol 75:7624–7630.to your Food Protection needs.15. Zhao, S. et al. 2001. Identification and expressionof cephamycinase bla CMY genes in Escherichiacoli and Salmonella isolates from foodanimals and ground meat. Antimicrobial AgentsLeverage the synergies of the best globalChemother 45:3647–3650.Food Protection products and services to lower16. Minor species of food animals include deer,your risk and protect your company’s brandsbison, elk, rabbit, duck, goose, quail, pheasant,partridge, pigeon, ostrich and emu.800-633-5137 www.aibonline.org17. www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 45

SPOTLIGHT: MEAT AND POULTRYBy Veny Gapud, M.S.Best Food Quality andSafety Practices for PoultryA look atFieldale Farms, apoultry productsmanufacturer andsupplier.Fieldale Farms is a privately held, familyownedcompany whose corporate headquartersis in Baldwin, GA. The company is a privatelabelpoultry products manufacturer and supplierto various foodservice companies.The fully integrated company operatesthree hatcheries, two feed mills, two slaughterfacilities, one further processing plant, one centralizedlaboratory, three water treatment facilitiesand two rendering plants. Fieldale Farms is the first poultryproducer to have its own microbiology and chemistry laboratorycertified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).The centralized laboratory accreditations are ISO 17025 for biologicaltesting, USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service(FSIS) Laboratory Accreditation Program on Food Chemistryand Residue Chemistry and the Agricultural Marketing ServiceLaboratory Program. In this laboratory, approximately 25,000tests are performed monthly. The samples range from feeds,water, waste water, raw poultry, further processed, fully cooked,mechanically separated chicken, diagnostic cultures from field,environmental samples such as sponges, swabs, litter, dragswabs, chick box liners, air settling plates from hatchery, contactplates from hatchery environment andblood samples for antibody titers.As the company contracts with over 1,300broiler houses, employs around 4,400 personneland slaughters approximately 3 millionchickens per week, the need to control andoversee the safety and quality of the productsis paramount.Best Practices GoalsFieldale Farms has instituted the following above and beyondbest practices into their everyday operations with the followinggoals:• Mitigate food safety risks• Ensure high quality products• Meet customer specifications• Exceed customer expectations• Grow businessAchieving Best PracticesOur management is seriously committed to the hiring ofcompetent quality and food safety personnel and puts these in-46 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Complex threatsA simple sandwich reflects the complexity of ensuring food safety. Even the healthiest food can containpathogens, veterinary drug residues, adulterants and pesticides. A favorite combination of meatsand produce presents difficult matrices, requiring fresh solutions, and a more effective approach toanalysis. Count on us for the experience, research methods and range of technologies to target foodsafety threats inside and out.complete solutions• make bold progress • thermoscientific.com/foodsafety© 2012 Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. All rights reserved. Copyrights in and to the food safety image are owned bya third party and licensed for limited use only to Thermo Fisher Scientific by iStock.

SPOTLIGHT: MEAT AND POULTRYdividuals in charge of food safety. Managing risk is part of managingthe business. 1 These individuals are therefore responsiblefor seeing that best practices are both successfully implementedand achieved.CertificationAll Fieldale Farms’ processing facilities are USDA-inspectedfacilities. In addition to meeting the USDA performance standardsto ensure safe and wholesome products, the company iscommitted to continuous improvement to meet their customers’specifications and exceed their expectations. To do this,the company has all its processing plants Safe Quality Food(SQF) certified. More retailers and foodservice operators are requiringtheir suppliers and distributors to have certifications todemonstrate their compliance with food safety regulations at allstages of the supply chain in both domestic and global markets.SQF, British Retail Consortium (BRC) or Food Safety SystemCertification (FSSC) 22000 are all recognized by the GlobalFood Safety Initiative. 2SQF is a comprehensive quality management and foodsafety certification system for food processors, wholesalers anddistributors. The BRC Global Standard for Food Safety is designedfor companies supplying retailer-branded food products.BRC is a Hazard Anaylsis and Critical Control Points(HACCP)-based system and requires senior management commitmentand continual improvement. FSSC 22000 is a completefood safety certification system for the foodmanufacturing industry that is based on ISO 22000, PAS 220and ISO 22003. 3Cold-chain ManagementAdditionally, the company works continuously with its customersto execute an effective cold-chain management program.An effective partnership between supplier and customeris vital for program success. Regardless of the level of integrityof finished products leaving a manufacturing facility, failure tostore at the warehouse or transport on trucks within the correctFigure 1: Fieldale Farms’ Program/Processtemperature range will compromise both safety and quality especiallyif the product is refrigerated or frozen. 4 Investment intemperature recorders that monitor the shipping condition ofproducts in transit is becoming a common partnership practicefor customers. Currently, Fieldale Farms randomly monitorsthe shipping temperatures of products in transit to our customers.Our cold-chain management program promotes customersatisfaction by ensuring that products are shipped at theproper temperature; ensuring that monitors are retrieved so thatrecorded data are reviewed in a timely manner to facilitateprompt action and corrective measures; ensuring effective temperaturerecord keeping and documentation; and mitigatingfood safety risks. By integrating monitoring and tracking withan emphasis on driving meaningful and measurable process improvements,the right product can be in the right place at theright time under the right conditions. An example of FieldaleFarms’ program/process flow chart can be seen in Figure 1.Product EvaluationAnother practice implemented for best practices is the evaluationof customer products. Every Friday, Fieldale personnelfrom upper management, the quality and food safety team,production from all processing plants, sales and marketing andR&D gather and evaluate products produced during the weekprior to shipping to customers. This is in addition to the onlineevaluation performed during the actual processing of theproduct. Products are randomly selected and evaluated forphysical and sensory attributes. Proper packaging and labelingare also verified. Product evaluation session schedules are rotatedweekly to allow night shift quality control and productionpersonnel to participate in the evaluation sessions. The qualityand food safety team believes that when both day and nightshift personnel are involved in the evaluation process, opportunitiesfor improvement can be better identified and addressed.Such an evaluation allows the company to be familiar withcustomer product specifications and expectations, identify opportunitiesfor improvement anddemonstrate team efforts to consistentlyuphold quality and deliversafe products to customers.Label AuditingIn the first 6 months of 2011,there were 27 recalls nationwidefor undeclared ingredients; 20were the results of undeclared allergens.In the preceding 2 yearscombined, FSIS issued recalls for32 undeclared allergens. Mislabelingfor one of the eight main allergens(i.e., wheat, Crustaceanshellfish, eggs, fish, peanuts, milk,tree nuts and soybeans) typicallyresults in a Class 1 recall becauseof the associated public healthrisk. 548 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

SPOTLIGHT: MEAT AND POULTRYUnlike ready-to-eat (RTE) food products,which are safe to consume regardlessof the form when purchased bycustomers, not-ready-to-eat (NRTE)products require cooking by consumersfor safety. While most RTE meat andpoultry products are covered by specificlethality performance standards in FSISregulations, NRTE products are not,since they contain at least one ingredientfor which the elimination of vegetativepathogens such as Listeria monocytogenesand Salmonella cannot be assured. 6 It iscritically important that products are labeledcorrectly to prevent foodborne illnessoutbreaks.Labels must be checked to ensure accuracyof the following:• Calculation of all marination and ingredients(must add up to 100%)• Ingredient declaration includingallergens• Nutrition labels• Cooking and handling instructions• All product claims, that is, glutenfree, antibiotic free, all vegetarian diet,etc. (process controls are required toverify accuracy of claims).Shelf Life StudiesConducting shelf life studies helpsvalidate the length of time that a productwill remain safe and wholesome for consumption.It must have “acceptable quality”level or have no change in desiredsensory characteristics over the entire lifeof a product. Storage of products atproper temperatures at all times is a keyin extending product shelf life. Using athird-party laboratory to perform shelflife studies helps determine the properstorage temperature and shelf life ofpoultry products. Customers expect suppliersto provide accurate informationwhen it comes to shelf life.Education and TrainingQuality and food safety, productionand maintenance personnel are encouragedto attend training sessions, workshopsand conferences on food safety,that is, HACCP, SQF, Labeling, etc. Keypersonnel of the quality and food safetyteam must attend organizations’ tradeconferences and workshops, participatein committees and network with otherfood safety colleagues and leaders in the field to deepen their knowledge of new technologies,emerging trends, issues, solutions and evolving public concerns. This helpsimprove corporate knowledge and decision-making effectiveness. 1Visiting Customer EstablishmentsQuality and food safety personnel must regularly visit their customers’ establishmentsas patrons to better understand the experience of consumers. Key quality assuranceteam members and the sales team must regularly visit their customer facilities toassist with efforts to identify opportunities for improvement. Teamwork and strongpartnerships with customers are essential to business success. (continued on page 65)F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 49

