Food Safety Magazine, February/March 2013

February/March 2013Vol. 19, No. 1FEATURES46 Cover StoryAnimal Welfare andFood SafetyBy F. Bailey Norwood, Ph.D.,and Jayson L. Lusk, Ph.D.54 IngredientsQuality Control ofBotanical IngredientsBy Rupa Das, M.Sc.56 SeafoodNoroviruses in Shellfish:Challenges of the 21st CenturyBy Gary P. Richards, Ph.D., and David H. Kingsley, Ph.D.35 Food Safety Insider:Sanitation SolutionsDEPARTMENTS6 Editor’s Letter8 News Bites62 Product Showcase66 Advertisers IndexCOLUMNS12 TestingModern Analysis of ChemicalContaminants in FoodBy Katerina Mastovska, Ph.D.16 Process ControlISO 22000: And the Beat Goes OnBy John G. Surak, Ph.D.20 SanitationRaw Produce Field Samplingfor Biological RisksBy Sri Pfuntner, M.Sc.24 AccreditationThe Role of Accreditation Bodiesin Supply Chain Risk ManagementBy Mohan Sabaratnam and Patrick McCullen28 ManagementFood Safety Management:Hazard- or Risk-Based?By Peter Overbosch, Ph.D.32 PackagingMolecular and Supramolecular Designfor Active and Edible Packaging SystemsBy Giovanna Buonocore, Ph.D.,and Salvatore Iannace, Ph.D.Editorial Advisory BoardDaniel W. BenaPepsiCo Beverages InternationalReginald W. BennettCFSAN, U.S. FDARobert E. Brackett, Ph.D.National Center for Food Safetyand TechnologyJohn N. Butts, Ph.D.Land O’FrostBrian CampbellKroger ManufacturingLarry CohenSaputo Cheese U.S.A.Michael M. CramerWindsor FoodsKurt E. Deibel, Ph.D.Heinz North AmericaJonathan W. DeVries, Ph.D.General Mills/Medallion LabsBeth Ann Crozier-Dodson, Ph.D.Chestnut LabsWilliam FisherInstitute of Food TechnologistsRussell Flowers, Ph.D.Silliker, Inc.Veny GapudProcess Management ConsultingKathy GombasCFSAN, U.S. FDAJim Gorny, Ph.D.CFSAN, U.S. FDADonald J. GrahamGraham Sanitary Design ConsultingPaul A. Hall, Ph.D.Flying Food GroupMargaret Hardin, Ph.D.IEH Laboratories & Consulting GroupLarry KeenerInternational Product Safety ConsultantsJeffrey L. Kornacki, Ph.D.Kornacki Microbiology Solutions, Inc.Huub L.M. LelieveldGlobal Harmonization InitiativeAnn Marie McNamara, Ph.D.Jack in the Box, Inc.Martin MitchellCertified Laboratories/RFARobert Powitz, Ph.D., M.P.H., R.S.R.W. Powitz & AssociatesScott M. Russell, Ph.D.University of GeorgiaThomas M. SauerWells EnterprisesRichard F. StierConsulting Food ScientistDarryl SullivanCovance LaboratoriesJohn G. Surak, Ph.D.Surak and AssociatesAlexandra Veiga, Ph.D.ITQB-UNL and EFFoSTDon L. Zink, Ph.D.CFSAN, U.S. FDA4 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

Tasty. Safe.Let us help you keep it that way!FREE Application Note“Analysis of Anions, Organic Acids, andCations in Wine by Capillary Zone Electrophoresis”Visit www.bcfoodsafety.com/fsFor a free sample analysis ormore information please visitwww.bcfoodsafety.com/fsBeckman Coulter…Providing Excellencein Characterization for over 50 YearsA complete understanding of food and beverage characteristicsis paramount to their consistency and quality. Our particlecharacterization and capillary electrophoresis technologies deliversuperior analysis capabilities with high resolution, accuracy, andreproducibility to provide the information needed to keep your foodproducts safe and sought after.Beckman Coulter offers you technology for:• Automated, quantitative analysis of anions, cations, organic acids,proteins, and carbohydrates• Characterization of a wide array of material including dry powders,emulsions, and liquids• Counting and sizing of all types and sizes of molecules, cells,and particulates© 2013 Beckman Coulter, Inc. Beckman Coulter and the stylized logo are trademarks of Beckman Coulter, Inc. and are registered with the USPTO.

Editor’s LetterWe at Food Safety Magazine are very pleased to share withyou more exciting developments in our digital mediaofferings...starting with our newly designed website:www.foodsafetymagazine.com! If you haven’t had the chance tocheck out the new site, we’d love for you to take a look around,explore our features, news and blogs, and even make a commentor two. We’ve made big changes to our navigationto make it more intuitive and user-friendly—easier for you to find the expert-written foodsafety-related information that you are lookingfor. With category drop-down menus and comprehensivesearch functions, all of our currentand past content is available at your fingertips.Plus, with our new social sharing options embedded in the site,we’ve made it easy for you to share all the information you find.Follow us on Twitter, @FoodSafetyMag; like us on Facebook,www.facebook.com/foodsafetymagazine; or connect onLinkedIn, www.linkedin.com/company/food-safety-magazine—wewant to be your ready source for information, wherever you needus. In addition, you can take the magazine with you on yoursmartphone or tablet by downloading our free app, available onboth Apple iOS and Android devices.When you are looking for products and services, remember toaccess www.foodsafetyconnect.com, our online marketplace forfood safety solutions. Find everything you need to ensure foodsafety at your facility, from instruments, pest control and auditingservices to consultants, testing reagents and sanitation supplies;Food Safety Connect allows you to run side-by-side comparisonson products and services. In addition, you can find how-tovideos, on-demand webinars and technical white papers on a vastarray of topics. All in all, Food Safety Connect is an indispensabletool for food safety professionals.Now available twice every month, our FSM: eDigest newsletterpromises to keep you apprised of the latest legislative updateson the Food Safety Modernization Act, as well as of the mostcurrent food safety strategies, both on the plant floor and in theboardroom. Our expert authors understand that keeping up withall the changes in food safety can be daunting; they want to makeit easy for you to stay ahead of the competition.Don’t be a stranger in the food safety community: Send usfeedback, Tweets and e-mails with your ideas, suggestions andnews. We’d love to hear from you!Best Regards,Barbara VanRenterghem, Ph.D.Editorial DirectorCEO, The Target Group Inc. Don MeekerPublisher Stacy AtchisonRecorded Message 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 2 Nick Alan Cir.Rutland, MA 01543Phone (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 (321) 804-4319adam@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, andadditional mailing offices. Subscriptions: Free to qualified subscribersas defined on the subscription card; $85.00 per year for nonqualifiedsubscribers. Back Issues: $10.00 per copy, prepaid. Change ofAddress: Notices should be sent promptly; provide old mailing labelas well as new address. Allow two months for change. EditorialContributions: Unsolicited manuscripts should be submitted to: FoodSafety Magazine, 1945 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201. Notice—Every precaution is taken to ensure accuracy of content; however, thepublishers cannot 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. ©2013 by The Target GroupInc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without writtenpermission is strictly prohibited. The publishers do not warrant,either expressly or by implication, the factual accuracy of the articlesor descriptions herein, nor do they so warrant any views or opinionsoffered by 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

Make food pathogen detectionSuper AccurateWith Roka molecular technology, you have the power.Roka molecular technology powers the Atlas System, the fullyautomated molecular pathogen detection system for food safety testing.AOAC-RI-certified assays:Listeria spp. and Salmonella **Additional assays in development.KKKKKFull sample-to-result traceabilityIntegrated process controlsSingle manual transferProven molecular technologies incorporate three levels of specifi cityComplete electronic audit trailSuperpower your lab!We’re Roka. And we’ll help you get there.© 2012 Roka Bioscience, Inc.MSFPUB07121.855.ROKABIO | www.rokabio.comThe Atlas System is manufactured by Gen-Probe Incorporated. Roka molecular technology is licensed from Gen-Probe Incorporated.

USDA Seeks Comments on ProposedFrozen Vegetable Grade StandardsThe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is requestingcomments on proposed revisions to eight U.S. Standards forGrades of Frozen Vegetables.The proposed amendments wouldsimplify grade descriptions for frozenvegetable varieties of asparagus, limabeans, speckled butter beans, cookedsquash, summer squash, sweet potatoes,turnip greens with turnips andmixed vegetables. Grade classificationswould be standardized, allowing for a single descriptor for eachlevel. For example, U.S. Grade A or Fancy frozen vegetableswould be classified simply as U.S. Grade A. Proposed changeswould also include miscellaneous editorial revisions.Food Industry Saddened by Losses of FSM Boardmember Donald J. Graham and Tom ZierenbergDonald J. Graham, 80, died peacefully onJanuary 29, 2013, surrounded by family after a longstruggle with pneumonia and COPD. Don earned aB.S. and M.S. in food science and technology fromMichigan State University. He began his career atthe Green Giant Company in LeSueur, MN, followedby the William Underwood Company, thePet Corporation, the Sverdrup Engineering Company,where he was designated a Sverdrup Fellow,the corporation’s highest award for technical achievement, and JacobsEngineering. In 1999, Don launched Graham Sanitary Design Consultingas president. He performed numerous plant audits and has been inhundreds of food processing plants. Don’s accomplishments include beingon the Editorial Advisory Board and frequent author for Food SafetyMagazine and being a member of the Institute for Food Technologistsand the International Association for Food Protection. He has authoredover 35 articles on sanitary design and exceptionally appreciated chaptersfor books on hygienic food manufacturing, in which he emphasizedthe importance of mindset as the key factor for achieving food safety.Don is survived by his wife of 48 years, Dorothy, his two sons Christopherand Jonathan, and two grandchildren Emiko and Tomoki Graham.Microbac Laboratories, Inc. has regretfully announcedthe sudden death on January 15, 2013, ofTom Zierenberg, 53, of Pittsburgh, PA. For over 17years, Mr. Zierenberg had served Microbac Laboratories,Inc., in a variety of capacities and was particularlyinfluential in Microbac’s development ofits food testing and consulting services. He servedthe company in an operating capacity, leadingMicrobac’s Warrendale, PA laboratory, which providesfood and environmental testing services. Prior to joining Microbac,Tom had earned a degree in food science from The Pennsylvania StateUniversity and worked in a number of roles within the food industry.Tom is survived by his wife of 28 years, Cathy, and his two children, Jackand Kate.People & PlacesMicrobac’s Chicago division welcomes Mark Carteras director of food science.The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)presented the GMA 2013 Industry CollaborationLeadership Award to Frederick J. Morganthall II,president and COO of Harris Teeter Inc., and Hall Carterof Achievement Awards to Timothy Smucker, chairman ofthe board, The J.M. Smucker Company, and Daniel Wegman,chief executive officer, Wegmans Food Markets, during the GMAChairman’s Lecture.Pura Vida Farms, pineapple importer and growerand shipper of melon products, has announced theselection of Mike Martori as vice president of EastCoast sales.Sealed Air Corporation has named Dr. IlhamMartori Kadri the new president of the Institutional andLaundry business unit.The Food Marketing Institute has announced Josh Katz,Ph.D., as its new director of food safety programs.The American Meat Institute (AMI) has announced SusanBackus as the executive director of the AMI Foundation, BetsyBooren as chief scientist of the AMI Foundation and Eric Zito asthe director of membership and exposition services.Bunting Magnetics Co. has made several appointmentsto the Bunting field sales organizationfor industrial products, expandingits existing North American sales force:Jason Cohen in Texas and Oklahoma,Darrick Litten in Ohio, West Virginia andCohenLittenwestern New York, and Dan Murphy inIllinois and Wisconsin.Purfresh named Patricia Castaneda as regionalsales director, South America.Retrotech Inc. has appointed Paul Deveikis as Murphythe new chief executive officer.Agilent Technologies Inc. has announced that Dr.Robert Gerszten has received an Agilent ThoughtLeader Award.Nilfisk Industrial Vacuums Division hasappointed Jamie O’Neill as director ofGersztensales.PRO*ACT, an American distributor of fresh produce,has promoted Brian Kane to chief operatingofficer.KaneCorrection from Our October/November 2012 IssueIn our news item about the book, Invisible Things, we stated thatthis book by Yasmine Motarjemi was written for food safety regulators.The author informs us that “although the book is intended to teach scienceof food safety, and will eventually contribute to the science-basedthinking, its target is not regulatory authorities but children, and throughthem, the general public.” Food Safety Magazine apologizes for theerror.10 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

RAPID LFD Kits AvailableCoconut Soy Total MilkEgg AlmondBia DiagnosticsLeader in Food Allergen AnalysisOfficially Releasing:Gluten Rapid LFD KitMore Gluten Testing than Any Other Laboratoryin North AmericaSame Day Analysis!Great for HACCP & QC/QAcomingsoon:PeanutELISA Kits AlsoAvailableTesting All Major FoodAllergens:GlutenPeanutSoyEggTotal MilkTree NutsRESULTS IN 10 MINUTES!please call for a completelisting802•540•0148www.biadiagnostics.comBia Diagnostics, LLCFSM.indd 106/21/2012 11:30 AM

TestingBy Katerina Mastovska, Ph.D.Modern Analysis of ChemicalContaminants in FoodAn essential component offood safety testingChemical contaminants may occur in our foodfrom various sources. They typically pose ahealth concern, resulting in strict regulationsof their levels by national governments andinternationally by the Codex AlimentariusCommission. Therefore, analysis of relevant chemicalcontaminants is an essential part of food safety testingprograms to ensure consumer safety and compliance withregulatory limits. Modern analytical techniques can determineknown chemical contaminants in complex foodmatrices at very low concentration levels. Moreover, theycan also help discover and identify new or unexpectedchemical contaminants.Sources of Chemical Contaminants in FoodChemical contaminants can be present in foods mainlyas a result of the use of agrochemicals, such as residuesof pesticides and veterinary drugs, contamination fromenvironmental sources (water, air or soil pollution), crosscontaminationor formation during food processing,migration from food packaging materials, presence orcontamination by natural toxins or use of unapprovedfood additives and adulterants.Pesticide ResiduesThe use of pesticides, such as insecticides, fungicidesor herbicides, has become an integral part of modernagriculture to increase crop yields and quality by controllingvarious pests, diseases and weeds. Registration of newpesticides is a strictly regulated processthat evaluates their toxicity and environmentalfate, and sets maximum residuelimits (tolerances) in raw and processedcommodities. There are over 1,400known pesticides. Some of them shouldno longer be used but may still be presentin the environment. Older pesticidesare being reevaluated based on currentlyavailable scientific data.Approved uses of pesticides followingGood Agricultural Practices should resultin pesticide residues below maximumresidue limits established in a givencountry. However, global sourcing of rawcommodities and global distribution offood products complicate the situationbecause pesticide registrations, uses andlimits can be and are different in differentcountries. Consequently, an approveduse in one country may result inan illegal pesticide residue in a food importedinto another country, such as therecent case of the fungicide carbendazimin orange juice imported into the UnitedStates from Brazil. Furthermore, pesticidescan be misused or present in fooddue to contamination during application(spray drift), storage or transportationor from environmental sources, such ascontaminated water or soil.Veterinary Drug ResiduesSimilar to pesticides, veterinary drugsare agrochemicals that undergo a thoroughregistration process, resulting insetting of their maximum residue limits/tolerances in animal-derived foods. Themajor classes of veterinary drugs includeantibiotics, anthelmintics, coccidiostats,nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,sedatives, corticosteroids, beta-agonistsand anabolic hormones. These drugs,which are administered to live animals,can remain as residues in animal tissues.Liver and kidney are highly susceptibleto residues given their biological function.Certain antibiotics, such as penicil-12 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

Testinglin, can cause severe allergic reactions insensitive individuals, which is an importantreason for enforcing their residuelimits in foods of animal origin. Anotherimportant justification for limiting antibioticusage in food-producing animalsis to reduce the risk of pathogenicmicroorganisms becoming resistant toantibiotics. Most veterinary drugs are notof acute toxicological concern, but somesubstances, such as nitrofurans, chloramphenicol,clenbuterol and diethylstilbestrol,have been banned in most countriesdue to their carcinogenicity. Concernabout endocrine-disrupting effects hasbecome another reason for regulationof certain veterinary drugs, such as betaagonistsand hormones.Environmental ContaminantsEnvironmental contaminants canbe man-made or naturally occurringsubstances present in air, water or soil.They can enter the food chain andeven bioaccumulate. Some can posean acute health risk if present at higherconcentrations, but the major concernrelated to the presence of environmentalcontaminants in foods is their potentialendocrine disruption, developmental,carcinogenic and other chronic effects.Examples of environmental contaminantsthat enter the food chain includeheavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs), “dioxins” (polychlorinateddibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans),persistent chlorinated pesticides (e.g.,DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, mirex,chlordane), brominated flame retardants(mainly polybrominated diphenylethers), polyfluorinated compounds,polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs), perchlorate, pharmaceutical andpersonal care products or haloacetic acidsand other water disinfection byproducts.The manufacture and use of PCBsand other persistent organic pollutants(POPs) have been banned for years, butthey remain in the environment due totheir high stability. PAHs can be foundin the environment as a result of industrialpollution or can originate fromoil spills; thus, they were of concern inseafood after the oil spill accident in theGulf of Mexico in 2010.Food Processing ContaminantsCertain toxic or undesirable compoundscan be formed in foods duringtheir processing, such as during heating,baking, roasting, grilling, canning, hydrolysisor fermentation. Precursors of thesecontaminants can occur naturally in thefood matrix, such as in the case of acrylamidebeing formed during the Maillardreaction between the amino acid asparagineand a reducing sugar (especially inpotato- and cereal-based, heat-treatedproducts). Alternatively, certain processingcontaminants, such as nitrosamines,can be formed by interaction of naturalfood components with food additives.Carcinogenic and genotoxic chlorpropanols,such as 3-monochloropropane-1,2diol (3-MCPD), are formed during theacid hydrolysis of wheat, soya and othervegetable protein products.Examples of other processing contaminantsinclude PAHs (in grilled andsmoked products), ethyl carbamate (inyeast-fermented alcoholic beverages andother products) or furan (in a variety ofheat-treated foods, especially coffee andcanned/jarred food).Food processing may also be a sourceof cross-contamination, such as contaminationof nonallergenic foods withknown food allergens.Migrants from Packaging MaterialsDirect contact of foods with packagingmaterials can result in chemicalcontamination caused by migration ofcertain substances into foods. Examplesof migrants of health concern may includebisphenol A or phthalates fromplastic materials, 4-methylbenzophenoneand 2-isopropylthioxanthone from inks,mineral oil from recycled fibers or semicarbazidefrom a foaming agent in theplastic gaskets that are used to seal metallids to glass packaging.ToxinsToxins are naturally occurring substancesthat are produced by variousorganisms, with mycotoxins and marinebiotoxins typically representing the majorconcerns in foods. Other examplesof toxins in foods may include bacterialtoxins (e.g., staphylococcal toxins) orcertain plant toxins, such as pyrrolizidinealkaloids that can be found in honey,milk or eggs. While the bacterial/fungalcontamination can be eliminated withThe Importance of Moisture in Samples Prior toChemical AnalysesMoisture content is an important consideration during sampling procedures, in part becauseit affects the extent of sample heterogeneity. It may be necessary to determine the moisturecontent through sample drying to express analytical results on a uniform scale.Precautions must be considered when drying foods at elevated temperatures, since chemicalreactions such as hydrolysis can occur and these reactions can be accelerated. Moisturedeterminations can be erroneous if hydrolysis has occurred, since the water of hydrolysis has notbeen released from the sample. A general rule of thumb for sample drying is that it should be asrapid and at as low a temperature as possible. Vacuum methods that can used to dry a sampleinclude vacuum ovens and lyophilization, or freeze-drying. Another method is microwave drying.Unlike external heating devices that operate through the sample vessel, microwaves rapidly heatthe sample, keeping temperature gradients to a minimum.For certain chemical testing applications, such as the presence of metals in food as well as theextraction of crude fat and nutrients from food, microwave digestion is the preparation methodof choice. The ability of microwave sample prep to dissolve almost any matrix, leaving targetspecies behind, provides preparative capabilities unavailable through other methods.The inherent variability in the composition of raw materials, basic ingredients and processedfoods requires the use of proper sampling and sample pretreatment techniques, in addition tostatistical methods for obtaining representative and replicate samples. Using the proper samplepreparation methodology can reduce analytical error and costly detection mistakes that couldjeopardize the safety of the food produced as well as lead to an even more costly food safetyrelatedrecall.14 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

Testingheat treatment, the toxins can remain inthe food product as contaminants.Mycotoxins are toxic secondary metabolitesproduced by fungi (molds) thatcan colonize various crops. They are ofconcern mainly in cereals, nuts, infantformula, milk, dried fruit, baby food,coffee, fruit juice and wine. There aremany mycotoxins, but only a few arecurrently regulated, with the EuropeanUnion having a more comprehensive listthan most other countries, which includesaflatoxins, ochratoxin A, patulin,deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, fumonisinsand T-2/HT-2 toxins. Different mycotoxinsare prevalent in different climatesand in various growing and storage conditions.Marine biotoxins, such as saxitoxin,domoic acid, okadaic acid or ciguatoxin,are highly toxic compounds produced byphytoplankton. During so-called harmfulalgal bloom events, they can accumulatein fish or shellfish, such as clams, mussels,scallops or oysters, to levels that canpose serious health risks or even be lethalto humans.Unapproved Food Additives and AdulterantsFood adulteration can happen accidentallywhen unapproved additivesare introduced to the food, or the wrongadditive is introduced through formulationerror. This results in mislabeledfood. Perhaps a larger health issue iswhen foods are adulterated intentionallyfor economic reasons to sell a low-valuefood or material for more or to maskfood spoilage. Some adulteration mayjust mislead or cheat consumers, suchas adding high fructose corn syrup tohoney, but some may be harmful tothem. The most notorious example fromrecent years is the addition of melamineto whey and other protein concentratesto increase their apparent protein contentanalyzed as total nitrogen. Otherexamples include the use of toxic Sudandyes in adulterated chili powders or adulterationof virgin olive oil with hazelnutoil, which can cause unexpected allergicreactions in sensitive individuals.Analysis of Known ChemicalContaminants in FoodMost known chemical contaminantsin foods are small organic molecules.Except for high-level adulterants, theyare typically present in foods at lowconcentrations (parts per trillion to partsper million); thus, their analyses in complexfood matrices are often quite challenging.The basic analytical approachinvolves an extraction using a suitablesolvent, cleanup to remove interferingmatrix components, a chromatographicseparation and a selective detection.It is not an exaggeration to say thatthe implementation of mass spectrometry(MS) as a detection technique hastruly revolutionized the analysis ofchemical contaminants in foods. Asopposed to element-selective or nonselectivedetectors, MS can detect a wide(continued on page 65)F e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 15

PROCESS CONTROLBy John G. Surak, Ph.D.ISO 22000: And the BeatGoes OnInternational growth of ISO22000 deserves attentionInternational Organization for Standardization (ISO)22000 is a unique food safety management systemstandard. The standard is nonprescriptive since itdescribes the requirements for a food safety managementsystem. However, the standard and the guidancestandards do not define what specific actions an organizationmust take to meet these requirements. The organizationmust determine these actions and then show anauditor that these actions are effective in controlling theidentified food safety hazards.Adoption of ISO 22000 is growing internationally.In 2007, approximately 4,000 standards were issuedworldwide. Currently, the number of certifications hasincreased to approximately 18,000 certificates worldwide.The majority of certifications has been awarded tofood processing operations in Asia and Europe. Table 1CountryNumber of ISO 22000CertificatesChina 5,575Greece 1,197Turkey 1,088India 1,020Taipei, Taiwan 949Romania 641Poland 626Japan 482Spain 364Egypt 276Table 1: Number of ISO 22000 Certificates Issued by Countrypresents the top 10 countries that haveISO 22000 certificates granted to foodprocessors by country.In addition, over 2,680 Food SafetySystem Certification (FSSC) 22000certificates have been awarded internationally,with 40 percent being awardedto sites in Europe, 30 percent to sites inthe United States and 20 percent to sitesin Asia. FSSC 22000 is a Global FoodSafety Initiative (GFSI)-recognized foodsafety management audit scheme. It usesISO 22000 and appropriate ISO 22002standards to define the requirements fora food safety management system.Since ISO 22000 is a nonprescriptivestandard, it provides both opportunitiesand challenges to organizations thatdesire to implement the requirements.The primary opportunities focus onthe fact that some companies with ahighly developed food safety managementsystem may be already meeting thestandard’s requirements. However, thechallenges are just the opposite of theopportunities. Organizations that wantto implement ISO 22000 must haveaccess to professionals who understandfood safety systems so that the foodsafety management system can be properlydesigned and implemented.The implementation process consistsof three parts:1. First, the organization must understandthe requirements of thestandard.2. Second, it must understand whatmust be done to implement the standard’srequirements.3. Third, the organization must developa plan to meet the requirements ofthe standard.In response to market needs, ISO subcommittee(SC) 17 1 has been developinga number of standards and guidancepublications to support the use of ISO22000. Table 2 lists current and plannedpublications that support ISO 22000 inthe ISO 22000 family of standards.16 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

staying connectedto your data hasnever been easier34º 36º 36º36º 36º36º35º 34º 36º 36º38º 36º37º 36º36º 36º 36º35º36º34º 34º35º34º36º 36º36º 35º 33º 36º36º 36º34º 34º36º35º34º36º34º36º34º 36º 36º 36º 34º 34º 34º33º 34º 36º 33º36º 40º36º36º35º 36º36º36º 34º36º36º33º 36º36º 33º 34º 34º34º 35º34º33º 36º35º34º34º36º34º33º34º38º35º33º33º34º34º36º35º 35º 35º34º34º34º34º 34º36º34º35º36º35º 34º 37º37º35º 36º37º 35º34º36º 37º36º 34º34º 34º34º34º 36º35º34º 35º35º35º36º35º 35º 34º36º35º 36º34º 37º 34º 35º 35º 35º35º 35º 36º 35º34º35º 35º 35º37º34º35º 35º33º33º36º 35º36º 36º34º 35º36º36º34º 33º33º34º36º34º33º 38º34º36º35º34º34º35º 35º 35º34º33º 34º33º34º36º34º 36º 34º34º35º33º 37º33º35º33º34º35º35º 34º34º34º33º 35º 35º 38º 36º34º33º36º36º34º 34º 36º33º 37º 38º 36º35º35º34º38º38º35º34º34º35º37º33º 35º35º 34º35º 35º 35º 34º 37º 33º36º35º36º34º34º 34º34º33º34º35º34º 35º38º35º35º35º35º34º33º34º36º 35º35º36º 35º 36º34º 34º33º33º 30º 35º 34º 34º34º34º34º 34º34º34º 35º36º35º 35º34º35º34º35º36º37º37º 35º 36º34º34º 35º 36º34º35º34º34º35º 35º 35º 37º 35º 35º34º33º35º35º 35º 35º 35º 35º35º 38º 35º37º 40º34º35º36º35º35º 37º 37º 35º34º 34º 35º 34º 35º35º36º35º33º 34º36º 38º 35º34º37º 35º33º34º35º33º33º 35º36º36º35º35º35º34º35º35º 35º 35º37º 33º35º33º 35º35º36º35º33º 33º35º33º 36º 36º34º34º35º34º34º34º34º36º35º36º35º34º36º36º33º35º34º35º35º34º35º35º 34º 34º34º 36º 36º 34º36º36º33º34º 35º35º34º36º35º34º 33º33º 33º35º34º36º36º34º35º34º34º 37º 35º35º37º34º37º35º37º35º34º36º34º34º34º33º34º 34º36º 36º 36º35º 36º 35º34º 34º37º 36º36º36º 35º36º35º36º34º34º36º37º 37º 35º34º35º 36º36º35º34º33º36º36º35º 34º 35º33º36º36º37º36º35º 35º36º34º37º36º34º36º34º36ºMonitor and report the temperature of your perishable goodsfrom any location with the reliability of wireless connectivity.T&D is dedicated to providing you with the easiest and most reliable way to monitor and report dataacross an entire enterprise. With proven wireless and network connected solutions, you’re able to monitor allaspects of food preparation, transportation, storage and service. So, no matter how your data is collected—whether it’s locally or from a remote location—we provide systems that can automate the process andensure error-free record keeping. Today, with compliance policies changing rapidly and consumersdemanding quality assurance, why trust anyone but T&D for your monitoring needs?For more information about T&D products visit food.tandd.com/FS.©T&D Corporation, Inc. 2013. All rights reserved.