CATEGORY: INGREDIENTSBy Lindsey LovingCommunicating Food Ingredient Safetyin a Fear-Driven EnvironmentDespite solid scientific evidence supportingtheir safety, food ingredients have been thesubject of myths and misperceptions fordecades. In recent years, however, the increasedinterest by consumers in “sustainable,”organic and “natural” foods seems to have hadan equal and opposite effect on foods perceivedto be “processed.” Perhaps no other aspectof food is more highly associated withprocessed foods than foods containing “artificial”ingredients.In addition, the benefits of food ingredientsfor food safety, nutrition and health are oftenoverlooked, or aren’t even considered. Foodingredients perform a variety of useful functionsin foods that are often taken for granted, such as to maintainor improve food safety, freshness and nutritional value andto improve taste, texture and appearance.Consumer Awareness Is DecreasingConsumer research on perceptions of processed foods findsIngredient safety isa hot-button issuefor consumers; thefood industry needsto be aware ofperceptions todrive consumerconfidence.that 43 percent of consumers are unfavorabletoward this category of foods. Most consumersassociate processed foods with containing artificialcolors and flavors (76 percent), as well aschemicals with long names (68 percent). 1In addition, there is decreased consumerawareness of the functions and benefits offood ingredients. For example, the 2011 InternationalFood Information Council (IFIC)Foundation Food & Health Survey found thatfewer consumers agree that low-calorie sweetenerscan play a role in weight loss/management(29 percent) or can be part of an overallhealthful diet (24 percent) than in 2010 (38percent and 29 percent, respectively). At thesame time, an increasing percentage of Americans (34 percent)report a lack of knowledge about low-calorie sweeteners comparedwith previous years (27 percent in 2010). 2Similarly, awareness of functions and regulation of food colorsis low. Only one in three Americans agrees that food colorsadd to the appearance of foods; just over half of consumers are50 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Solutions for TodayPlanning for TomorrowIndustry SolutionsEducationNetworkingExhibition HallYour Summit Education Does Not Endat the Session DoorAttend the informative Exhibitor Showcase Theatres.Two days of specialized, vendor-produced education that offer solutions youcan use today. Learn about new and exciting food safety technologies directlyfrom leading company Subject Matter Experts. FREE to all registered attendees.The Exhibition Hall is where solutions are found.The Summit attracts highly qualified food safety and security solution providers.More than 150 companies show off the latest technologies, products and services.The Summit offers plenty of networking opportunities.The OPENING NIGHT RECEPTION allows you to enjoy food and drink whileyou network and conduct business on the Exhibition Hall Floor.®The NSF FOOD SAFETY LEADERSHIP AWARDS precede the Keynote presentationand recognize those that have demonstrated excellence in the foodservice Industry.The FOOD QUALITY AWARDS AND RECEPTION begins with refreshmentsand networking followed by a ceremony to honor this year’s winner.Food Safety SummitApril 17-19, 2012Washington DCwww.foodsafetysummit.comGOLD SPONSORSILVER SPONSORBRONZE SPONSORMEDIA SPONSORS

CATEGORY: INGREDIENTSThe Next Frontier: Values-BasedCommunicationsIt has always been difficult to translate scientific informationfor the public, but new challenges—including increased adoptionof the precautionary principle, the proliferation of socialmedia, as well as the release of popular books and movies onfood-related issues—have added to the complexity, as society reactsto images and hypothetical scenarios that spur fear of theunknown, including what we don’t know about our food. 3With never-ending communications taking place in the blogosphereand online communities, we have seen an increase ininformation on all fronts, including misinformation, whichcontributes to conflicting and inconsistent information that isdifficult for consumers to interpret. When communicating withconsumers about food ingredients, the facts are important, butperhaps equally important these days is the consideration ofconsumers’ values, lifestyles and beliefs. Food is a very personalthing for consumers, and is usually connected to family andtradition. In particular, moms—who tend to do the majority ofthe grocery shopping for their households—are concerned withproviding safe and nutritious meals for their families.“...the benefits of food ingredients for food safety, nutrition and healthare often overlooked, or aren’t even considered.”aware that both natural and artificial food colors must be labeledon food packages and nearly half agree that food colorsmust be reviewed and approved by the U.S. government beforebeing added to food products. However, fewer than one in fiveconsumers thinks that most government and health authoritiessay there is no link between food colors and hyperactivity inchildren. This general lack of awareness indicates an opportunityto provide education about the roles, regulation and potentialbenefits of food ingredients.Despite concerns and negative sentiments about ingredientsand processed foods, when it comes to food and beverage purchasedecisions, taste prevails, with 87 percent of consumersranking taste as an important factor. Foods with a more healthfulnutrition profile must still taste good to make it into consumers’shopping carts. Food ingredients such as low-caloriesweeteners, fat replacers and other ingredients have helpedmake possible the availability of foods with lower fat, sugar andsodium content to improve the healthfulness of favorite foods,while maintaining the taste consumers expect. Healthfulness isincreasing in importance as a factor in consumers’ food purchasingdecisions, with 66 percent ranking it as having an impacton their decisions. In addition, these safe ingredients arecost-effective, helping keep food affordable for consumers, 79percent of whom say price is important in their food and beveragepurchases, a 15 percent increase over the past 6 years.The food label provides information on ingredients for consumers’use. Nearly half of all consumers say they look at theingredients list on food packaging when making food and beveragechoices. However, they are primarily looking for foodcomponents such as sodium, type of fat/oil and sugars. Lessthan half (44 percent) of those consumers who are looking atthe ingredients list report looking for “artificial ingredients,”and only 21 percent look for food colors. Just 18 percent areconcerned with being able to pronounce the ingredient names. 2It is important to make the public aware of the availabilityof information about food ingredients, whether it is on thelabel or through science-based information on the Internet andin doctors’ offices, or through contacting the U.S. Food andDrug Administration (FDA) or the product manufacturer, all ofwhich can provide information to help consumers make informeddecisions.Foods containing ingredients commonly consumed by childrencan create anxiety for moms, who want to protect theirchildren and themselves and may not be exposed to both sidesof the issue when reading about food ingredients in the media.For example, there has been renewed interest in the perceivedlink between consumption of artificial food colors and hyperactivityin children among media and advocacy groups, and inturn, some moms and mommy bloggers. The most recent studyto indicate a link 4 has been the basis for the voluntary removalof select artificial food colors in Europe and petitions to removeartificial food colors from the food supply in the UnitedStates, despite decades of safe use and significant limitations ofthe study identified by scientists, academics and regulatoryagencies such as the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA). 5FDA revisits ingredient approvals as necessary and if a concernis raised, as evidenced by its recent review of all existing researchon food colors and hyperactivity, in which it upheld itsconclusion that food colors do not cause hyperactivity in children.6 In addition, FDA and EFSA found the study by Mc-Cann et al. (i.e., the Southampton study) 4 to be limited by themethodology used, as well as the combination of colors andadditives and the use of anecdotal reports from parents andteachers. 5 In addition, a study of Irish children showed thatdaily consumption of food colors did not reach the amountstested in the Southampton study and that the combination ofcolors tested would not exist in the real world. 3,7The public hears about risks and wants to take action. However,it is important to put studies and perceived risks into contextfor consumers to avoid unintended consequences, such aseliminating foods and food groups that offer important sourcesof nutrients, or taking on comparably greater food safety risks.In the case of food colors, some children who have been diagnosedwith attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder may be sensitiveto certain foods and food ingredients, including food52 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