PROCESS CONTROLBooklets published by ISO• ISO 22000: Food safety management systems: An easy to use checklist for small businesses:Are you ready? This publication is also known as ISO 22000: Are you ready? and waspublished in 2007.• How to use ISO 22000 food safety management systems is set to be published in 2013.Standards that are published• “ISO 22005:2007: Traceability in the feed and food chain — General principles and basicrequirements for system design and implementation”• “ISO 22000:2005: Food safety management systems — Requirements for any organization inthe food chain”• “ISO/TS 22003:2007: Food safety management systems — Requirements for bodies providingaudit and certification of food safety management systems”• “ISO 22004 revision: Food safety management systems — Guidance on the application of ISO22000:2005”• “ISO/TS 22002-1:2009: Prerequisite programmes on food safety — Part 1: Foodmanufacturing”• “ISO/TS 22002-2:2013: Prerequisite programmes on food safety — Part 2: Catering”• “ISO/TS 22002-3:2011: Prerequisite programmes on food safety — Part 3: Farming”Standards under development• “ISO/TS 22002-4: Prerequisite programmes on food safety — Part 4: Food packagingmanufacturing”• “ISO 22002-5: Prerequisite programmes on food safety — Part 5: Transport and storage”Table 2: Planned and Proposed Standards in the ISO 22000 Family of StandardsISO published two booklets that wereinitially designed to provide technicalassistance to help midsize and smallbusinesses implement food safety managementsystems that conform to ISO22000. These booklets are written to beuseful for any company that desires toimplement and maintain a food safetymanagement system based on ISO22000.• ISO 22000: Food safety managementsystems: An easy to use checklist for smallbusinesses: Are you ready? is also knownas ISO 22000: Are you ready? Thepublication presents a detailed explanationof the auditable clauses onthe standard. It is available in paperformat, PDF format and CD-ROM.• The second publication is How to useISO 22000 food safety management systems.This publication provides guidanceto organizations that desire toimplement ISO 22000. It was writtenby a committee of ISO experts whohave been actively involved in teachingand implementing ISO 22000. Itwill be published early in 2013. Onekey focus of the book is to explainthe process approach that forms thestructure of ISO 22000. Surak andLorca 2 published an article on processaudits in Food Safety Magazine.Both books can be purchased for anominal cost at the American NationalStandards Institute and ISO websites(www.ansi.org and www.iso.org/iso/home.html).Expert PanelsSC 17 has formed an expert panel onthe ISO 22000 family of standards. Thispanel consists of six experts representingAustralia, Asia, Europe and NorthAmerica. The panel will develop an officialinterpretation of the standards. Thepanel will not respond to questions onaudit schemes such as FSSC 22000 andother GFSI-recognized audit schemes, orspecific conditions an organization canuse to meet the requirements of the ISO22000 family of standards. The panel’swork will be published on the FAQ pagethat is part of the ISO managementsystem-for-food-safetywebsite (www.iso.org/iso/tc34sc17home). This content isalso located at www.myiso22000.com.PRP Guidance StandardsWork has continued on the publicationof ISO technical specifications toprovide guidance on the prerequisiteprograms (PRPs) that organizationsshould implement. The PRPs are anessential part of the food safety managementsystem in that they define the environmentfor the production of safe food.The subcommittee plan is to have a totalof six guidance standards that cover thePRPs for the entire food chain.In 2009, ISO published ISO/TS22002-1:2009. This technical specificationis the first standard in the ISO22002 series and describes the PRPsrequired for food processing organizations.The standard was based on PAS220:2008.ISO has just recently published thePRPs needed for catering operations.ISO/TS 22002-2:2013 was made availableas of January 17, 2013. This standardis intended to be used by catering andfoodservice organizations that includeair catering organizations, and companiesthat provide foodservice operations,including school and industry diningrooms, healthcare facilities, hotels,1. Scope2. Normative references3. Terms and definitions4. Generic PRPs4.1 Facilities requirements4.2 Hygiene requirements within theestablishment4.3 Personnel health and hygienerequirements4.4 Hygiene requirements in theprocessing of food4.5 Hygiene management4.6 Product recall procedures5. Catering-specific PRPs5.1 Thawing5.2 Preparing5.3 Cooking process5.4 Portioning5.5 Cooling and storage conditions5.6 Freezing, storage and thawingconditions5.7 Transport5.8 Food reheating and service5.9 Identification and hygiene controlsystemTable 3: Outline of the Requirements of ISO22002-2 Prerequisite Programs for Catering18 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

PROCESS CONTROL1. Scope2. Normative references3. Terms and definitions4. Establishment and maintenance ofprerequisite programs5. Common prerequisite programs5.1 General5.2 Location5.3 Construction and layout of premises5.4 Equipment suitability5.5 Personnel hygiene5.6 Working animals5.7 Purchasing management5.8 On-farm storage and transport5.9 Cleaning5.10 Maintenance5.11 Waste management5.12 Pest control in premises5.13 Management of productssuspected to be unsafe5.14 Outsourced activities6. Prerequisite programs specific tocrop production6.1 General6.2 Irrigation6.3 Fertilization6.4 Plant protection products6.5 Harvest and postharvest activities7. Prerequisite programs specific toanimal production7.1 General7.2 Feed and water for animals7.3 Health management7.4 Milking7.5 Egg collection7.6 Preparation for slaughter7.7 Growing, harvesting and handlingof aquatic animalsTable 4: Outline of the Requirements of ISO22002-3 Prerequisite Programs for Farmingrestaurants, coffee shops, supermarketsand retail food stores. Table 3 providesan outline of the standard.Farming is the first step in the foodchain. ISO 22002-3 describes the bestpractices that should be adopted thatallow farmers to maintain a hygienicenvironment so they can do their part inensuring on-farm hygiene.The standard is divided into threeparts: common PRPs, PRPs specificfor crop production and PRPs specificfor animal production. Included in theanimal production are PRPs for growing,handling and harvesting aquatic animals.Table 4 presents an outline of the standard’srequirements.Currently, ISO SC 17 is activelydeveloping two additional standards,one for food packaging and one for foodtransport and storage. The food packagingstandard defines the requirements forestablishing, implementing and maintainingPRPs for controlling food safetyissues in the manufacture of food packagingmaterials. This standard shouldbe published in 2013. The work on thetransport and storage standard has juststarted, with publication scheduled for2014. A feed production standard isexpected to start in 2014.New Work on the HorizonISO is revising ISO 22003, theauditing standard, and ISO 22004,the guidance standard for interpretingISO 22000. All ISO standards must bereviewed once every 5 years. Duringthis review process, the standards arerenewed, revised or withdrawn. In 2010,ISO voted to renew the contents ofISO 22000. ISO will start revising thisstandard in 2014 or 2015.•John G. Surak, Ph.D., is theprincipal of Surak and Associatesand provides consulting for foodsafety and quality managementsystems, designing and implementingprocess control systems andimplementing Six Sigma. He led the U.S. delegation toISO committee meetings that developed ISO 22000.He can be reached at jgsurak@yahoo.com.References1. SC 17 is the ISO subcommittee responsiblefor managing the ISO 22000 family of standards.This SC is located within ISO TechnicalCommittee 34, the food products technicalcommittee.2. Surak, J.G. and T.A. Lorca. 2007. Processaudit for food safety. Food Safety Magazine13(4):12–15.F e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 19

SANITATIONBy Sri Pfuntner, M.Sc.Raw Produce Field Samplingfor Biological RisksMitigating biological risk ispossible with early samplingof produce in the fieldAprimary requirement for a comprehensivefood safety management system for rawproduce is the verification and validationof certain processing steps. The method ofverification and validation is often achievedby testing a multitude of criteria, benchmarks or specificationsnecessitated by the process in question. Whentesting is needed, sampling is a required and essential firststep. Regardless if the verification or validation of theseprocessing steps is process control points or Critical ControlPoints, the fact remains that if a sample is not takenwith a specific objective or purpose in mind, the test andthe subsequent analytical result may be misleading, notrepresentative and/or meaningless altogether.We’re not going to discuss the merits or disadvantagesof testing. What we are here to discuss is that, too often,when testing is needed, sampling or the sampling processis not deliberated, not considered and generally overlooked.Hence, sampling may become the weakest linkin this important analytical chain. The weakness is thatan analytical testing method may address the “who, whatand why” for a sample but not necessarily the “where,when and how” to sample. Not knowing the “where,when and how” for a sample may lead to inaccuracies,errors and confusion in interpreting the analytical result.Testing results or analytics are like audits: they aresnapshots in time. As with audits, the depth, magnitudeand frequency of sampling, and thus the analytics, mayprovide one with a justifiable representation of how robusta food safety management system is and how safethe end product will be. It stands to reasonthat the larger the size and the morefrequently the samples are taken, themore accurate the resulting interpretationswill be. Unfortunately, a samplingand testing plan of intense frequency,depth and magnitude, while beneficial, isusually quite cost prohibitive.In the BeginningLet’s start with the end result in mind.As we know, food safety risks can be dividedinto three major categories: physicalrisks, chemical risks and biologicalrisks. One method of monitoring theserisks is to rely on a testing program toobtain analytical results for the variousrisk variables that may be controlled byprerequisite steps or by one or more killsteps. Assuming that we know what typeof analyte we wish to test for, the immediatequestion should be: How do wesample the process, product or commodityto provide the most representativesnapshot and, thus, the most representativeresult for the analyte in question?Let’s evaluate the above question byreviewing how the three food safety riskcategories most often manifest in processes.It can be safely said that physicaland chemical risks or contamination usuallyoccur with much more homogeneityin processes than do biological risks.Biological risks, however, are knownto be sporadic and difficult to isolate.Immediately, we realize that samplingfor biological risks will be like samplingfor the proverbial needle in a haystack.It also stands to reason that it wouldbe much easier to find a negative biologicalanalytical result than a positivebiological result, which, unfortunately,may encourage a false sense of security.While we can sample for physical andchemical risks by following a statisticaland/or a random number-generator samplingplan, sampling for biological risksis much more challenging. For example,the common Z-pattern field-sampling20 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

SANITATIONapproach, 1, 2 while effective for pest managementand thus chemical residue sampling,may not be sufficient to samplefor a biological risk. That said, how doesone approach field sampling for biologicalpathogens? Before we answer thisquestion, let’s explore other considerations.Sampling with a Purpose:The Why, Where and WhenAs the title indicates, one shouldsample raw produce fields with a purpose.That is, why do we sample? Thereare two reasons: We sample either formonitoring purposes or for forensicpurposes (such as when we encountera recall issue). Either purpose requiresconsideration of the federal ReportableFood Registry reporting requirements,which is a federal mandate to report anyfoodborne pathogen found on a productdestined for consumption that is in thechannels of trade and not within theproducer’s complete control to mitigatefurther distribution. If one wants to testand sample for a foodborne pathogen,regardless of where the product or theprocess affecting the product is withinthe supply chain, it is advisable to have apositive release policy in place to ensurethat the product does not enter the channelsof trade should a contaminant ofsome type be encountered.Keeping this mandate in mind, wenow know the when to sample, whichis at the time we still have completecontrol of the distribution of all itemsproduced. If we do not have completecontrol of the distribution of all itemsproduced, we need to step farther backin the process and reconsider where tosample. Perhaps we must sample muchearlier in the process or supply chain todetermine and understand the baselinerisk of distribution control. Thus, thewhen to sample is at the point of completecontrol of product distribution,and the where to sample is at the earliestpoint in this production process. Thereason it is important to sample at thepoint of complete distribution controlis when the purpose of sampling is toanalyze for foodborne pathogens. Inthat case, it is recommended to enforcea positive release policy to lessen theaccidental distribution of contaminatedproduct entering the supply chain andthe channels of trade. Thus, sampling atthe point of distribution control enablesone to implement a positive release policy.Combining the when and the whereconsiderations isolates the field samplingprocess as close to the harvest event aspossible while providing sufficient timefor laboratory results turnaround so asnot to delay harvest plans, to still havecontrol of product distribution, and,hence, to reduce the possibility of contaminatedproduct entering the channelsof trade.The AIBFood Protection AdvantageLet AIB provide the INTEGRATEDsingle-source solution to your FoodProtection needs.Leverage the synergies of the best global FoodProtection products and services to lower your risk andprotect your company’s brands800-633-5137www.aibonline.orgF e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 21

SANITATIONThe Analysis: The WhatThe next question is what analyte (biologicalrisk or foodborne pathogen) andwhat type of sample should be analyzed?In considering which analyte to analyze,we have two options to consider. Eachanalyte requires a different action and actionplan when the result is determined.One option is to analyze for an indicatormicrobe, that is, one mimicking abiological risk or foodborne pathogen.The other option is to analyze for thebiological risk or foodborne pathogendirectly.First, let me say there is no right orwrong option, just different strategies toachieve different purposes. Should wedecide to analyze for the indicator microbe,a stepped-up sanitation plan mayneed to be implemented when actionlevels are crossed. Note that these actionlevels are determined by a baselinemicrobe population level within the areasampled. Should we decide to analyzefor a foodborne pathogen, a positive releasepolicy, a potential recall action andthe federal Reportable Food Registry requirementshould all be kept in mind. Inconsidering what type of sample to analyze,analytical results for the differenttypes of samples command distinct anddiverse actions and/or corrective actions.For example, in the case of a foodbornepathogen analyte, the focus centers onthe control of end-product distribution.The action plans for maintainingdistribution control are specific for thetype of samples tested. For instance, if apositive result for a foodborne pathogenis found in soil samples, do we destroyall the product grown in that soil? Bythe same token, if the irrigation wateris sampled, and a foodborne pathogenis found in the water samples, do wedestroy the entire crop irrigated by thiswater? What if we sampled the product/crop? Did we or can we isolate the lot oracreage sampled so that we can eliminatethe potential contaminated lot from therest of the field to be harvested? Whena foodborne pathogen is found, do wethen proceed in a forensic mode andwiden our sampling plan? How will thisresult impact the remainder of the crop?It quickly becomes clear that we mustadopt a what-if strategy when we design asampling plan as to what we actually proposeto sample. Similarly, if we decideto test for an indicator microbe, specificaction thresholds must be established forthe sample type. How does one establishaction thresholdsfor indicator microbelevels? The answer isto establish a generalbaseline populationof this microbe onthe sample of interest.For example, one canestablish the genericEscherichia coli populationon a leafy green ina specific growing areathroughout a growingseason. Establishingbaseline populationsand action thresholdsis another topic on its own and beyondthe scope of this article. Suffice it to saythat when deciding what to analyze (analyteand type of sample), considerablethought needs to be involved becausediffering action plans or corrective actionplans must be initiated based upon theanalytical end results.“...too often, whentesting is needed,sampling...is notdeliberated, notconsidered andgenerally overlooked.”The Sampling Process: The HowThis brings us back to the how tosample.Keeping in mind that biological risksare sporadic and infrequent, the odds offinding a representative analytical resultbecome slim to none when a samplingplan is followed without an in-depthreview of environmental risk factors.Before any sampling plan is developed,statistical or random, it behooves you tothoroughly walk the field to be sampledand plot a risk map according to exposureor influence from biological risks.For example, within a 20-acre lot, hotspots may be present such as a one-acreexposure to bird droppings due to thepresence of a nearby telephone pole ora two-acre depression where water anddebris naturally accumulate, etc. Thesehot spots must be mapped, identifiedand ranked as high-, medium- and lowriskareas. Next, convert these high-,medium- and low-risk areas to economics—incomedollar production. Convertingthese ranked areas to monetary termsclarifies the potential economic risksfrom samples taken within these areas,as the analytical results mandate certainactions. It is also easyto see that you maywant to be as detailedas possible in mappingthese areas. Once themaps are developed,you can develop asampling plan thatresults in more comprehensivesamplingwith larger magnitudesand higher frequenciesin higher-risk areas.Not only does it makemore economicalsense to sample andtest according to risk, but also it becomesa much more manageable task for the executionof action plans, such as the implementationof a positive release policy.Additionally, when the incremental costof risk (crop destruction), cost of positiverelease implementation (potential harvestdelay) plus the cost of sampling andanalysis are all weighed against incomedollar production, a management decisioncan be formulated whether to retainthe commodity from that particularparcel. It may be more cost effective todiscard the commodity and/or not plantin these risk-identified areas.Sampling Personnel: The WhoThe last question to ask is who thesampling entity should be and whoshould perform the analytical process.We have two options, which are againeconomically driven. Sampling can beperformed in-house (an economical solution)or by a disinterested third party (amore costly approach). The analyticalprocess can also be performed in-houseor by a commercial laboratory, withsimilar economic ramifications. Again,there are no wrong answers, just differentstrategies and economics to consider.The decision as to which strategy to use22 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

SANITATIONis a matter of legal liability based onanalytical results and the applicable actionplan(s). For instance, if the purposeof sampling is to monitor indicatormicrobe levels, in-house sampling andanalysis may be sufficient as long as thelevel of competency of the sampler andthe in-house laboratory is commensurateto the sampling and analytical procedure.Should this strategy be followed,it is recommended that frequent blindsamples be sent to a state-certified thirdpartylaboratory to validate the in-houselaboratory performance. Similarly, athird-party sampler should perform sideby-sidesampling to validate the in-housesampling procedure. When wishing toanalyze for a foodborne pathogen, dueto the complexity of analytical procedures,it is advised that analysis and samplingbe performed by a state-certifiedlaboratory proficient in analyzing saidanalyte for the particular sample type.When engaging a California statecertifiedlaboratory to perform said analysis,additional reporting liability needsto be considered. Aside from the federalReportable Food Registry reporting requirements,a California state-certifiedlaboratory (in-house and third-partyalike) has the obligation to report anyout-of-compliance foodborne pathogento the California State Department ofAgriculture.ConclusionsThe sampling process for raw producefor the purpose of verifying and validatinga food safety management systemto yield a food-safe product is not to beoverlooked and should not be consideredan insignificant challenge. The who,how, what, where, when and why to samplecannot be taken lightly, as the ramificationsof the analytical results when asampling plan is not well planned canproduce a devastating blow, not just forthe producer but for an entire industry.To design and develop a thorough,complete and representative samplingprocess, one must take the time to plan,spell out the purpose, state the objective,define the results and ask the difficultquestions. A well-planned sampling programwill not only achieve the purpose,objective and anticipated results but willalso sustain and maintain a sound analyticalprocess representative of the foodsafety management system it is designedto verify and validate. Think about it! •Sri Pfuntner, M.Sc., is managingpartner of Hartono & Co.and serves as a consultant to theagricultural, ag-chemical and retailindustries for the implementation ofbest practices. She can be reachedat hartono_co@msn.com.References1. www.extension.org/pages/19198/overview-ofmonitoring-and-identification-techniques-forinsect-pests.2. www.btny.purdue.edu/pubs/vegcrop/VCH2005/VCH447.pdf.LaserONMIT 1000Introducing the MIT 1000 Microbial Identiication SystemFaster, More Accurate, Easier to Use, Lower Cost, More Compact.Non-biological, laser-basedNo gram stain requiredSimultaneous Identiiers TMVery low consumables costLow per-test costF e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 23

AccreditationBy Mohan Sabaratnam and Patrick McCullenThe Role of AccreditationBodies in Supply Chain RiskManagementAccreditation helps managerisk throughout the foodindustryFrom production to distribution, the complexcrop-to-table food supply chain is fraught withrisk, as demonstrated by recent outbreaks offood-related diseases such as bovine spongiformencephalopathy-infected beef, Listeria andSalmonella.Representatives from Danone, a French foodproducts corporation, and WalMart summarized thechallenges facing the food industry at the Global FoodSafety Initiative (GFSI) 2012 conference on “AdvancingGlobal Food Safety through Collaboration.” FrankYiannas, vice president of food safety at WalMart, said,“In a changing food delivery system, food production,processing, distribution, retail, foodservice and transportationall have a shared responsibility to providesafe food.”Yves Rey, quality general manager at Danone,added, “Today’s consumer not only expects value formoney but also demands that companies act responsiblytowards the community. Each time there is a foodsafety incident, besides the human tragedy, there is aloss of confidence in our food supply.”All food organizations, retail conglomerations andregulatory agencies look to food testing laboratoriesto ensure that biological and chemical components offoods are safe for consumers. But are all food testinglaboratories created equal?The short answer is no. Certainly,food testing laboratories are required tomeet ISO/IEC standard 17025:2005,General requirements for the competence oftesting and calibration laboratories. However,the devil is in the details. In thecase of food testing laboratories, bestpractices dictate that a third party assessthe competency of the testing lab and itscompliance with the relevant standards—and that’s where accreditation bodies(ABs) come into play.The ABCs of ABsABs are responsible for ensuringcompliance with standards, examiningthe competence of laboratory staff,verifying accredited scopes of testing/calibration and monitoring effectivenessof laboratory quality managementsystems. Third-party ABs can accreditcertification bodies, inspection agencies,calibration/testing laboratories and otherconformity assessment bodies. They arerequired to operate in accordance withISO/IEC 1701, General requirements foraccreditation bodies accrediting conformityassessment bodies. In general, an accreditedcertification body primarily providescertification to a quality managementsystem (e.g., ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO22000, etc.), whereas an accredited testing/calibrationfacility provides an accuratestatement of measurement usuallyin a test report or calibration certificate.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA) has concluded that certificationbodies should have access to competentlaboratory services needed to supporttheir food safety audit program functions.These laboratories should conformto ISO/IEC 17025:2005.As not all testing/calibration laboratoriesperform the same work or havesimilar capabilities, accreditation canhelp identify and qualify those that arecompetent to perform a defined scopeof work. Further, accreditation requirestraceability to the SI units of measure-24 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

Accreditationment undertaken by the laboratory, providinga high degree of reliability to itsmeasurements. Accreditation is a formal,independent process that ensures laboratoriesmeet established management,quality and technical standards and arecompetent to perform the services forcustomers and stakeholders within theirrecognized scope of accreditation.Food testing laboratories depend onABs to perform thorough assessmentsand to provide timely feedback for improvementsbased on the AB’s findings.For instance, Melissa Calicchia, ownerof Food Microbiological Laboratories,based in Cypress, CA, is a State ofCalifornia (ELAP) and ISO/IEC 17025microbiological food testing laboratoryaccredited by International AccreditationService Inc. (IAS), based in Whittier, CA.Calicchia says, “I chose to earn accreditationbecause it demonstrates that our laboperates to a global standard with rigorousexamination of methods, facilitiesand staff.”Analytica Alimentaria GMBH, anindependent laboratory also accreditedunder IAS with laboratories in Germanyand Spain, specializes in the analysis ofpesticide residues and other potentialfood contaminants. Udo Lampe, generalmanager for Analytica Alimentaria, adds,“Accreditation by a neutral and technicallycapable organization is the onlyway to confirm that our laboratory meetsthe technical requirements for testingand that we fulfill our own qualitysystem.”Standards of EvaluationThe process of becoming accreditedand maintaining accreditation involvesongoing technical and quality assessmentsof a laboratory’s equipment,personnel qualifications and methods/procedures used for performing calibration/testingand can vary from countryto country. In the U.S., for example,expanding regulatory oversight willdictate advances in these standards (see“Anticipated Regulatory Changes Pushfor Accreditation Standards,” p. 26).Accreditation in the U.S. is complexand highly sector specific. As a result, theU.S. has multiple ABs, some of whichspecialize to serve certain industries.When selecting an accredited calibrationor testing laboratory to test your productsor calibrate your equipment, makesure that the AB is a signatory memberof the International Laboratory AccreditationCooperation (ILAC) Mutual RecognitionArrangement (MRA). ILAC is a• ATP Monitoring - 15 seconds• Enterobacteriaceae - 8 hours• Coliform - 8 hours or less• E. coli - 8 hours or less• NEW! Total Viable Count - 7 hours• NEW! Listeria - 16 hours• Allergen Prevention - 15 secondsFREEMENTION THIS ADCALL: 1.888.HYGIENAwww.hygiena.cominfo@hygiena.comglobally recognized international cooperationof laboratory and inspection ABs.These member ABs participate in a rigorouspeer evaluation process based ona common standard (ISO/IEC 17011)to ensure that each signatory maintainscompetence to provide accreditationservices. The result of this MRA is thatthe reports of laboratories accredited bySAVINGS CODE: 2013FSF e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 25

Accreditationan ILAC-recognized AB are accepted bygovernments and industries worldwide.Jesse Lamas Calvillo, laboratory managerfor AGQ Labs, Spain, says, “Internationalaccreditation not only assuresthe quality of data being emitted to ourclients from our laboratory, but benefitsthe company by guaranteeing uniformityof standards across the board on theworld stage. AGQ has seven laboratoriesthroughout the world, which allow us tooperate in over 20 countries, and ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation has been criticalwithin every one of those food safetymarkets. Beyond the more apparentbenefits of having an internationally recognizedaccreditation, being on the sameplaying field as national agrifood laboratoriesin Europe and abroad heightensour profile and lends credibility any timewe have to represent our clients in adispute.”Governmental regulatory agenciessuch as the Consumer Product SafetyCommission, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the NuclearRegulatory Commission require accreditationto verify the technical competenceof organizations like laboratories, inspectionbodies and/or certification agencies.Laboratories seeking accreditationfrom anILAC memberorganizationmustdemonstratethat theirtesting andcalibrationmethods areconducted inaccordancewith internationallyrecognizedstandards,and within the framework of ISO/IEC17025, General requirements for the competenceof testing and calibration laboratories.Figure 1: Certificate of AccreditationSystematic AssessmentThe first step in the accreditation processis for the laboratory to submit qualitymanagement system documentationto the AB, describing its managementand technical procedures for compliancewith ISO/IEC 17025. The documentationcomprises the laboratory’s qualitysystem manual, details on the laboratory’sequipment, a proposed scope ofaccreditation, list of test methodologiesand procedures, and capabilities forAnticipated Regulatory Changes Push for Accreditation StandardsAccording to the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), FDA must establishmodel accreditation standards to ensure that accredited labs have the followingcontrols by 2013:• Methods to ensure that appropriate sampling and analytical procedures arefollowed• Certification of reports of analyses• Internal quality systems• Complaint-handling procedures• Training/experience requirementsOf course, these types of Good Laboratory Practices and controls are alreadycommon in many accredited laboratories currently operating throughout theworld. In fact, many of these would be eligible for accreditation under FSMA,which would cover government and private labs, both U.S. and foreign. Althoughnon-third party, in-house laboratories of food manufacturers are eligiblefor FSMA accreditation, FDA has not yet decided on this issue and has declinedto provide guidance at this time.However, the agency stated that to facilitate FDA assessment, a certificationbody could seek accreditation from an AB that is operating in accordance withISO/IEC 17011:2004, and that the certification bodies should have access toaccredited laboratory services needed to support the audit program functions(see www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm). Theselaboratories should conform to ISO/IEC 17025:2005.establishingand estimatingmeasurementuncertaintyfor thetesting to beperformed.After reviewingthisdocumentation,the ABconducts anon-site assessmentusing ateam of qualitysystem and technical experts matchedto the laboratory’s scope to confirmcompliance with the standard. For instance,a food laboratory may proposea scope of accreditation that includesbiological testing for Salmonella using theFDA-Bacteriological Analytical Manual,which outlines procedures for the detectionof pathogens such as Salmonella infood products. Another example couldbe the use of a regulatory method likeU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook(MLG) for the microbiological analysisof meat, poultry and egg products.Competency of the laboratory staff toperform the intended work and ongoingtraining is another critical area reviewedby the AB.Dr. Sri Ghanthan, a veteran IAS assessor,says, “Certainly the primary focus ofthe assessment team is to identify nonconformances.However, they might alsolook for ways to share knowledge aboutindustry best practices. In the food safetybusiness, it’s not enough to just meetthe standard[s]. Accreditation bodiesmust also see evidence of a laboratory’scommitment to continuous improvementof its processes, people and toolsas well as evidence of preventive actionsto proactively address potential problemareas. That means looking at the testingprocesses, interviewing people, determiningequipment capabilities and even theway samples are received, identified andstored. The goal of continuous improvementis to improve long-term efficiencyand accuracy.”26 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

AccreditationFood Microbiological Laboratories’Calicchia recalls, “During our on-siteassessment, the evaluators recommendedthat we chronicle our improvementprojects as well as improvementsto methodologies, systems, facilities,communications and personnel. Thedocumentation would help us recognizewhere we focused our energies most. Forinstance, if we focused more on improvingmethodologies, but very little onfacilities, we might have missed some opportunities.The documentation wouldhelp us identify gaps where there mightbe inconsistencies.”Once a testing laboratory has demonstratedtechnical competence andcompliance with the accreditation criteria,it is granted a Certificate of Accreditation—CA—(Figure1). The certificate,which includes a scope that describesthe laboratory’s technical capabilities,is given to the laboratory and a copy isplaced on the AB’s website. The CA alsois made available to consumers, potentialcustomers, stakeholders and regulatorybodies.Reading between the LinesWhen an AB issues a CA to a laboratory,it will include the name and contactinformation for the laboratory, thestandard (ISO/IEC 17025) used for theaccreditation and the scope of the accreditation.Keep in mind, ISO/IEC 17025 is ageneric standard used to accredit laboratoriesin many different fields, rangingfrom biological testing (food testing) toelectrical testing (fiber optics) and othertechnical disciplines. It is important toreview the details in a laboratory’s CAbefore contracting with the laboratoryfor its services. The scope will list thedetails of the laboratory’s qualificationsunder the accreditation.Just because a laboratory is accreditedto ISO/IEC 17025 doesn’t mean it isqualified to perform Listeria testing asper the USDA-MLG. The ability of thelaboratory to perform the relevant testingmust be listed on its scope of accreditation.A review of the laboratory’s CA andscope will help customers select appropriatelaboratories to perform therequired tests and/or calibrations. •Mohan Sabaratnam is qualitymanager with International AccreditationService Inc. (IAS). He has beeninvolved in the development andoperation of laboratory accreditationprograms for the last 16 years andcurrently manages the IAS food safety managementsystem accreditation program.Pat McCullen is vice presidentand chief technical officer and isresponsible for overseeing technicalactivities for IAS. He has over 30years of experience in laboratorytesting, inspection, product certificationand conformity assessment. He was instrumentalin launching the IAS technical advisory council on foodsafety, serving as chairman at the inaugural meeting.F e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 27Pickering_AminoAcid_FoodSafety.p1 Pickering_AminoAcid_FoodSafety.indd 1 15/19/10 2:00:32 PM 5/18/10 5:43:25 PM