CATEGORY: INGREDIENTScolors. However, this unique intolerancedoes not indicate a food safety issue andrepresents a very small portion of thepopulation. 6 Information about the specificpopulation that may be affected isimportant for consumers to be able todetermine whether there is a risk to themor their family, and if that risk outweighsother risks they may be taking on bychanging their consumption. 8Telling consumers how they can takecontrol—for example, by reading labelsand providing more fruits and vegetables—ishelpful, while also preservingchoice for those consumers who are notconcerned and do not wish to reducetheir consumption of food ingredients.Explaining the similarities and differencesbetween food ingredients andfoods that are perceived to be more familiarand therefore safer in consumers’minds can also be effective. For example,every food we eat—even those that arenaturally occurring—is made up of chemicalcompounds that determine flavor,color, texture and nutrient value. 9 Freshfruits and vegetables are not required tolist nutrition and ingredient information,but if they were, the list of chemicalscomposing them would rival foods containingadded ingredients.Is the Latest Always theGreatest?Food additives and “generally recognizedas safe” (GRAS) ingredients aresome of the most studied componentsof our food supply. However, new studiesthat dispute the larger body of researchare often deemed more crediblebecause they are the latest research onthe topic. It is important when lookingat food ingredient research to emphasizethat, while it may be tempting to viewthe most recent study as the best andmost reliable, this is not always the case.When communicating a study’s findings,it should be placed into the propercontext, including acknowledging thelimitations of the study, such as:• The study’s original purpose• Shortcomings in the study’smethodology• Ingredient amounts used• Sample size• Application of the findings to a specific subsegment of the populationIt is also important to acknowledge what the weight of the evidence tells us, and torecognize past research when a study disputes previous findings. 8For example, recent epidemiological studies showing greater overweight or obesityin consumers of low-calorie sweeteners do not demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship.Other factors that could be contributing to the results should be considered, aswell as the original hypothesis/purpose of the study. Many well-done studies conductedhave found that consuming low-calorie sweeteners (continued on page 66)Food Safety RegulationCompliance ResourcesMETTLER TOLEDO has long been the product inspection industry leader in foodsafety 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 foodVisit www.mt.com/PINA-FoodSafetyResourcesto learn more!Contact us for more information at 800-221-2624or visit www.mt.com/piSAFELINEMetal Detection & X-ray InspectionHI-SPEEDCheckweighingCI-VISIONVision InspectionF E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 53

MICROBIOLOGYBy John Holah, Ph.D., Edyta Margas, Robert Hagberg,Benjamin Warren, Ph.D., Judy Fraser-Heaps and Sara MortimoreIdentifying and ControllingMicrobiological Cross-ContaminationMicrobiological cross-contamination has beena contributing factor to several well-documentedoutbreaks of foodborne illness. 1,2 Inmost Hazard Analysis and Critical ControlPoints (HACCP) or other hazard analysisbasedfood safety systems, cross-contaminationis controlled and managed predominately byprerequisite programs (PRPs). PRPs can be definedas the measures that provide the basic environmentaland operating conditions in a food operationthat are necessary for the production of safe andwholesome foods, 3 such as cleaning and disinfection,and personnel hygiene. The implementationof an appropriate PRP is also seen as thefoundation on which a good HACCP plan isbuilt; there are many examples of best practicesto follow for PRPs at an international level, 4 via retailers’requirements 5 or from recognized food research bodies 6–8 ortrade associations. 9,10There is little information, however, on how to align the useof specific PRPs to control actual routes of cross-contaminationin food processing plants. The concept of a ranking system forPRPs has been addressed by ISO 22000, 11 which differentiatesoperational PRPs (OPRPs) from PRPs. An OPRP is defined asThis article introducesconcepts and ideasabout the nature andpotential control ofmicrobiological crosscontaminationin afood manufacturingenvironment.a PRP identified by the hazard analysis as essentialin order to control the likelihood of introducing foodsafety hazards to and/or the contamination or proliferationof food safety hazards in the product(s) orprocessing environment. In other words, ISO22000 suggests that a hazard analysis mayidentify some routes of cross-contaminationthat are so important to the safety of the foodproduct that their control is essential and arethus elevated to a higher classification of PRP,that is, an OPRP. It is also interesting to notethat ISO 22000 recognizes that it is importantto not only control cross-contamination offood safety hazards into the product, but alsoto control cross-contamination within the processingenvironment. No guidance has beenprovided, however, as to the hazard analysis steps to be undertakento determine OPRPs from PRPs.This article explores two critical concepts of microbial crosscontamination:sources and vectors. It also presents a methodfor identifying and risk-ranking sources and vectors of contamination,which builds upon previous work described by Smith. 12Finally, the potential use of OPRPs for control and managementof cross-contamination to the product is discussed.54 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

MORESAFETY. RESEARCH. TRENDS.MANAGEMENT. OPERATIONS.SUSTAINABILITY.MOREworld-class education from renowned meat and poultryexperts, offered at no additional charge, forevery AMI Expo attendee.APRIL 30–MAY 3, 2012 • DALLAS CONVENTION CENTER • DALLAS, TEXAS, USASearch the complete education schedule and register at www.amiexpo.comCO-LOCATED WITH:

MICROBIOLOGYCross-Contamination Concepts:Sources & VectorsPathogenic microorganisms can enter food processing areasfrom several main routes: the external environment, raw materials,people, equipment and in-plant microbiology laboratories.Once inside, pathogens can be temporary or sporadic visitors(present until they lose viability or are removed via cleaningand disinfection procedures) or they may persist for long periods.When pathogens persist in the environment, they generallysurvive in harborage sites, which can be defined as physicalareas in which pathogens can lodge and be protected fromhands through interaction with a source, subsequently transferthe contamination to a tool and then contaminate a productcontact surface with the tool while performing simple maintenanceon the line. In this example, the mechanic’s hands maybe considered an environmental vector while the mechanic’stool may be considered a product vector. In other circumstances,a cross-contamination event may have only a singlevector, for example, contaminated water droplets from a compressedair line entering a product stream.The type of vector affects the potential for actual transfer ofa pathogen into a product. For example, if a pathogen is being“Microbiological cross-contamination has been a contributing factorto several well-documented outbreaks of foodborne illness.”cleaning and disinfection actions, for example, poor hygienicdesign features of processing equipment or damaged areas ofthe plant’s building structure. When a harborage site also providesan environment suitable for growth, it can be considereda growth niche. Both harborage sites and growth niches are potentialsources of contamination within the processing environment.For a pathogen to move from a source within the processingenvironment to other locations (and perhaps even into product),a vector is required. A vector can be defined as anything(air and other gases, water and other liquids, physical objects or people)that carries or transfers a pathogen from one place to another. Vectorsmay be further described as those that carry a pathogen from asource to another location within the processing environment,that is, an environmental vector, or those that carry a pathogenfrom a source to the product or product ingredients, that is, aproduct vector (Figure 1). It should be noted that cross-contaminationusually occurs as an event in which a number of vectorsmay be involved. For example, collecting a product samplefrom an enclosed process line for quality control analysis by insertinga sampling bag into the product stream by hand mayhave potential product vectors of the operator’s hand (orglove), the operator’s sleeve, the sampling bag and the air. Inanother example, a line mechanic may contaminate his or herFigure 1: Transfer of pathogens from likely sources directly to foodproducts or their ingredients via product vectors or indirectly tosecondary or temporary sources.carried in a liquid vector, the liquid may be absorbed into anothersurface or food completely, which would increase the potentialfor transfer to be nearly absolute. Conversely, if apathogen is being carried on a solid vector, such as a mechanic’stool, the potential for transfer to a secondary surface,including a food product, depends on the physical propertiesand interaction between the pathogen and the surface as well asthe interaction of the vector with the surface. Smith 12 demonstratedthat the transfer of microorganisms from one surface toanother on contact can be approximated to 50 percent for practicalpurposes. For stationary air, transfer of microorganismsfrom the air via sedimentation, which has defined rates for particlesof a given size and buoyancy according to Stokes’ law, 13and the number of microorganisms transferred depends on themicrobiological loading of the air and the exposure time. Whenproduct is transported via air, or when air is blown over a productfor cooling or drying, microorganisms can enter the productvia impingement in addition to sedimentation, and thenumber of microorganisms transferred may be related to thevolume of air to which the product is exposed.Identifying Potential Sources and Vectors ofContaminationPotential pathogen sources and cross-contamination vectorsin a processing plant can be determined by a physical examinationof the processing environment and may include microbiologicalsampling. Sources and vectors may be associated with aspecific process step or may affect the processing line in general.For example, contaminated air in the production environmentmight affect many processing steps within a productionline, whereas vectors associated with a specific line proceduremay be associated solely with a specific process step.In an exercise similar to determining the product processflow within the HACCP plan, a cross-functional team (comprisingpersonnel knowledgeable about plant operations, sanitation,hygienic design, microbiology and engineering) can beassembled to identify potential sources by walking the line andexamining the processing equipment and environment. Poten-56 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