MANAGEMENTBy Peter Overbosch, Ph.D.Food Safety Management:Hazard- or Risk-Based?A variety of approaches tofood safety managementexists: Which is right for you?Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points(HACCP) principles require identified andrealistic food safety hazards to be prevented,eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels.The first two options are straightforward,from a conceptual perspective. The result in both casesis—again conceptually—a complete absence of the hazard,which should be acceptable to everyone. Things get morecomplicated with the last option: “reduced to acceptablelevels,” because acceptability is a multifaceted concept.Risk-Based ApproachesTraditionally, acceptable levels of food contaminantshave been defined on the basis of scientific dose-responseinsights—leading to, for example, the establishment of“allowable daily intake” (ADI) limits for substances oftoxicological concern or of infectious dose for microbiologicalpathogens.This approach leads then to the adoption of (legal)limits, such as “absence in 25 g,” which is a more stringentrequirement than “absence in 10 g,” indicatingthat the relative risk of a negative outcome (illness) isdeemed lower. For our current purposes, we will term thisapproach “risk-based.” It is important to note that “riskbased”always implies that a certain level of risk, not zero,is deemed acceptable.Allergenicity has long been a special problem in thecontext of this approach, especially in “may contain”cases. The distinguishing factor in allergenicity is theextreme variability of individuals’ sensitivityto the material in question. Mostpeople are not sensitive at all, a fewpercent are and some may be extremelysensitive. Furthermore, in products that“may contain” a certain allergen, the ideais that the actual content may also varysignificantly. The situation therefore getsincreasingly complex. One approachthat individual food processors havetaken is to label their products as “maycontain everything that could be presenton the manufacturing site (or sitesif the same product is manufactured atmultiple sites).” In response, consumerssensitive to specific allergens have beenknown to “calibrate themselves againstthe market,” trying little bites of “maycontain” products to see if they have animmediate reaction. If not, they wouldconclude that this product could safelybe consumed now and in the future,counting on allergen levels to be effectivelyconstant in subsequent productionlots. Where existing products have beentransferred from one manufacturing siteto another, resulting in different actualallergen residue levels, this has sometimesproven to be an unreliable strategywith severe consequences. Simple “maycontain” labeling is therefore not a realrisk-based strategy, because it does notconsider the actual level of allergens inthe product, invites risky behavior on theside of consumers and makes no attemptto link dose to effect. Fortunately, moresystematic approaches like VITAL (VoluntaryIncidental Trace Allergen Labeling)1 make a thorough attempt to bringallergen labeling back into the fold ofscientifically valid, risk-based approaches.Hazard-Based ApproachesIncreasingly, however, very differentconsiderations are being included in theconcept of acceptability. The Sudan Redcase in the UK in 2004 is an example. 2In this case, the nonfood dye Sudan Redhad been found as a contaminant in28 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

MANAGEMENTcertain spices. As no acceptable level hadbeen determined, all products containingSudan Red at any level were recalled.This included products that could belinked, through traceability, to the issue,even if no Sudan Red could be detectedin them anymore. It is questionablewhether homeopathic dilutions of asuspected hazard continue to pose anactual risk, but the case was handled onan absolute zero-tolerance basis. For ourcurrent purposes, we will term this approach“hazard based.”Whereas the Sudan Red case had conventionaltoxicological considerations(based on very little available evidence,which was where most of the problemoriginated) as the main driver, a fewother cases seem to go well beyond that.Imports of American long-grain ricecame to a halt in 2006, when traces ofgenetically modified LL601 were detected.3 “The protein found in LLRice 601is approved for use in other products.It has been repeatedly and thoroughlyscientifically reviewed and used safely infood and feed, cultivation, import andbreeding in the U.S. as well as nearly adozen countries around the world,” arguedU.S. Secretary of Agriculture MikeJohanns, but Japan and the EuropeanUnion (EU) stopped import immediately.As ships with rice were still underwaywhen the issue became known, tests hadto be developed to analyze cargoes uponarrival. The proposed sampling and testingregime was significantly more likelyto pick up LL601 than a very sensitiveroutine Salmonella test in case of suspectedSalmonella contamination, althoughnobody would suggest that LL601 wasmore hazardous than Salmonella. Furthermore,EU Member States would notagree on point-of-entry acceptance testing,but continued to test once-clearedbatches when they arrived within theirborders. Adopting a hazard-based approachin the absence of an actual hazardis, in this case, explained by the EUpublic’s strong aversion to geneticallymodified organism (GMO) technology,which in turn guided authorities’ actions.The case of azo dyes in food—whichmust now be labeled by EU law so parentscan choose to avoid the product fortheir children—illustrates how public andpolitical perception may designate anadditive as a hazard in a case where theEuropean Food Safety Authority clearlywas very reluctant to go that far. Thelabeling obligation then effectively actsas a hazard-based preventive measure,and the hazard status of these additivesReduce cost and save time!LaMotte introduces a new breakthroughin microbiological testing. BioPaddlesare flexible dual-sided agar paddles eachcontaining microbe-specific mediaenclosed in a sterile vial. Identify andquantify microbes in air, water, soil or onany surface. BioPaddles don’t require anyother testing equipment—only a magnifierand warm place to incubate!• Free App! Helps identify colonies• Ready to use• Longer shelf-life thantraditional Petri dishes• No refrigeration needed• Simple incubation requirements• Unique design enhances colonymorphology characterizationFor more informationcheck out our website!See us at PittCon • Booth 1327PO Box 329 • Chestertown, MD 21620 • 800.344.3100www.lamotte.com/biopaddles.htmlhas become a self-fulfilling prophecy andis now a well-accepted “fact” in publicmedia. Much the same applies to the “Enumber”ingredients (chemicals permissibleas food additives in the EU). Thesystem was originally designed to assureconsumers about the safety of these ingredients,but public opinion has movedin the opposite direction and producersF e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 29

MANAGEMENTare now keen to “keep the label clean”by eliminating such ingredients, therebyreinforcing the trend.Lastly, there seems to be an emergingtendency to treat even contaminants forwhich a maximum residue level has beenlegislated on a zero-tolerance basis. Thethinking behind this appears to be thatdetected levels may vary case by case,that the presence of a contaminant indicatesthe possibility that other samplesmight exceed limits and that a positivedecision to allow the product into themarket might in the end be seen as negligentand indefensible.Risk- or Hazard-Based:Does It Matter?The problem with the above examplesis not so much that people shouldbe forced to eat what they don’t wishto eat, or that food safety would benefitfrom lax rules and enforcement. Theproblems are inherent in the concept ofhazard-based food safety approaches, asthe underlying drivers are on a collisioncourse:• Analytical methodology becomesever more sensitive and selective. Thatholds for chemical as well as microbiologicalanalyses, in which recentadvances have shown that multiple,different strains of organisms couldbe detected where traditionally noneor only one would be found. On thechemical/analytical side, we will getever closer to the point where everypossible environmental substance canbe detected in every substrate. Anelegant example was already shown inthe 1980s, when low levels of BTEX(benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene andxylene) components were detected inolive oil, which caused great concern,mainly in Germany. Much negativepublicity resulted until it was proventhat the mere exposure of olives tothe exhaust fumes of normal traffic ata significant distance for a few days(essentially just storing the olives in ashack off road) would cause the levelsfound and that consumers would beexposed to higher levels of these substanceson a regular basis by filling up“Hazard-basedapproaches tend todevelop a runawayinternal logic that drivesdevelopments to theirlimits...”the gas tanks of their cars. Only thendid public concern fade away.• Allowing hazards to be designated onother than strictly scientific grounds,or pushing scientific requirements toallow for fast-track hazard designation,is helping increase the numberof hazards. Furthermore, these aversion-basedhazards have a tendencyto end up in the zero-tolerance categoryeither directly (GMO example)or indirectly (SudanRed dye example).Additionally, inmany countries, authoritiesmust nowbe informed aboutany noncomplianttest results—even ifthey are tentative orotherwise dubiousor unconfirmed.This obligation hasbeen implementedto prevent real issuesfrom beingcovered up ornecessary communication from beingdelayed, but in practice it oftenmeans that authorities will be underpressure to warn the public from thevery first moment a potential issue issuspected. Once a warning has goneout, there is, in practice, no way back.• As methodologies are continuallyrefined and more zero-tolerancehazards are added, noncompliant testresults can be expected to becomeever more frequent, leading to evermore “scandals,” recalls, feelings ofuncertainty in the general public andperfectly acceptable food being destroyedas if it were toxic waste. Thefeelings of uncertainty also typicallydrive calls to carry out more tests andat lower levels of sensitivity, turningthe circle ever faster.Hazard-based approaches tend todevelop a runaway internal logic thatdrives developments to their limits: forexample, the recall of Sudan Red-relatedproducts only on the basis of traceability.As the logic, once adopted, seemsimpossible to argue with, different approachesare normally only possible inan entirely different setting. The FoodStandards Australia New Zealand agencysaw things differently: “… the authoritybelieves that Australians are safe. For astart, because the amounts of the dye inthese products are so small, and becausethe link to cancer in humans hasn’tbeen proven, the overall risk to healthis small.” A similar pattern was seen inother cases—the BTEX controversy inolive oil was never asbig outside Germany.Solid risk-based approachesgenerally donot have this inherentlyinescapable logic.In addition, the ongoingpursuit of thesecases diverts effortsfrom more urgent foodsafety priorities—mostof which have to dowith implementingbasic HACCP/hygienemanagement systemsin the food chain—indeveloping as well as developed countries.The certification and general foodsafety awareness level for suppliers inEurope and elsewhere still needs improving,and significant work is required toraise standards.So What Can Be Done About It?The main goal must be to target ourfood safety efforts toward the preventionof actual harm. With the ongoinghigh incidence of foodborne illnessaround the world (the World HealthOrganization has mentioned 1.8 millionfatalities), most of which are expected tobe due to microbiological issues, thereis every reason to continue working onbasic hygiene and HACCP in our marketsand in other countries, where someof our products are grown, farmed ormanufactured.This includes ongoing training, certificationefforts and the developmentof analytical methodology to tracepathogens involved in outbreaks [onereason the German enterohemorrhagicEscherichia coli (EHEC) outbreak of 201130 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

MANAGEMENTtook so long to be resolved was that theappropriate analytical tools for E. coliO104 in food were not available at thetime] and traceability technology forthe entire supply chain. With an ongoingbackground level of around 1,000EHEC cases annually in Germany andaround 70,000 in the U.S., this is a primeexample of risk-based priority setting.The gradual efforts toward food safetyin terms of risk reduction are hard work,not very glamorous and never finished.Any preventive effects can be demonstratedonly indirectly and statistically, sothe immediate rewards in terms of a demonstrableintervention in an acute caseare simply not there. Looking back at thebehaviors of some of the stakeholdersin the aforementioned German EHECcase, where there was no shortage ofactors claiming a part of the responsibilitiesand public communication duties,impatience with the slower pace and lessprecipitous actions of a risk-reductionapproach may have been a factor.At the same time, we would benefitfrom a very critical assessment of allzero-tolerance, hazard-based approachesfor the reasons provided above. Riskcommunication must be an importantelement of this exercise. Recognizingthat much of the driving force behindthe designation of zero-tolerance hazardsis aversion-based (zero tolerance wasnot put in place because there is infiniterisk), the best options here might be instressing the negative consequences ofmany hazard-based approaches:• The unstoppable drive toward completeelimination of implicated productsfrom the market in the absenceof any significant risk• The associated food waste• The inherent tendency toward “discovering”more of these instances• The very considerable efforts involved• The tendency to reconfirm existingfeelings of uncertainty among thepublic• The absence of a contribution towardreducing the rate of foodbornediseasesMoving forward, the food industry—primaryproducers, manufacturers,retailers and foodservice—will need tocontinue to work together to improverisk-based food safety management alongthe entire supply chain. We will alsoneed to become more vocal in challengingmany hazard-based, zero-toleranceapproaches that may effectively undermineany confidence the consumer mayhave in our global food safety efforts. •Peter Overbosch, Ph.D., is vicepresident of corporate qualityassurance, Metro AG, based inDusseldorf, Germany.References1. www.eu-vital.org/en/home.html.2. www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/stories/2005/03/03/1313354.htm.3. www.cbgnetwork.org/1629.html.INTRODUCINGNew Epower TM Certified Reference Material (CRM) is a quantitativemicroorganism preparation.For Testing Laboratories, Section 5.6.3.2 of ISO 17025:2005 states:“Referencematerialsshall,wherepossible,betraceabletoSIunitsofmeasurements,ortoCERTIFIED REFERENCE MATERIALS.”Includes Certificate of Analysis!www.microbiologics.comReference Material ProducerCERT # 2655.0229128_5_EPowerCRM_HalfPage.indd 17/2/12 4:47 PMF e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 31

PACKAGINGBy Giovanna Buonocore, Ph.D., and Salvatore Iannace, Ph.D.Molecular and SupramolecularDesign for Active and EdiblePackaging SystemsNew advances in foodpackaging design oncutting edgeTo the average consumer, food packaging issimply the enclosure of a food product in aplastic pouch, a metal can or a glass bottle. Toa scientist or engineer, however, food packagingis a rather technical matter. It is a coordinatedsystem designed for the efficient delivery of high-quality,safe food products throughout every phase of the supplychain. 1Primary packaging has a great influence on food qualityand safety. It can be considered a four-componentsystem: the food, the internal environment, the packageand the external environment. A good understanding ofthe interactions between these components is necessaryto design the food package. Interactions between thefood and the internal environment are the most importantfactors, since the rate of food deterioration under theconditions of the internal environment frequently governsthe shelf life of the package. The package representsa protection of the food against negative effects fromthe external environment. It often serves as a barrier todelay the ingress of moisture or oxygen from the externalenvironment, thereby extending the shelf life of foodsthat are sensitive to moisture and oxygen. Interactionsbetween food and package may be desirable or not.Desirable interactions include active packaging systemsthat will be described in detail below, whereas undesirableinteractions include migration of undesirable packagingcomponents to the food. 1In recent years, several technologies have receivedgreat attention due to their innovativeand challenging characteristics, such as:1) active packaging, 2) bio-based/ediblematerials, 3) intelligent packaging and 4)high-barrier materials. We give here anoverview of the general concepts regardingactive packaging systems, edible coatingsand films, and we present severalrecent research advancements that coulddrive the transition toward more efficientand innovative systems based on the useof novel concepts of macromoleculardesign. The control of hierarchical structuresfrom molecular levels to nano- andmicroscale through the control of theinteractions and assembling behavior ofmolecules and compounds will permitdevelopment of materials with advancedand smart functionalities as well as materialsable to interact with and respondto external stimuli, thus improving theefficiency of the packaging system.Active PackagingActive packaging has been defined assystems in which the product, the packageand the environment interact in apositive way to extend the food’s shelflife or to achieve some characteristic ofthe food that cannot be obtained otherwise.Active systems are usually obtainedby embedding into the packaging materialsactive compounds that absorb substancesfrom the environment surroundingthe food or that are released fromthe packaging into the food. Among theseveral active systems, interesting andchallenging materials are those able torelease active compounds such as antimicrobialsor antioxidants into the food. Inthis respect, the aim of controlled-releasesystems intended for food packagingapplications is to optimize the amountof active compounds released from thepolymeric carrier into the food to delayor inhibit the mechanisms responsiblefor the degradation of the packed foodstuff.EU Regulations 1935/2004 and32 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

Choose ConfidenceChoose Confidence Silliker®Choose Silliker®www.silliker.com • info@silliker.comwww.silliker.com • info@silliker.comPart of Mérieux NutriSciences, Silliker is the leading internationally accredited providerof food safety and quality services. We’re dedicated to helping companies worldwideFOOD find the best possible solutions to food safety challenges throughout the supply chain.SAFETY &QUALITY Part of Mérieux Copyright NutriSciences, © 2013 Silliker, Inc. Silliker All Rights is the Reserved leading internationally accredited providerof food safety and quality services. We’re dedicated to helping companies worldwideFOOD find the best possible solutions to food safety challenges throughout the supply chain.SAFETY &Corporate Headquarters:Silliker, Inc.111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300Corporate Chicago, Headquarters:IL 60601 / USASilliker, Inc.111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300

PACKAGING“Primary packaginghas a great influenceon food quality andsafety.”450/2009/EC define specific rules forthe use of new types of materials andarticles designed to actively maintain orimprove the condition of the food. Inparticular, Regulation 1935/2004 offeredfor the first time the opportunity to useactive packaging in Europe by allowingthe application of materials with agentsthat could migrate into foods. This regulationregarding all materials and articlesintended to come into contact with foodcontains general provisions on the safetyof active and intelligent packaging andsets the framework for the EuropeanFood Safety Agencyevaluation process. 2Currently, one ofthe most interestingapproaches to improvethe performance of activepackaging systemsis the development,on a laboratory scale,of hybrid organicinorganicmaterials.Two different approaches can be used:1) systems in which the active inorganicparticles are dispersed at the nanometriclevel into the polymer matrix, and 2)systems in which the inorganic particlesare embedded into the polymer matrixand act as a carrier that enables the controlledrelease of the active compoundfrom the packaging into the food.An example of the first approach isgiven by inorganic phyllosilicate claysthat can be used as support for silvernanoparticles (AgNPs) to generate a newclass of antimicrobial systems. The plateletclays, which possess intensive chargeson their surfaces, swell in water andgenerate a stable pseudo-cross-linkingnetwork that interacts and stabilizesthe AgNPs. The silver-supporting materialcan control the release kinetics ofsilver ions because of weak electrostaticinteractions, which are established withsurface platelets of montmorillonite(MMT). We have recently shown thatsilver-MMT (Ag-MMT) antimicrobialnanoparticles can be obtained by incorporatingsilver ions into natural MMT. 3These Ag-MMT nanoparticles can beembedded in bio-based polymer matricesto explicate antimicrobial activitiesagainst microorganisms. It was shownthat water uptake by the organic matrixplays a key role in the antimicrobial efficacyof the developed active films. Agarhydrogel nanocomposites, which exhibitthe highest water content uptake, werethe most active against the tested microorganisms.An example of the second approachis given by highly ordered mesoporoussilicas that have been long recognizedas very promising materials with a widerange of possible applications, such asthe capability to actas a reservoir for theaccommodation ofdrug molecules in thepharmaceutical fieldor active compoundsin the food packagingfield. 4 In fact, the wellknownpossibility ofchemically functionalizingthe pore surfaceof siliceous mesostructures with differentorganic moieties 5 constitutes a route forcontrolling drug release by diffusionunder specific conditions. When the interactionsbetween desorbing moleculesand silica pore walls are significantlystrong and/or show some kind of specificity,the release also depends on the stabilityof the complex between the functionalgroups of the drug/active compoundand those of the substrate. Thisphenomenon permits the fine-tuning ofthe release of specific molecules from agiven mesostructure by simply changingthe functional groups that are attachedto its pore walls during the process ofsynthesis. We have recently reported thatan amino-functionalized SBA-15 mesoporoussilica exerts a profound influenceover the antioxidant release of tocopherolcontained in low-density polyethylenepolymer films. 6 When tocopherol waspreincorporated into such a mesostructure,active polymer films containing thefunctionalized carrier showed a slowerantioxidant release when compared withsamples containing either free tocopherolor tocopherol loaded into a purelysiliceous SBA-15 substrate.In general, active materials already onthe market are not very widespread inEurope. This is most likely due to somedegree of diffidence of the average consumertoward these kinds of new packagingmaterials. Notwithstanding, foodcompanies, food packaging suppliersand consumers should bear in mind thatthese new concepts can be a valuable solutionto new market requirements suchas the emerging social tendency to buyfood products at longer time intervals.For this reason, it is highly desirable tocontinue developing new packaging systemsable to maintain the characteristicsof fresh food as long as possible.Future Advances of ActivePackagingThe field of food packaging can beconsidered one of the emerging applicationsof stimuli-responsive polymermaterials. They are an interesting, innovativeand challenging class of materialsthat can adapt to surrounding environmentsand regulate the transport of moleculesas a reaction to external stimuli.To sustain life and maintain biologicalfunction, nature requires selectively tailoredmolecular assemblies and interfacesthat provide a specific chemical functionand structure as well as a change in theirenvironment. Synthetic polymer systemswith very similar attributes are oftenprepared for a broad range of applicationssuch as controlled-release systems.Recently, stimuli-responsive macromolecularnanostructures have been developed;they are capable of conformationaland chemical changes upon receptionof external signals such as change in temperature,pH or chemical composition. 7These materials will permit triggering therelease of active compounds only whenstrictly needed by the system.Edible CoatingsEdible films and coatings are otherstrategies widely investigated to meetconsumer demands for more naturalfoods and environmental protection.They can be developed using agriculturalcommodities and/or wastes of industrial(continued on page 44)34 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

Special advertising supplement presented by Food Safety Magazine • February/March 2013 • www.foodsafetymagazine.com

Food Safety Insider: Sanitation SolutionsImportance of AccurateMeasurement of Cleanersand Sanitizerswww.biocontrolsys.comSanitation plays a critical role in the food safety industry.Proper sanitation is a key component to protectingfood manufacturing facilities from introducing spoilageor pathogenic organisms to their products, surfaces and equipment.Cleaners and sanitizers must be accurately measured andcorrectly prepared to ensure they areeffective. Too little sanitizer allows forthe potential growth of these organisms,whereas too much sanitizer can act as anadulterant to the product and unnecessarilyraise sanitation costs. There areseveral methods for measuring chemicalconcentrations, and the goal for qualityassurance managers in each facility is tofind the method that is the most accurate,efficient and cost-effective.Test StripsOne commonly used method is teststrips that, when placed in a preparedchemical solution, produce a color change based on the amountof active chemical in the solution. The test strip’s large incrementalconcentration values and visual color result create a lack ofprecision and variability in operator interpretation. Test resultsmust be recorded, tracked and analyzed manually.Chemical Titration KitsThe use of titration kits requires an arduous process of dispensingprecise volumes of an indicator solution into a mixtureof sanitizer and source water to produce a color change. A singledrop or less can cause the indicator’s change in color, thus renderingthe result of the test invalid, and the process must be repeated.Titration kits are laborious to operate and require calculationsto determine the result, which must be manually recorded.Chemical InjectorsChemical vendors often supply customers with inline chemicalinjectors. These devices are installed in conjunction with thefacility’s water lines to mix the sanitation chemical and water ata defined proportionate rate to create an “on-demand” homogeneouschemical mixture. Injectors typically require an intricateinstallation procedure and routine maintenance, halting the sanitationprocess. Independent test methods are required to verify theinjectors are mixing at an appropriate rate and results must bemanually recorded.ConductivityAnother method of measuring chemical concentration levelsis by testing the solution’s conductivity. The conductivity of anaqueous solution is determined by the concentration of ions inthe solution. Measuring a solution’sconductivity and then comparing it tothe conductivity of a known standardfor that chemical allow for a quick andprecise determination of the chemical’sconcentration.Our SolutionThe LIGHTNING MVP ® HazardAnalysis and Critical Control Points(HACCP) monitoring system fromBioControl includes an optional probethat can be used to determine theprecise concentration of a sanitizer orcleaner, helping to ensure they are beingaccurately prepared to clean andsanitize effectively.The LIGHTNING MVP ConductivityProbe’s results are accurate to withinfive percent: five times more accuratethan test strips or titration kits, whichhistorically only provide ± 25% accuracy.This 20 percent gain in accuracyprovides significant cost savings for afacility. Less sanitizer will be used dueto inaccurate measurements, and expensiveplant equipment will be sparedthe corrosive effects of excessively concentratedchemicals. Conversely, theprobe ensures sanitizer concentration issufficient to prevent the growth of microorganisms,protecting the consumerfrom foodborne illnesses. In turn, themanufacturer is kept safe by preventingoutbreaks and protecting the productfrom premature spoilage, protecting thebrand’s reputation and the companyand its employees from liability.Designed with an epoxy-basedbody, the probe is rugged, durable, requireslittle maintenance and is safe foruse in food manufacturing plants. Theprobe automatically stores and recordsdata that, when used in conjunctionwith the LIGHTNING MVP software,can be uploaded to a computer fortracking and trending analysis with aclick of a button.While there are several methods fordetermining sanitizer concentration, themost accurate, responsive, cost-effectiveand easiest for operator use is theLIGHTNING MVP Conductivity Probe.The ability to record, track and analyzedata will allow managers to adhere totheir HACCP and hygiene programswhile reducing overhead costs.For more information, please contactBioControl at 800.245.0113 or bye-mail at info@biocontrolsys.com.36 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

AccuracyQualitySafetyHACCP Monitoring Begins with the LIGHTNING MVP ®Let BioControl bring greater accuracy and value to yourHACCP and hygiene monitoring programs with theLIGHTNING MVP. Our hand held instrument allows for theinstant detection of ATP, pH, temperature, conductivity andchemical concentration and offers:• On-site user calibration and verification• 24/7 online training and user certification• Quick and easy upload to a PC for trending and trackingFind out what makes the LIGHTNING MVP the first choicein Hygiene and HACCP monitoring for QA managerscommitted to quality.www.biocontrolsys.com | info@biocontrolsys.com

Food Safety Insider: Sanitation SolutionsHidden Contamination onProcessing Equipmentwww.stainlessmotors.comResearch has proven that warm, wet environments encouragebacterial growth. Food processing facilities haveall the ingredients for a potentially dangerous recipe forfoodborne illness. Sanitation requirements in these facilities areestablished and maintained to prevent andremove the risk of contaminants that couldpossibly infect the food product. But peskypathogens lurk in the least expectedplaces, hiding on processing equipmentin crevices and gaps not visible and/oreasily accessible for cleaning. The old adage“out of sight – out of mind” is not anacceptable excuse anymore, especiallyin light of the recent outbreaks of foodcontamination at the processing level.The breeding of bacteria, the clinging ofcontaminants and those pesky pathogensall have the potential to put a company out of business if a consumercontracts a foodborne illness from their product.Stainless Steel Electric MotorsIn 1988, Stainless Motors, Inc., was founded and becamethe very first manufacturer of stainless steel electric motors forprocessing industries, a product innovation brought about by therealization that painted cast motors required frequent removal formaintenance. Corrosion, rust, flaking paint and water entry wereserious issues and create costly and time-consuming maintenanceschedules. Stainless motors soon became the recognizedstandard in processing due to their cleanability and corrosionresistance. But over time, it became apparent that there werestill concealed areas on electric motors, stainless or painted, thatwere susceptible to contaminants and build up of food debris.If unable to see it or get to it, it was even more difficult to clean.Those areas that are not accessible were not getting cleaned effectivelyduring normal cleaning procedures. It is the dirty littlesecret known to most people in the industry, but kept quiet asthere was no known solution. Until now.A New Level of CleanEngineers at Stainless Motors, Inc., introduced a revolutionarystainless washdown motor design in August 2012, trademarkedSanifan Technology. It is a patent-pending, comprehensivesolution that dramatically reduces crevices on the stainless motorand provides a way to wash areas previously inaccessible.Some innovative improvements to conventional design includedreplacing the webbed plastic cooling fan with a polished stainlessfan and securing it to the motor shaft in a sanitary manner. Thisredesign eliminated the crevices, thus removing possible areas ofentrapment for bacteria and contaminants. Other improvementssuch as a sanitary shroud mountingand sanitary seals further enhance thedesign.The ULTIMATE Level of CleanFor the ultimate level of clean, SanifanTechnology motors are availablewith an optional spray endbell andcleaning port. This provides the abilityto directly inject cleaning solution tothe most inaccessible areas of the motor—underthe fan shroud and betweenthe fan and endbell. This guaranteesthe most thorough cleaning possiblefor these hidden surfaces on the motor.In addition, water can be sprayedthrough the fan shroud into the fan areato complete the sanitation process.This combination of spray cleaningfrom the inside out and then again fromthe outside in exceeds standard motorcleaning capabilities. The cleaning portis available in several connection configurationand inlet positions to satisfyvirtually all application requirements.A Proactive ApproachWith the high risk of bacterialgrowth and contamination within food,pharmaceutical and bio tech processingfacilities, along with the legal ramificationsif a recall is is sued, SanifanTechnology is the clear choice. Thefuture of a plant caught in a contaminationlawsuit or a recall can be devastatingand have an irreversible negativeimpact on the brand and company. Aglobal proactive approach to im provedsanitary equipment design and cleaningis imperative. Sanifan Technol ogy,with its advanced clean ing capabilities,is clearly a major breakthrough in foodsafety.The High Cost of HiddenContaminationThe risk of contamination frompoorly cleaned equipment cannot beignored, and every opportunity must beemployed to ensure a sanitary processingplant. The cost of a single recallcould potentially shutter a facility. SanifanTechnology is clearly the responsiblenext step in promoting a safer,cleaner and more sanitary processingenvironment. For more information,please visit Stainless Motors, Inc., atwww.stainlessmotors.com or call505-867-0224.38 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

THE SANITARY CHOICEFOR FOOD SAFETYTMPreviously hiddencontaminants,food debris,pathogens andbacteria are easilyflushed awayleaving a clean andsanitary processingenvironment.No other stainlesswashdown dutymotor can providethis level ofcleanability.Standard Features Include:•Polished stainless crevice free fan • O-Ring sealed endbells•Sanitary fan to shaft mount with blind tapped sanitary nut•Crevice free fan shroud mounting • Sanitary seal on junction box coverAvailable with optional Integral Spray Cleaning Endbell (pictured above)505.867.0224sanifan@stainlessmotors.com • www.stainlessmotors.comEngineered, Manufactured, and Supported in the U.S.A.