MICROBIOLOGYtial sources can be determined by numerous means, includingdismantling equipment to identify potential harborage sites andniches, as well as an inspection of the environment and buildingstructures. A review of data collected as part of an environmentalmonitoring program may help identify potentialsources in the production environment. However, a history ofnegative results for a particular pathogen on an environmentalsite does not indicate that the site is not a potential source forother pathogens, or that the site could not become a source inthe future, especially when the construction of the site is notconsistent with accepted hygienic design principles.The observation of all potential sources should be recorded,for example, as indicated in Table 1. In these examples, meatresidues were seen inside a meat slicer on/off switch and fluidwas seen oozing from underneath a meat slicer equipment footsupport plate.If observational and/or microbiological data identify likelypathogen sources, all potential environmental cross-contaminationvectors from this source should be determined to identifythe potential to create secondary or temporary sources. Usingthe equipment foot plate example in Table 1, liquid oozingfrom under the plate was transferred throughout the processarea on an operative’s shoes and equipment wheels and was redepositedat random sites on the floor to act as potential temporaryor short-term sources.The same cross-functional team described above should performa comprehensive review of the process and environmentfor potential product cross-contamination vectors. The processand processing environment should be observed during allshifts, when all types of products are produced and when infrequentprocedures are performed. In some cases, all personnelmay not perform the same task in the same manner. Therefore,interviews of line operators, maintenance staff and quality andsanitation personnel may also help determine potential crosscontaminationvectors. Vectors may occur at either fixed anddefined time intervals, or randomly. Observations for potentialcross-contamination vectors should be made independently ofknown or likely pathogen sources, as contamination could arisefrom temporary sites and be transferred to other sites and/orthe product stream. It is unlikely that microbiological samplingof vectors would be helpful, as the likelihood of observing apathogen on a potential vector would be very small.Observational data for vectors should also be recorded, forexample, as indicated in Table 2 for two theoretical spray dryerinterventions in a milk-spray drying operation.Addressing Cross-Contamination Controlwithin a Food Safety ProgramThe assessment, management and ultimately control ofcross-contamination sources and vectors will likely includeQUALITY CONTROL MICROORGANISMSAS CERTIFIED REFERENCE MATERIALFOR USE IN ISO 17025 ACCREDITED LABSFor validation and verificationof processes and instruments35 CRM strains availableTraceable to reference cultureEasy-to-use KWIK-STIK formatCertificate of Analysiswww.microbiologics.comReference Material ProducerCERT # 2655.02* Look for the ATCC Licensed Derivative emblemfor products derived from ATCC ® cultures.9:09 AMF E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 57

MICROBIOLOGYboth the HACCP plan and its foundational PRPs. For example,the cross-functional assessment of the processing environmentcould be drafted within the plant’s environmental monitoringprogram. The identification and assessment of product vectorscould be incorporated into the HACCP plan. This approach isconsistent with established HACCP models, in which hazardsthat may be introduced at a process step should be considered inthe process hazard analysis.Regardless of how the identification and assessment of crosscontaminationsources and vectors are incorporated into a foodsafety plan, efforts to control them should include reducing thenumber of possible sources and vectors within a processing environmentand developing specific measures to reduce the riskassociated with those that remain or are intrinsic to the foodproduction process. For example, the usage of water in certainprocessing environments may be significantly reduced or eliminatedin an effort to control the establishment, growth andmovement of pathogens (sources and vectors).When observing and identifying potential contaminationsources and vectors, any current direct controls of observedsources and vectors should be recorded as illustrated in Tables 1and 2. For vectors, subsequent controls at the process step mayhave an effect on the hazard that could be transferred by thecross-contamination event, and these should also be recorded.Practical Application of Risk-Ranking Toolsfor Sources and VectorsAlthough many potential sources and cross-contaminationvectors may be identified during the assessment of a processingenvironment, the degree of control necessary for each sourceand vector may be determined using risk analysis tools, such asrisk ranking. A familiar approach to risk analysis is to considerthe likelihood and severity of a hazard on a three-point scale[e.g., LMH (low, medium and high) risk]. A risk analysis for acontamination source may be similar and can be described asthe likelihood of a pathogen being present at the potentialsource and the ability of a pathogen to transfer from this sourcevia an environmental and/or product vector. A risk analysis forcross-contamination vectors may be more complex as it involvesthree factors: the likelihood of a pathogen being transferredby the vector, the frequency of the event and the severityof the illness if the target consumer ingested the pathogen.To provide a quantitative approach to evaluate significance,rankings of low, medium or high may be replaced with valuesof 1, 2 or 3, respectively. These numerical rankings can then bemultiplied together to result in an overall risk score associatedwith a source or vector. Risk scores should always be assessed inthe absence of control. In the example provided, this would resultin a score range of 1–9 for sources and 1–27 for vectors.Risk ranking of sources and vectors should be recorded as illustratedin Tables 1 and 2. Undertaking a risk analysis beforeand after the application of any controls can help identifywhether controls are necessary and/or whether current or intendedcontrols are sufficient to reduce either the risk of thesource or the contamination event. At a minimum, this allowsconsideration of the adoption of controls for the uncontrolledsources and vectors identified, which may have an immediateimpact on improved food safety. If current controls are not suf-Process step or processing areaObservationLikely hazardSource risk assessment without controlsLikelihood of hazard presence: LMHPotential to spread via environmental vectors: LMHRisk scoreCurrent or intended controlSource risk assessment with controlsMicrobial source presence: LMHPotential to spread via environmental vectors: LMHMeat slicingMeat residues were seen on the inside of a switchthat operated the slicing machine. When theswitch was pressed to start the machine, themovement of the switch into the switch holder extrudedmeat residues onto the operative’s finger.If Listeria was present in the switch (which is arecognized possibility with switches of this design),it could be transferred to the meat by theoperative’s finger. Microbiological sampling in theswitch was always negative.ListeriaMediumLow2Switches routinely cleaned as part of the end ofproduction sanitation practiceRisk score16Table 1: Example record of a potential pathogen source associated with a cooked meat slicer on/off switch and a foot support plate.LowLowMeat slicingFluids were seen oozing out from below themeat slicer equipment foot plates securingthem to the floor. The immediate floor areaaround the plates is a heavy traffic area for personneland vehicular traffic. Environmentalmonitoring occasionally picks up Listeria spp.in this area.ListeriaHighHigh9Every shift, hypochlorous acid is sprayedaround the equipment support platesMediumHigh58 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