Food Safety Insider: Sanitation SolutionsRapid Cleaning ValidationTestswww.weberscientific.comAwidely publicized press release in 2010 from the SafeFoods Coalition and the Pew Initiative estimated the costof foodborne illness to be $152 billion annually. Accordingto Ben Chapman of North Carolina State University, other studies,using a different methodology, show a much higher figure of$1.4 trillion. Either way, it is obvious that foodborne illness is anexpensive problem.Of the top five food safetyproblems, “poor plant andequipment sanitation” scored75 percent in another study,clearly correlating good sanitationand food safety.Traditional methods todetermine cleanliness are traditionalvisual inspection andmicrobial assays. Over the lastcouple of decades, adenosinetriphosphate (ATP), proteinresidue and glucose residueswabs have also becomeestablished methods.Richard F. Stier, consulting food scientist and Food SafetyMagazine Editorial Advisory Board member, has indicated thattraditional methods of determining cleanliness, such as visualinspection and microbial assays, have both value and limitations.Microbiological analysis typically requires two or more days tocomplete, and a particular analysis such as aerobic plate count(APC) is limited in the types of microorganisms detected. Further,microbiological analyses do not detect organic residue resultingfrom ineffective cleaning. Visual inspection only allows gross levelsof organic residue—those that are visible to the naked eye—tobe detected.Mr. Stier has also suggested the following for hygienemonitoring:• Ideally, should be in “real time”• Simple, easy-to-use tools• Allow for rapid response• Ease of documentationA number of products manufactured by Hygiena and availablefrom Weber Scientific nicely meet these criteria.The protein residue swabs include ALLER-Snap and PRO-Clean. Both detect protein residues left on a surface aftercleaning, are read through a colorimetric change without aninstrument and have different levels of sensitivity.With ALLER-Snap, you swab a surface, release the reagentand incubate the device for 15 minutes. If protein residue ispresent, the reagent will turn purple. The color change providesa semi-quantitative measure of the surface cleanliness. Themore contamination is present, the quicker and darker the colorchange. This swab detects down to 1 µg protein. This extraordinarysensitivity is suitable for allergen monitoring. The cost pertest is around $2.00.PRO-Clean works similarly but doesnot require an incubation step. A positivewill also turn purple with results inunder 10 minutes and most changestaking place in under 60 seconds. It detectsdown to 10 µg protein and costsaround $1.50 per test.SpotCheck detects minuteamounts of glucose, which is a componentof 85 percent of all foods andbeverages; since it measures simplesugars, you can detect all major foodgroups with or without any proteincontent. Expect to pay $1.30 to $1.70per test.ATP bioluminescence technologymay offer higher sensitivity, in someinstances, to colorimetric swabs.All living organisms contain ATP. Inhygiene monitoring applications, ATPbioluminescence systems are generallycalibrated using a relative lightunit, thresholds for “clean” or “dirty.”Completely clean surfaces—thosefree of food residue and microorganisms—willnot have detectable levels ofATP. Unclean food manufacturing andpreparation equipment and utensils willhave recoverable amounts of ATP fromfood residue and perhaps microbialcells. Keep in mind that ATP measuresboth live and dead organic matter so itmeasures “clean or dirty.” Detection ofmicrobes, if present, is coincidental.The Hygiena ATP system uses aluminometer and their all-in-one swabdevice. Depending upon your particularneeds, two luminometers are available:systemSURE PLUS or EnSURE(which can also measure coliforms usingother swab devices); and a choiceof two ATP swab devices, SuperSnapor Ultrasnap. The procedure is thesame throughout: swab, activate, insertinto the instrument and read the resultsin 15 seconds. And since ATP is instrument-based,it comes with softwarethat walks you through the establishmentof your hygiene protocols.SuperSnap detects to 0.1 femtomoles(the smallest possible detectableamount) of ATP. Ultrasnap detectsto 1.0 femtomoles. The EnSURE andsystemSURE PLUS luminometers havea sensitivity to 0.1 and 1.0 femtomoles,respectively. An aseptic fill operation,for example, may want the higher detectionlevel compared to a distributionarea. Per test, swab costs run around$2.00.40 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

Specialists in Food & BeverageSampling SuppliesWe Carry ManyHard-to-find &Exclusive ProductsSterile microbiological samplingkits from Puritan®Made in the USA and a terrific valueESK® swab and solution• Choose frommost popularsolutions –neutralizing,Butterfield’s,Letheen andPeptone• Available in 10 or 4 mL fill• Around $0.84 per kitEnviroMax Plus® pre-moistenedfoam tip swab kits• Superior swabbingfor Listeria,Salmonella andother pathogens• Strong flexiblehandle shaft• Biocide free absorbent foam• Around $1.60 per kitProtein residue rapid test swabsVisual read – no instrument requiredALLER-Snap detectsdown to 1 µg protein• Extraordinarysensitivity issuitable forallergenmonitoring• Results aftera 15 minuteincubation• Around $2.00 per testPRO-Clean detects down to 10 µgprotein• Results in under 10 minutes with mostchanges under 60 seconds• Around $1.50 per testRequest your FREE copytoday of our 265-pagebuyer’s guide!Call 800-328-8378 orvisit weberscientific.comRCS Air SamplersEffective microbial monitoringof ambient air• Factory calibratedfor use withprepared mediastrips• Samples at 40liters perminute• Set volumes20, 40, 80, 160and 320L – 0.5, 1, 2,4 or 8 minutesLegendary for great prices since 1959800-328-8378 • weberscientific.comDippas® Sterile Sampling SystemDipper andsample container –All-In-One• Long handleneatly snaps offafter sampling• Leak-proofcontainer• 30 to 250 mLcapacity available• As low as $0.50eachLABORATORY SUPPLIERAWARD WINNING

Food Safety Insider: Sanitation SolutionsManaged CleaningProgram Facilitates CostReductions for FoodProcessing Facilitieswww.spartanchemical.comThe emergence of foodborne pathogens such as Listeriamonocytogenes, Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157:H7 andCampylobacter have grabbed national media attention andawareness. In today’s world, it has become critically important tohave an effective sanitation program as part of a Hazard Analysisand Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan. A successful HACCPplan will include seven basic principles: hazard analysis, CCPidentification, establishing critical limits, monitoring procedures,corrective actions, verification procedures and recordkeeping anddocumentation.“All sanitation programs have the ultimate goal of reducingand/or eliminating all harmful contaminants,” says Chris Celusta,manager of food processing for Spartan Chemical. “Having aneffective sanitation program not only ensures public safety butcan help reduce costs by reducing spoilage and waste, avoidingrecalls, decreasing labor hours associated with cleaning and loweringlegal exposure.”It is scientifically proven that rigorous and regular cleaning,as part of an HACCP plan, is associated with major decreases infoodborne pathogens. In order for an effective chemical sanitizerto work properly, the surface must be cleaned prior to the applicationof the sanitizer. Training of sanitation staff on how to cleanmore thoroughly is paramount to the success of the program.“The need for cleaning, sanitizing and recordkeeping is welldocumented in the food processing industry,” explains Celusta.“Training of the sanitation staff is critical in order to maintain an effectiveprogram. Our approach is to train the staff with interactiveeducation and validation tools that serve as on-going proceduraland verification components in the HACCP program. The outputof this training can be used to establishCCP limits and identify the need forcorrective actions.”Spartan uses a three-pronged approachto ensure proper cleaning andsanitation is achieved—TRAINING,VALIDATION and DOCUMENTATION.Spartan’s Training & Certification Programtrains, tests and certifies staffon cleaning standards and methods.Handy, portable food processing trainingcards reinforce the training programand provide a framework for adherenceto the standard going forward. Thisprocess is supported by Spartan’s ATPvalidation tools. ATP swabs and meterallow sanitation managers to train andassess staff cleaning operations whileminimizing risk of transfer of harmfulpathogens. The data can then beloaded into Spartan’s CompuClean®CMMS (Custodial Maintenance ManagementSoftware), which allowssanitation managers to document andmonitor established CCP limits, verifyprogram progress and identify the needfor corrective action. In combinationwith Spartan’s wide range of cleaningand sanitizing chemicals, the systemprovides an end-to-end solution forHACCP plans.Contact Chris Celusta ccelusta@spartanchemical.com to learn moreabout how Spartan’s food processingprogram can help you train, validateand document your way to costreductions.42 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

PACKAGING(continued from page 34)food production, creating additionalvalues from biomass. Edible coatingsand films are not studied with the aim ofsubstituting traditional packaging materials.Due to their distinctive properties,they can be used to provide additionalfunctionalities to the food. Food preservationcan be therefore improved,and one may also reduce the cost andamount of traditional packaging used.The biopolymer used to develop ediblefilms and coatings is usually based onhydrocolloids, such as polysaccharideslike cellulose, starch, alginates, chitosan,gums, pectins and proteins, from vegetableor animal origin. Their functionalproperties can be used to modify the barrierto gases and moisture and, in moreadvanced developments, serve as carriersof food additives and nutrients. Blendsor composites with other additives andfillers are also developed to optimizethe barrier properties or to control therelease kinetics of substance. 8The most important property thesenatural biopolymers must possess is thepossibility of forming films with suitablemechanical and barrier properties. Thechemical, molecular and supramolecularstructures are, therefore, important featuresof natural biopolymers that permitdesign of the physicochemical propertiesof the films as well as the processingtechnology for the manufacture of theproducts.Cellulose and cellulose derivatives,obtained by chemical substitution ofsome hydroxyl groups along the chain,permit development of films with ionicproperties (carboxymethylcellulose) andnonionic cellulose ethers (methylcellulose,hydroxypropylcellulose andhydroxypropyl methylcellulose). Filmsmade by these derivatives are usuallyvery sensitive to water but resistant tooil and fat. They can be used to incorporatefunctional additives and antimicrobials,such as, for example, nisinor rosemary, and tea extract to reducelipid oxidative rancidity. Antimicrobialfilms based on starch and starch derivativescan be obtained by incorporatingpotassium sorbate or chitosan into thefilms. However, the presence of thesesubstances could modify the crystallinestructures of the films, thus reducing thebarrier to gases.Alginates, biomacromolecules extractedfrom brown seaweeds, are other interestingpolysaccharides due to their capabilityto react irreversibly with polyvalentmetal cations, in particular calcium ions,to produce water-insoluble polymers.For these classes ofpolysaccharide materials,the release ofpotassium sorbate orother antimicrobial additivesis controlled bymodulating the physicalproperties of thebiomacromolecularstructure, in particular,through control of thereticular density.Chitosan, extractedfrom the shells ofcrustaceans, is a highmolecularweight cationicpolysaccharide that is widely usedto make films with antibacterial and antifungalactivity. It has been extensivelyused to protect, improve quality and extendthe shelf life of fresh and processedfoods.Proteins represent another class ofbiomacromolecules employed for ediblefilms and coatings. They can haveimpressive barrier properties to oxygen,carbon dioxide, oil and fats. However,mechanical and water vapor barrier propertiesof films produced from these materialsare inferior to those of syntheticorigin. 9Both agro- and animal-based proteinssuch as wheat gluten, corn zein, soyprotein, whey proteins, casein, egg white,keratin, collagen, gelatin and myofibrillarproteins have been used to prepare filmsand edible coatings by using the solventcasting process. Very few publicationshave reported on the thermoplasticizationand the extrusion of these proteinsto produce films. The development ofextrusion-based technologies with goodreproducibility and control over themolecular architecture and spatial conformationof the natural macromolecule“The packagerepresents a protectionof the food againstnegative effectsfrom the externalenvironment.”is among the main scientific and technologicalchallenges to exploiting the use ofprotein-based films and coatings.While thermoplastic starches (TPS)have been widely studied and successfullyapplied in industry, including blendingTPS with other synthetic polymers,the thermoplasticization of proteins hasbeen reported only recently, and it hasbeen investigated ongluten, zein, soy, wheyand gelatine. 9Several factorsmust be taken intoaccount when choosingbetween differentpossible plasticizers forthe development ofthermoplastic proteins.The most commonlyused plasticizer is glycerol,which is misciblein most cases. Othersystems that have beeninvestigated includepolyfunctional alcohols, such as sorbitoland propylene glycol, as well as di- andtriethanolamine. Heat and shear stressescontribute to the unfolding of the proteinin the presence of the plasticizerduring the extrusion process. Proper processingconditions such as temperatureprofile, residence time and screw designare therefore necessary to supply theneeded mechanical and thermal energyto the proteins/plasticizer systems. Byoptimizing protein/plasticizer systemsand processing conditions, one couldobtain materials with rheological propertiessuitable for film-blowing technologies.10However, one should be aware thatthe use of extrusion-based processingcould affect the functionalities of antimicrobialcompounds embedded in thepolymeric matrix. These substances aregenerally heat sensitive and thermallyunstable; thus, they may become inactiveduring processing, mainly becauseof the high temperature, high shear ratesand high pressure an extruder can reach. 9ConclusionsThe ongoing scientific and techno-44 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