MICROBIOLOGYficient to adequately control the hazard risk, additional controlsmust be undertaken. To illustrate this and using the foot platesource as described in Table 1, the frequent use of chlorine disinfectantmay not be a sufficient control, and it may be necessaryeither to lift the equipment, decontaminate the area underthe foot plate and then reseal the foot plate to the floor or purchasenew foot plates or equipment supports of a more hygienicdesign.Subsequent controls should also be considered when assessingthe risk of a cross-contamination event. In the theoreticalexample in Table 2, operatives must insert a guillotine or spraycap into the powder line to prevent clean-in-place (CIP) fluidsentering sensitive areas during the dryer CIP program, for example,the bag house where powder is removed from the airflowexiting the dryer. Any microbial contamination enteringthe dryer, particularly during the removal of the guillotines,would then be subjected to the dryer start-up procedure, whichcould include the circulation of heated air for several hours(e.g., 205 °C/400 °F for 2 hours).In the second dryer intervention example in Table 2, the removal,cleaning and insertion of the milk spray nozzles couldoccur a number of times between CIP events of the dryer, suchthat any microorganisms entering the dryer during these potentialcross-contamination events would not be subjected to aprocess control step. In this example, it is possible to do a riskassessment on the cross-contamination event (particularly if thecross-contamination event results in a high-risk score) or individualvectors related to the event to determine which vectorsare most important to control. In this case, entry of air hasbeen identified as a vector and the risk assessment for the air indicatesthat other vectors associated with the cross-contaminationevent may be more important.Higher risk scores for sources may be used to help prioritizeresource allocation, identify where additional control measuresare needed and/or to justify capital expenditure. Likewise,higher risk scores for vectors may help prioritize actions takento reduce the frequency of the vector, identify where additionalcontrol measures can lower the risk associated with the vectorand/or to eliminate the vector altogether.The risk analyses as described in Tables 1 and 2, for sourcesand cross-contamination event vectors, respectively, can furtherbe developed by considering the risk scores for the sources andvectors without controls. For the maximum risk scores associatedwith the meat slicer foot plates (Table 1) or the removal,cleaning and reinstallation of the spray nozzles (Table 2), thesescores indicate that if these sources or cross-contaminationevents were uncontrolled, or more practically, if the requiredcontrols failed, there could be a significant risk of pathogensbeing present in the processing environment (meat slicer footplate) or product (spray nozzles).F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 59

MICROBIOLOGYOPRPs as a Control for Product VectorsSince the control of significant product vectors is especiallycritical to product safety, these controls could be described asOPRPs. An OPRP requires the establishment of operating limits(or control limits), monitoring activities, corrective actionsfor when a control limit is not met, verification activities andrecord-keeping procedures.Table 3 describes the controls associated with the theoreticalmilk spraying nozzle removal and reinsertion procedure describedin Table 2. The hazard is that Salmonella could be takeninto the dryer on the nozzle and supporting wand, and via theair surrounding the top of the dryer. The nozzle and wandcould be cross-contaminated from the operative’s hands andclothing and from the tools used. Control measures could includechanging into clean clothing at the point of nozzle removaland reinsertion, using dedicated tools and cleaningequipment, decontaminating wands and nozzles and all surfacestouched prior to reinsertion and tamperproof tagging ofthe wands so that they cannot be unintentionally removed. Bymicrobiologically filtering environmental air surrounding thedryer, contamination from the air at routine dryer interventionswould be controlled.ATP testing prior to entry could apply an operating limit toan assessment of the cleanliness of the wands, nozzles andProcess step or process activityObservationLikely hazardContamination event vector(s)Product vector risk analysis without controlsPotential presence of hazard on vector: LHMFrequency of event: LMHSeverity of hazard: LMHRisk scoreSubsequent control step?Current or intended vector controlsProduct vector risk analysis with controlsPotential presence on vector: LHMFrequency of vector: LMHSeverity of hazard: LMHMilk spray dryingGuillotines or spray covers areinserted into the dryer toseparate the dryer from the baghouse during CIP cleaningof the dryerSalmonellaContamination on the reverseside of the guillotine enteringthe dryer on guillotineremoval after CIPMediumHighHigh18Prior to start-up, the dryersurfaces are subjected to hot airat up to 205 °C/400 °F for 2 hoursNot necessary due to subsequentcontrol steptools, and verification of cleanliness could be periodically undertakenby microbiological sampling. During the nozzle removalprocedure, observations could be made to ensure theprocedure was being done correctly and that there were no extrinsicfactors that could act as additional cross-contaminationvectors. Records would be kept of all interventions into thedryer, whether removal and reinstallation procedures had beencorrectly followed, ATP and microbiological counts and tamperprooftag numbers. Corrective actions would review thetraining of the staff against removal and reinstallation proceduresand the effectiveness and validation of the tools andcleaning equipment decontamination programs.In the same manner as CCP records, the records of anOPRP should be incorporated into a food safety plan to ensureall essential conditions were met during the manufacture of aproduct. If a deviation in an OPRP were to occur, then the affectedproduct should be placed on hold while a cross-functionalteam is assembled to review the associated risk and makea decision on product disposition.The management strategy described above for OPRPs is essentiallythe same as for CCPs as defined under HACCP. Sothen what is the difference between a CCP and an OPRP?CCPs are generally described for specific steps in the manufacturingprocess to eliminate or reduce a significant hazard to anMilk spray dryingApproximately once per shift, milkinjectors are removed from thedryer, cleaned and reinstalledSalmonellaDryer nozzles touch hands,clothing and tools prior to entryRisk score99Table 2: Theoretical observational record of potential cross-contamination vectors associated with two spray dryer intervention procedures.HighHighHigh27NoneGloves are worn and nozzlesand tools are decontaminatedwith alcohol prior to dryer entryLowHighHighMilk spray dryingApproximately once per shift, milkinjectors are removed from thedryer, cleaned and reinstalledSalmonellaAir can enter the dryer duringthe nozzle removal andinstallation processLowHighHigh9NoneNoneLowHighHigh60 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

MICROBIOLOGYProcess step or areaLikely hazardSource or contaminationevent/vector(s)Control measure(s)Operating limit(s)Control measure(s)Control verification(s)Corrective action(s)RecordsMilk spray dryingSalmonellaRemoval, cleaning and reinsertion ofmilk spraying nozzles• Dryer processing area air filtered to 95% removal of 1.0-µm particles• Gloves are worn by operative to remove nozzles• Nozzles and support wand removed and replaced by alcoholdecontaminatedblanking plate• Nozzles cleaned and kept in QAC until reuse• Glove and sleeve change by operative at point of insertion• Nozzle wand CIP process• ATP assessments of wand and/or nozzle cleanliness• Use of dedicated tools• Alcohol decontamination of gloves, blanking plate and wand• Blanking plate removal and nozzle insertion• Tamperproof tag installedATP < 150 RLUVisual assessment of the removal and reinsertion operationATP assessment of the cleaned wand and nozzleOccasional microbiological verification of wand and nozzle cleaning• Put on hold any potentially affected product.• Determine the need for spray dryer to be decontaminated.• Investigate the cause of the problem and take appropriate action.• Staff retraining• Review of wand and nozzle decontamination procedures• Dryer intervention record including correct observation ofremoval and insertion procedure• Post-decontamination ATP and microbiological records• Tamperproof identity tag numberTable 3: Operational prerequisite program (OPRP) managementtable as adapted from classical CCP management.acceptable level, for example, cooking of a meat patty, coolingof a sauce or running a liquid product through a screen of definedparticle size. On the other hand, OPRPs are generally describedfor procedures or programs that address some aspect ofthe processing environment or the interaction of the processingenvironment with the process, for example, the manual removal,cleaning and reinsertion of milk spray nozzles into thespray dryer during a production run.A Developing StudyThe concept of identifying sources and vectors of cross-contamination,assessing their risk and managing their risk throughOPRPs in a fashion similar as CCPs is a developing study.Elevating the control of sources and vectors to the level ofOPRPs and managing them similar to CCPs focuses attentionon the control of what is thought to be the highest risk of crosscontaminationfrom the processing environment to the product.Controlling sources and vectors by developing and documentingOPRPs as discussed in this article may provide a means todemonstrate increased confidence in product safety should apathogen be found in the manufacturing environment.Taken beyond microbiological hazards,the same source-and-vector approach may beused to evaluate and control nonmicrobiologicalhazards, such as allergens or foreignmaterial. As these are developing concepts,comments are welcomed as to how they canbe improved.nJohn Holah, Ph.D., is an applied microbiologist workingboth in food factories and the laboratory and is responsiblefor food hygiene at Campden BRI.Edyta Margas is a hygiene and novel technologiesspecialist at Campden BRI.Robert Hagberg is the director of QA technical servicesat Land O’Lakes, Inc.Benjamin Warren, Ph.D., is the director of productsafety & regulatory affairs at Land O’Lakes, Inc.Judy Fraser-Heaps is the senior manager of QA, microbiology& food safety at Land O’Lakes, Inc.Sara Mortimore is the vice president of quality & regulatoryaffairs at Land O’Lakes, Inc.References1. www.cdc.gov/print.do?url=http%3A//www.cdc.gov/salmonella/agona.2. Jackson, K.A., M. Biggerstaff, M. Tobin-D’Angelo,D. Sweat, R. Klos, J. Nosari, O. Garrison, E. Boothe, L.Saathoff-Huber, L. Hainstock and R.P. Fagan. 2011.Multistate outbreak of Listeria monocytogenes associatedwith Mexican-style cheese made from pasteurizedmilk among pregnant, Hispanic women. J FoodProt 74: 949–953.3. Gaze, R. 2009. HACCP: A practical guide (fourth edition). Campden BRI,Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, UK.4. www.codexalimentarius.net.5. www.mygfsi.com.6. Middleton, K.E. and J.T. Holah. 2008. Cleaning and disinfection of foodfactories: A practical guide. Campden BRI, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire,UK.7. George, R.M. 2004. Foreign bodies in foods: Guidelines for their prevention,control and detection (second edition). Campden BRI, Chipping Campden,Gloucestershire, UK.8. Smith, D. 2009. Hand hygiene: Guidelines for best practice. CampdenBRI, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, UK.9. www.bcas.org.uk.10. www.cieh.org.11. Anon. 2005. ISO 22000:2005 Food Safety management systems —Requirements for any organization in the food chain.12. Smith, D. 2007. Ranking of cross-contamination vectors of ready-to-eatfoods: A practical approach. Campden BRI, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire,UK.13. Lamb, H. 1994. Hydrodynamics (6th edition). Cambridge UniversityPress.F E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 61

Product ShowcaseNitrogenGeneratorParker Hannifin’s Filtrationand Separation Divisionhas introducedthe NitroFlow60 MembraneNitrogen Generator,a self-containedgeneratorthat producesup to 60 litersper minute ofpure liquid chromatography/massspectrometry(LC/MS)-grade nitrogen atpressures of up to 110 psi. Thesystem is ideal for multipleLC/MS and new LC/MS instrumentsrequiring high flow.Parker Hannifin Corporation,800.343.4048www.labgasgenerators.comPorcineDetection KitsPerkinElmer Inc. has announcedthe introduction ofPorcine Detection Kits for therapid detection of porcinemeat traces by the halal foodcertification industry. The newsolution will make it easier,faster and more cost-effectiveto provide confidence in theintegrity and authenticity offood products for globalmarkets that require halalcertification.PerkinElmer, 877.754.6973www.perkinelmer.comSpiral OvensUnitherm Food Systems has introduced smaller spiral ovensinto the hands of small and midsize producers of ready-to-eatfrozen and chilled foods. The “micro” spiral, the smallest of itskind on the market, is nominally 5 feet wide by 7 feetlong by 7 feet tall and has over 60 linear feet of belt. Asingle micro spiral oven has the equivalent throughputof approximately three batch ovens. The company’s minispiral oven is slightly larger at 8 feet by 8 feet by 8 feetand has over 180 linear feet of belt with throughput of up to 1,500 pounds per hour.Unitherm Food Systems, 918.367.0197 • www.unithermfoodsystems.comVapor Sorption AnalyzerThe AquaLab Vapor Sorption Analyzer(VSA) by Decagon Devices allows scientiststo better understand moisture in productsand pinpoint quality control issues.The way a product isinfluenced by temperature andhumidity changes can reveal importantdetails about physical andchemical changes that end shelf life.VSA technology tracks changesin the amount of moisture ina product as the water activitychanges. This VSA is the only moisturesorption analyzer to combine both dynamic andtraditional isotherm methods in one instrument.Decagon Devices, 800.755.2751 • www.aqualab.comAntibiotic DetectionIn anticipation of the new antibiotic rule from the U.S. Foodand Drug Administraion (FDA), Neogen developed its BetaStarPlus lateral flow system with a separate ceftiofur detection line.This system offers a three-line test for beta-lactam antibioticresidues in milk. The primary detection line detects the five betalactamdrugs as outlined in the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance,while a special secondary line uses antibody detection specificallyfor ceftiofur and its metabolite. BetaStar Plus has been validatedthrough the AOAC, FDA and the National Conference onInterstate Milk Shipments.Neogen, 800.234.5333 • www.neogen.comProfessionalThermocoupleThermoWorks has introducedits splash-proofThermapen, a professionalthermocouple with a foldawaydesign that replacesbulky hand-held thermometersfor use in restaurants,labs and food processingplants. TheThermapenhousing is madeof molded plasticembeddedwith Biomaster,which inhibitsthe growth ofcommon bacteria,such asE. coli, Listeria and Salmonella,among others. Each thermocoupleis traceable to the NationalInstitute of Standardsand Technology and includesa certificate of calibration withactual test data.ThermoWorks, 800.393.6434www.thermoworks.comPumps for Juice ProcessingWith quick unloading time and ease of maintenance, MasoSine pumps are the ideal solutionin both the fast-growing ready-to-pour and frozen concentrate market segments. Thehighly economical and reliable pumps offer superior speed of transfer, powerful suction, lowshear and low pulsation. The pumps are used in several phases of juice processing, includingloading and unloading of takers that transport the concentrate, pumping concentrate to ablending process and pumping concentrate to fillers for packaging as frozen concentrate.These pumps are capable of being cleaned in place (CIP), and various CIP modifications areavailable, depending upon the product being pumped and the cleaning protocol used.MasoSine Process Pumps, 800.282.8823 • www.masosine.com62 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Sample Prep InstrumentInnovaPrep LLC has launched their latest collection ofsample prep instruments. The Concentrating Pipette is an automatedmicroparticle concentrator developed to replace antiquated,time-consuming and labor-intensive sample prepmethods, such as culture enrichment, filtration and centrifugation.The automated one-pass system can rapidly reduce samplevolume while removing matrix-associated inhibitors,enabling the latest detection systems to quickly identifypathogens at previously undetectable levels.InnovaPrep LLC, 816.619.3375 • www.innovaprep.comGrill Surface ThermometerDeltaTRAK’s Grill Surface Thermometer(model 29010) is the ideal device for monitoringthe temperature of cooking surfaces,such as flat-top grills, griddles andbarbecue grills. It can also be used onhot-holding tables and carving-stationwarmers. The thermometer is a dual-scaleNSF-certified thermometer with an easyto-readdial. This durable thermometer ismade of heavy-duty stainless steel and has atemperature range of 100 °F to 500 °F (38 °C to 260 °C).DeltaTRAK, 800.962.6776 • www.deltatrak.comVertical Bagging SystemM-TEK has introduced the V60 verticalbagging system, which offers increasedproduction efficienciesand easier maintenance. Thesystem includes value-addedfeatures that maximize flexibilityand performance, such as highpressure,wash-down design,without removing or coveringmachine parts; robust stainlesssteelconstruction; cycle speedsover 100 per minute and innovative,linkage-free seal and film advancesystems.M-TEK, 847.741.3500 • www.mtekcorp.comWeigh Belt FeederThayer Scale offers the new MWF-SGSP-OS Ultra-SanitaryOpen Construction Weigh Belt Feeder for processing offoods and any other application where cleanability, reliabilityand weighing performance are important. The feeder canprovide either a “closed loop” gravimetric control of material feedrate or an “open loop” control for precise convey rate output.Thayer Scale, 781.826.8101 • www.thayerscale.comF E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 636:06:40 PM

TESTING(continued from page 15)Deciding to Use a LaboratoryThis is arguably one of your most importantdecisions in testing. The decisionto outsource or not, followed by selectingthe preferred lab with whom to establisha long-termworking relationshipwill influence yourother decisions relatedto method selection.Your laboratory partnershould be a resource,able and willing tohelp you evaluate optionsand make decisions(see the sidebar,below). You maychoose to associatewith a reputable thirdpartylab for all or justa portion of yourtesting.Outsourcing bringsmany advantages, including:Independence inReporting Results. A third-party lab bringsan expectation of impartiality to yourcertificate of analysis (CoA) and relievesdirect employees from being responsiblefor defending positive results when theydo arise.Employee Training. Running a laboratoryrequires hiring and training laboratorypersonnel to perform the analyticalwork required. Working with a thirdpartylab that is experienced in hiring““One essentialelement of a welldesignedfood safetyprogram is adequateand appropriateand developing these specialized skills allowsyou to focus on efficiency in yourcore business of food production.ISO 17025 Accreditation. Laboratoryaccreditation is an important assurancethat analytical methodsare performed properlyand results are reproducible.LIMS Database. In additionto providing aCoA, your third-partylab may provide accessto a database programthat allows you to createreports and observetrends in your data.Automation of thesecapabilities can savesignificant labor costsassociated with creatingreports manuallywithin your organization.Costs. You may findthat outsourcing yourtesting is economically favorable whenyou add up all the costs associated withrunning an on-site laboratory, includingthe hidden costs of labor, systems, training,documentation, accreditations andoverhead.testing of both the”environment andproduct.”SummaryIn 2011, an outbreak of cantaloupeassociatedlisteriosis resulted in 30deaths, 146 infections and 1 miscarriageMore Information about LaboratoriesAPI Test Data: The American Proficiency Institute (API) provides a servicethat quantifies laboratory performance at accurately achieving the correct resultfor tested parameters on supplied samples. While API data are importantin evaluating the performance of a laboratory to accurately determine the statusof a supplied sample, it is improper to use these data to form a judgmentabout the overall sensitivity and specificity of a particular test method.ISO 17025 Laboratory Accreditation: This is your assurance that the laboratoryyou are considering to perform your testing has demonstrated proficiencyperforming the analytical method listed on the scope of accreditation. Yourlaboratory should be accredited to perform the testing that your business requires.As part of your review process, verify that the selected Listeria testmethod to be used is included in the current laboratory scope-of-accreditationdocument.over a 28-state distribution—one of theworst foodborne disease outbreaks inU.S. history. The Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention investigation ofthis outbreak revealed the disturbing failureof a food safety system that couldhave prevented this catastrophe. Previouslisteriosis outbreaks are remarkablysimilar to the events of the 2011 outbreak—L.monocytogenes in a food productionenvironment went undetected foran extended period, eventually resultingin product contamination and subsequenthuman health consequences.As an industry, we have the tools todetect and prevent outbreaks of listeriosisand other foodborne disease. One essentialelement of a well-designed foodsafety program is adequate and appropriatetesting of both the environment andproduct. I have attempted to highlightthe emerging developments in Listeriatesting and the fundamentals of choosingthe most appropriate testingapproach for your business. nJim Byron shares his extensive knowledge and diverseexperience gained as an executive in thewater, chemicals, food testing laboratory and testkits business. With over 20 years of successful salesand marketing leadership in the energy and chemicalsindustry, he was recruited to a leadership rolein biotechnology and food safety in 2005. His scientificwork in close association with food industryleaders, exposure to production systems andstrong business foundation allow Byron to provideclear and useful information about Listeria testingto managers in today’s food production environment.He can be reached at 484.356.7283,www.linkedin.com/in/jimbyron828 orjb@xgenex.com.For more information on Listeria test kitsand the AOAC methods used, please seewww.foodsafetymagazine.com/article.asp?id=4446&sub=sub1.For more information on testing forListeria and other foodborneillness-causing microorganisms,please visitwww.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature.asp.64 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

SPOTLIGHT: MEAT AND POULTRY(continued from page 49)Serious Commitment byManagement to Food Safetyand Quality is Essential forBusiness Growth andSuccessThe food supply and service industrycurrently is faced with several importantchallenges to business growth and success.The media recently has focusedheavy coverage on foodborne illness outbreaksand allergen-related product recalls,and this increased attentionunderscores the need for effective andproactive food safety and quality controlpractices to protect the viability of ourbusiness enterprises. Furthermore, withthe current economic situation, suppliersand processors must continue to identifyopportunities and implement best practicesthat are above and beyond their customers’specifications and expectations inorder to continue growing as businesses.The ability to effectively meet theseevolving industry demands requires thata food safety consciousness be part of thecorporate culture all the way throughfrom the upper management to the productionlevel. Otherwise, food establishmentsthat cut corners on food safety riskdevastating economic consequences andirreparable harm to their businesses. n2. Gapud, V. 2009/2010. Food Safety Trends in Retail and Foodservice. Food Safety Magazine.December/January.3. www.aibonline.org/auditservices/GFSI_CertSchemes.html.4. Gapud, V. 2006. Driving Best Practices in Distribution. Food Safety Magazine. August/September.5. Flynn, D. 2011. Allergens Have Caused Most Meat Recalls This Year. Food Safety News. July 8.6. The Association of Food, Beverage and Consumer Product Companies (GMA). 2008. Guidelines forValidation of Consumer Cooking Instructions for Not-Ready-To-Eat (NRTE) Products.For more information on meat and poulty safety, please visitwww.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature.asp.Is yoursurface testingall it’scracked upto be?Veny Gapud, M.S. is the corporate food safetyand quality assurance officer for Fieldale FarmsCorporation. She was the recipientof the 2011 International Associationfor Food Protection(IAFP) Harold Barnum IndustryAward that recognized her outstandingservice to IAFP, thepublic and the food industry. She is also a currentmember of the USDA FSIS National Advisory Committeeon Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI),former chairperson of the Retail Food Safety andQuality PDG of IAFP, a former President of theGeorgia Association for Food Protection and a currentmember of the Food Safety Magazine EditorialAdvisory Board. Gapud can be reached atvenygapud@fieldale.com.References1. Marler, W. 2007. Food Safety & the CEO-Keys to Bottom Line Success. Food Safety Magazine.October/November.You can’t afford even a twinge of doubt when it comes touncovering any hidden contaminants. Get cracking withPuritan environmental swabs — known to deliver superiorcollection for reliable results. Our top-quality swabs comein various sizes, shapes, and tip fibers, with and withoutmedia. To request free samples of environmentalswabs, scan the code at left or visit ourwebsite at puritanmedproducts.com/enviro.800-321-2313 • puritanmedproducts.comPuritan Medical Products Company LLC, Guilford, Maine 04443-0149 USAAn affiliate of Hardwood Products Company ISO 9001:2008US MANUFACTUREDF E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 65

CATEGORY: INGREDIENTS(continued from page 53)in place of caloric sweeteners can lead to weight loss and/orweight management. A few recent studies on this relationshipin mice and rats indicating a link have had small sample sizesand may not be applicable to humans. These studies should beevaluated within the context of the overall body of evidence onthis topic.Our Work Is Never DoneAs ingredients and technologies become integrated into thefood supply, consumers will continue to have questions abouttheir purpose and safety. Therefore, constant communicationabout the safety of approved food ingredients is critical tomaintaining consumer awareness and confidence. Future generationswill not have benefited from educational efforts conductedwhen the ingredient or technology was new, validatingthe need for consistency in communication efforts. For example,some consumers have questioned the importance of foodprocesses such as pasteurization and have opted to consumeraw milk—which poses clear food safety risks—rather than consumemilk that has been “processed.” Education around foodprocessing, its safety and benefits, including the role of food ingredients,will be critical to maintaining the high food safetystandards achieved in the U.S.Communications about food and nutrition must be positive—theFood & Health Survey consistently shows that mostAmericans would rather hear positive messages about what toeat, rather than negative messages about what not to eat. 2 In addition,communicators must meet consumers where they are(e.g., in online venues) and provide simple, practical tips theycan use in their everyday lives. For example:• Use a low-calorie sweetener in place of sugar in beverageselections to reduce calorie intake throughout the day.• Enjoy a 100-calorie pack of a favorite snack or dessert tokeep portions and calories in check.Do Science and Emotions Go Together?In this environment driven by emotions and fear, it will beimportant to acknowledge concerns and reassure the public ofthe safety and efficacy of approved food ingredients, whilepromptly communicating with the public when a legitimateconcern, such as a food safety recall, arises. Equally important,it will be critical to provide consumers with information forthem to understand the direct benefits they receive from foodingredients, and tips for how they can incorporate food ingredientsinto a healthful diet. Too much of anything can have adverseeffects; therefore, providing clear, concise informationabout the food supply and food choices will ensure that consumerscan enjoy an abundant variety of safe, good-tasting,healthful and affordable food in a manner that promotesvariety and moderation.As obesity and prevalence of other diseases increase, thesafety of food ingredients, and other aspects of our food, willcontinue to be questioned regarding their role in our health.Our food supply is safer than ever before; however, there is alwaysopportunity for improvement. Regulators, scientists, academiciansand industry stakeholders should continue to worktogether to improve the safety and transparency of the foodsupply.n“As ingredients and technologies become integrated into the foodsupply, consumers will continue to have questions about their purposeand safety.”Lindsey Loving is the senior director, food ingredient & technology communicationsfor the IFIC, a nonprofit agency in Washington, DC, whose mission is to effectivelycommunicate science-based information on food safety and nutrition tohealth professionals, journalists and consumers. She is a member of the AmericanAssociation of Diabetes Educators and the Institute of Food Technologists(IFT), and has given recent presentations at the annual meetings of the AmericanDietetic Association, School Nutrition Association and IFT. She received abachelor’s of business administration in 2000 from James Madison University inHarrisonburg, VA.References1. www.foodinsight.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=IMLgAIWA7wA%3d& tabid=1399.2. www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=2011_Food_Health_Survey_Consumer_Attitudes_Toward_Food_Safety_Nutrition_Health.3. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01722.x/abstract.4. www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2961306-3/abstract.5. www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/660.htm.6. www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/FoodAdvisoryCommittee/UCM248549.pdf.7. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19440040903470718.8. jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/3/194.full.pdf+html?sid=26258160-b66e-4739-a888-e042a351bebd.9. www.fda.gov/food/foodingredientspackaging/ucm094211.htm.Additional Resourcesonlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00127.x/pdf.www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietaryguidelines.htm.www.foodinsight.org/understandingourfood.aspx.For more information on ingredient safety,please visitwww.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature.asp.66 F O O D S A F E T Y M A G A Z I N E

Advertisers IndexAdvanced Instruments, Inc..............................25781.320.9000 • www.aicompanies.comAIB International..............................................45800.633.5137 • www.aibonline.orgAMI International Expo ...................................55www.amiexpo.comBia Diagnostics, LLC..........................................17802.540.0148 • www.biadiagnostics.comBio-Rad Laboratories, Inc..................................3800.4BIORAD • www.bio-rad.comBioControl Systems, Inc...................................35800.245.0113 • www.biocontrolsys.comEcolab ................................................................33800.392.3392 • www.ecolab.comEMD Millipore ....................................................9www.emdmillipore.com/biomonitoringEtQ Management Consultants ..........................5800.354.4476 • www.etq.com/foodsafetyForeign Trade Service Corp. (FTS) ..................21888.387.5227 • www.ftslabs.comFood Safety Connect ..........................................2www.foodsafetyconnect.comFood Safety Summit .........................................51www.foodsafetysummit.comHygiena, LLC .....................................................29805.388.8007 ext 300 • www.hygiena.comLomont IMT ......................................................43800.776.0380 ext 1589 • www.lomontimt.comMarel Inc. ..........................................................49888.888.9107 · www.marel.comMettler-Toledo, Safeline, Inc...........................53800.221.2624 • www.mt.com/piMichelson Laboratories, Inc............................63888.941.5050 • www.michelsonlab.comMicrobiologics Inc ............................................57www.microbiologics.comNational Registry of Food SafetyProfessionals.....................................................59www.nrfsp.comNeogen Corp.....................................................68800.234.5333 • www.neogen.comPfizer Animal Health........................................39www.SRPEcoli.comPickering Laboratories, Inc .............................63www.pickeringlabs.comPrecision Microslides, LLC...............................15855.649.9008 • www.precisionmicroslides.comPuritan Medical Products Co, LLC..................65800.321.2313www.puritanmedproducts.com/enviroQ Laboratories, Inc...........................................19513.471.1300 • www.qlaboratories.comRoka Bioscience, Inc ..........................................7855.ROKABIO • www.rokabio.comRomer Labs Inc.................................................23636.583.8600 • www.romerlabs.com/glutenG12Silliker, Inc.........................................................41www.silliker.comSpartan Chemical Company, Inc.....................31800.537.8990 • www.spartanchemical.comTandD US, LLC...................................................67518.669.9227 • www.tandd.comThermo Fisher Scientific Inc............................47www.thermoscientific.com/foodsafety3M Food Safety.................................................13www.3M.com/3MMolecularDetectionSystem/FSAWeber Scientific................................................11800.328.8378 • www.weberscientific.comWireless Monitoring!CustomizedQuality ReprintsValuable for avariety of uses:• Trade shows• Conferences• Seminars• Public relations• Media kitsFor bulk reprints of 500 ormore copies fromFood Safety Magazine,contact Betsy Whiteat The Reprint Outsource717.394.7350reprints@foodsafetymagazine.comMonitoring ViaCellularRefrigeratorsData Loggers from TANDDTandD US, LLC.inquiries@tandd.com (518) 669-9227 www.tandd.comF E B R U A R Y n M A R C H 2 0 1 2 67

Better Brand Protection.Quicker Results.A 3 minute incubation provides a greater chance that any residuespresent in the sample will bind to the signaling molecules.Neogen has developed a better methodof accurately detecting beta-lactamresidues in milk: BetaStar Plus.Unlike competitor methods, BetaStar Plus utilizes acritical initial step that ensures the binding of anypresent beta-lactam residues in the sample test vial— greatly reducing the risk for either false positive orfalse negative results.*BetaStar Plus. The Science is Simple.The Choice is clear.*Performing the association and separation (test strip) stepssimultaneously increase the risk of false results.An independent signaling molecule serves as a control, bindingto the control line and verifying the device is working properly.Detect beta-lactam antibiotic residuesin 5 minutesTo learn more about BetaStar Plus use the QR codeor call your Neogen Representative below800/234-5333 (USA/Canada) or 517/372-9200 www.neogen.com