PACKAGINGlogical interest in developing more efficientways to use renewable resourceswill foster the development of novel andadvanced substrates based on vegetablebiomass. Bio-based materials for addedvalueapplications, such as biomedicaluses, drug delivery and advanced packagingsystems, could be developed bymimicking the synergy between differentbiomacromolecules that are naturallyassembled in hierarchical structures.Challenging researcher activities areexpected to take place in the field ofnanocellulose and “nanopapers,” and onprotein/polysaccharide self-assemblingnanosystems to develop hybrid andsupramolecular structures with uniqueproperties not achievable by simpleblending or through a “composite” approach.Fully bio-based, edible structureswith superhydrophobic, stimuli-responsiveproperties coupled with high barrierand mechanical properties are just someexamples of the possible functional andstructural features achievable with anovel material/manufacturing platformbased on such biomacromolecules andby using novel nano- and self-assemblingtechnology approaches. However, wemust take into account that in nature,biology accomplished much sophisticatedconstruction from molecular bottomup to visible organisms and structures.Construction of hieararchical structuresonly from a bottom-up approach couldbe very difficult to exploit at industrialscale. Fusion with the well-developed,top down-type nanofabrication shouldbe taken into consideration for morerapid development of these innovativetechnologies in added-value applications,included advanced packaging. 11 •Giovanna Buonocore, Ph.D.,is currently a researcher at theInstitute for Composites andBiomedical Materials (IMCB) –National Research Council.SalvatoreIannace, Ph.D., is a chemicalengineer and senior scientist at theIMCB and serves as adjunct professorat the University of Naples inItaly.References1. Lee, D.S., K.L. Yam and L. Piergiovanni. 2008.Food packaging science and technology. CRCPress.2. Restuccia, D., U.G. Spizzirri, O.I. Parisi, G.Cirillo, M. Curcio, F. Iemma, F. Puoci, G. Vinci andN. Picci. 2010. New EU regulation aspects andglobal market of active and intelligent packagingfor food industry applications. Food Cont21:1425–1435.3. Incoronato, A.L., G.G. Buonocore, A. Conte,M. Lavorgna and M.A. Del Nobile. 2010. Activesystems based on silver-montmorillonite nanoparticlesembedded into bio-based polymermatrices for food packaging applications. J FoodProt 73:2256–2262.4. Ukmar, T. and O. Planinšek. 2010. Acta Pharm60:373–385.5. Mehdi, A., C. Reye and R. Corriu. 2011. ChemSoc Rev 40:563–574.6. Gargiulo, N., I. Attianese, G.G. Buonocore,D. Caputo, M. Lavorgna, G. Mensitieri and M.Lavorgna. 2012. a-Tocopherol release from activepolymer films loaded with functionalized SBA-15 mesoporous silica. Micropor Mesopor Mat,DOI:10.1016/j.micromeso.2012.07.037.7. Stuart, M.A.C., W.T.S. Hyck, J. Genzer, M.Muller, C. Ober, M. Stamm, G.B. Sukhorukov,I. Szleifer, V.V. Tsukruk, M. Urban, F. Winnik,S. Zauscher, I. Luzinov and S. Minko. 2010.Emerging applications of stimuli-responsive polymermaterials. Nature Mater 9:101.8. Campos, C.A., L.N. Gerschenson and S.K.Flores. 2011. Development of edible filmsand coatings with antimicrobial activity. FoodBioprocess Technol 4:849–875.9. Mensitieri, G., E. Di Maio, G. Buonocore, I.Nedi, M. Oliviero, L. Sansone and S. Iannace.2011. Processing and shelf life issues of selectedfood packaging materials and structures fromrenewable resources. Trends Food Sci Technol22:72–80.10. Oliviero, M., E. Di Maio and S. Iannace. 2010.Effect of molecular structure on film blowingability of thermoplastic zein. J Appl Polym Sci115(1):277–287.11. Ariga, K., J.P. Hill, M.V. Lee, A. Vinu, R. Charvetand S. Acharya 2008. Challenges and breakthroughsin recent research on self-assembly. SciTechnol Adv Mater 9:014109.Is your surface testingall it’s cracked up to be?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 come invarious sizes, shapes, and tip fibers, with and without media.To request free samples of environmental swabs,scan the code at left or visit our website atpuritanmedproducts.com/enviro.800-321-2313 • puritanmedproducts.comPuritan Medical Products Company LLC, Guilford, Maine 04443-0149 USAAn affiliate of Hardwood Products Company ISO 9001:2008facebook.com/PuritanUSA twitter.com/PuritanUSA linkedin.com/company/PuritanUSAUS MANUFACTUREDF e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 45

Animal Welfareand Food SafetyBy F. Bailey Norwood, Ph.D., and Jayson L. Lusk, Ph.D.The 2011 movie Contagion tells a fictional story of how globalization and ease of travel canproduce fast-spreading pandemics, killing people more quickly than government authoritiescan respond. The culprit for this Hollywood illness is a new virus of unknown origin, resistant to allknown vaccines.It isn’t until the end of the movie that the origin of the killer is revealed. It all began (spoiler alert) with abat carrying a piece of banana to a hog farm. The bat manages to fly into an enclosed building wheresad-looking hogs are housed in tight quarters. The bat drops the banana on the floor, where itis quickly eaten by a hog. Presumably, the banana or the bat carried a virus, whichspread to the pigs. One of the pigs is thenslaughtered, and a man carving the meatin China fails to wash his hands before heshakes the hand of a character played by GwynethPaltrow, who then travels back to the UnitedStates where she dies—but not before sickeningmany others. 1The premise of Contagion is that raising hogs on “factory farms”encourages the emergence of deadly pathogens. How accurate is thiscaricature? In reality, a bat is more likely to drop food near hogs or chickensraised outdoors. Would the movie have been more realistic if the batinfected a pig raised on an organic farm, a farm where animals roamed “free46 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

ange,” or a farmowned by a smallproducer slaughteringhis own animals andselling locally? Or would amore accurate film show the batshedding feces near a field of broccoli,sickening people consuming fruits andvegetables instead of meat? Is it true that animalwelfare and food safety are trade-offs, or are they insteadcomplements? When we pay more for humane meat,are we also getting safer food or are we accepting greater risk?These are the questions we investigate in the present article.F e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 47

Animals versus PlantsBefore discussing the relationship between animal welfare and food safety, it isuseful to step back and look at the big picture. If asked, many people would probablyconsider foods derived from animals to be less safe than those derived from plants.Yet, news stories routinely report outbreaks from jalapeños, melons, tomatoes and lettuce.If a vegan is just as likely to suffer from a foodborne illness as a meat eater, thenthe discussion of animal welfare and food safety takes a different tone.Which is more dangerous to consume: plant or animal? One recent survey offood safety experts suggests a belief that eating produce is riskier than eating pork,beef, eggs, poultry or dairy. 2 Part of this assessment, however, is due to aggregation.All fruits and vegetables are grouped into one category; different types of meats arecounted separately.More insight can be gained by investigating actual outbreak data. Table 1 reportsthe results of an analysis utilizing 10 years of U.S. Centers for Disease Control andPrevention outbreak data (from 1999 to 2008) to calculate the number of annual illnessesand deaths attributable to different foods as well as the economic costs of theillnesses (medical costs, productivity losses and estimates of the value of mortality). 3Food Illnesses Deaths Cost of Illness (million $)Poultry 1,535,859 179 2,449Complex foods 2,992,405 190 2,085Pork 447,109 202 1,907Produce a 1,203,397 138 1,435Beef 776,841 133 1,356Dairy 292,729 120 1,266Deli/other meats 193,550 112 1,135Seafood 644,021 100 941Game 46,968 69 651Eggs 176,766 47 447Bakery b 459,188 22 246Beverages 145,880 9 95All meats c 2,953,359 626 6,847Meats, eggs, dairy 3,422,854 793 8,560Produce, bakery 1,662,585 160 1,681aFruits and vegetablesbIncludes breads and cerealscThis definition of meats includes poultry and deli/other meats.Table 1: Annual Number of Illnesses, Hospitalizations and Deaths Associated with DifferentFoods 3Even if poultry alone is compared with all produce, poultry results in more illnessesand deaths. Beef causes more illnesses but fewer deaths than pork, and eggs appearsafer than any of the meats. Vegan advocates claiming that animal-derived foods areriskier to consume 4 apparently have some evidence to support them. Fewer illnessesor deaths result from the consumption of bakery and produce than meats, eggs anddairy. Moreover, many of the illnesses from produce originate from livestock andspread to plants through the wind or poor manure treatment. 5 The Center for Sciencein the Public Interest calculates that roughly one-third of all foodborne illnesses froma plant source is of animal origin, whether it be livestock or wildlife. 4, 6Investigating the sources of foodborne illnesses also helps us understand the linkbetween animal welfare and food safety. If the most humanely produced foods arealso the safest, perhaps this correlation suggests causation? The comparisons in Table1 are in some ways unfair, though. Americans today consume more poultry than anyother meat product, 7 so even if a meal containing poultry is safer than beef or pork,more illnesses may result from poultryconsumption simply because chicken isconsumed on such a large scale. Usingthe data in Table 1 to claim poultry isrisky is a bit like claiming roads in Texasare more dangerous than those in Wyomingsimply because more Texans die incar crashes—however, the population sizeof the two states would seem the morelogical culprit. Analogously, the volumeand value of the food should be takeninto consideration when comparing risks.Consumers might voluntarily acceptriskier food if they value it more.For a better comparison, we took theillness values in Table 1, converted theminto percentages and divided the percentagesby the amount of money a typicalhousehold spends on each food type. 8What results is an index of food riskaccounting for both consumption andvalue of the foods. As shown in Figure1, meats remain more than two timesriskier than produce. The risks associatedwith eggs relative to other foods, however,are greatly increased compared withTable 1. Eggs may not cause more illnessesthan produce overall, but for eachdollar spent, they do. The risk from seafoodalso rises, and though produce maycause more illnesses than beef overall,each dollar spent on beef is more likelyto get you sick than a dollar spent onproduce. As in Table 1, poultry remainsthe riskiest food to consume.What does Figure 1 tell us about therelationship between animal welfareand food safety? The actions of animaladvocacy organizations suggest that theybelieve animal suffering to be especiallyprofound on egg and pork farms, andfor welfare to be relatively higher on beefand dairy farms. Clearly, food safety isnot determined solely by animal welfare,as beef is less risky than eggs but aboutthe same as pork. Poultry is much riskierthan pork or eggs, yet we believe welfareto be considerably higher for broilersthan hogs or layers. It is clear fromFigure 1 that food safety must be influencedby many other factors in additionto animal welfare.Still, there are many reasons to believea welfare-safety link exists. Thismeans that when we debate how animals48 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

Food® Allergen-time PCRtenctionat -20°Co: 04449SureFood® Allergenreal-time PCRGlutenInhibitionStore at -20°CLot No: 04449SureFood® Allergenreal-time PCRGlutenPositiveStore at -20°CLot No: 04449SureFood® Allergenreal-time PCRGlutenTaqStore at -20°CLot No: 04449SureFood® Allergenreal-time PCRGlutenStore at -20°CLot No: 04449R-Biopharm Inc.Analytical Test Kits toensure Gluten-free Food• Surface and hygiene controlRIDA®QUICK Gliadin is ideal for swab tests within production sites.• Product testingRIDASCREEN® ELISAs are available in sandwich and competitiveformat. Hydrolyzed samples like beer should be analyzedwith RIDASCREEN® Gliadin competitive.LateralFlowELISARIDA®QUICK GliadinSwabbingRIDASCREEN® Gliadin• AOAC-OMA (2012.01)• AOAC-RI (120601)• AACCI (38.50.01)• Codex Alimentarius Method(Type I)PCR1Control Mix 2Control DNA 3Polymerase 4FDE 5SureFood® GlutenR-Biopharm, Inc. • 870 Vossbrink Drive • Washington, MO 63090 USA • Phone: (877) 789-3033 • www.r-biopharm.com

Percent (between 0 to 1) / $100 spent0.120.10.080.060.040.020Fruits andvegetablesDairyproductsEggsFish andseafoodBeef, pork,poultry, andother meatsBeef Pork PoultryFigure 1: Percent of Foodborne Illnesses Traced to Food Groups per $100 Spentshould be treated, we are also debating the safety of our food. In the next section, weexplore the ways in which animal well-being can be improved and the concomitantchange in food safety we should expect.Natural Animal Behaviors and Safe FoodAnimal scientists and consumers often have different notions about what makesfor a happy animal. According to many animal scientists in the U.S., high welfare primarilyrequires a clean, healthy environment where animals are provided with all theirphysiological needs, are provided adequate shelter and are protected from predators.According to this perspective, there are synergies between animal welfare and foodsafety, as both can be provided in the same environment.According to our survey work, roughly 40 percent of Americans agree with this perspective(another 11 percent say they care little about the well-being of farm animals).This leaves 48 percent of Americans who disagree with our depiction of the animalscientists’ view, and believe animals must also be allowed to exhibit natural behaviorsif they are to experience high levels of well-being. 9 These behaviors include the abilityto move around freely, access to the outdoors and the opportunity to socialize withanimals of their species.Allowing free expression of natural animal behaviors should reduce stress in theanimal, and as a consequence may 10 (but may not 11 ) reduce the shedding of pathogens.12 These improvements, however, often come at a cost. Layers raised in a cagefreesetting can suffer from injury by other hens, creating stress and even death. Sowsmoved from a gestation stall into a group pen can now turn around freely, but mayturn to encounter an aggressive sow—again, creating stress. We once visited a free-rangeegg farm where the birds had access to pasture but were continually preyed upon byhawks—this fear would certainly create stress. While there is no guarantee that theseimprovements are good for animal welfare or food safety, most published researchcontends that replacing battery cages with cage-free systems (or enhanced cages) 13and converting gestation stalls to group pens 14 improve animal welfare. And if animalwelfare is improved, it is reasonable to believe stress and the shedding of pathogensare lowered—but there are no guarantees. We once talked to an egg farmer raising bothcaged and cage-free eggs, and his employees would not eat the eggs from the cage-freesystem, believing the difficulty of identifying and culling sick hens in a cage-free systemmakes the average egg more risky to eat.The relationship between animal well-being and food safety becomes more complexwhen a farm uses a free-range system, where animals have access to both comfortableshelter and the outdoors. Hogs love mud, and mud is rarely sterile. Hogs eagerlyroot and engage in continuous social interactions. While such a “natural” setting islikely to increase animal well-being in one dimension, it may also make a hog sick, ashogs can more easily come into contactwith the feces of other hogs and wildlife,as well as a broad array of worms andother parasites not normally found ona concrete floor. Increased prospects fordisease, infection and parasites can turn ahappy hog into a sick hog.One of the original motivations forconfining hogs to concrete floors insidebuildings (i.e., today’s conventional hogfarm) was to separate hogs from parasitesand pathogens. Lungworms wereonce found in at least one-half of hogsin the 1940s, but today the parasite is ararity. The same can be said for kidneyworms. Pork was once thought dangerousto eat if undercooked. The threatwas trichinosis—another threat that istoday almost nonexistent. 15, 16 Farmersonce deliberately raised hogs in the samepastures as cows, knowing hogs wouldeat undigested grain from cow feces.Chickens would do the same. 17 An eggstudy found greater Salmonella contaminationin free-range eggs, probably dueto the easy access rodents have to thechicken feed. Not only do the rodentsdefecate in the chicken feed, but “micedroppings can be actively sought outby birds when mixed in the feed and orbedding because of their seed-like sizeand appearance.” 18 However pleasant thesmall, diversified farm seems, most consumersdon’t like to eat animals that atethe feces of other animals. Farmers didnot confine animals to cramped cageson hard floors out of malevolence butto reduce parasites and disease. Animalwelfare may be compromised by confinement,but animal health is improved,and with it food safety.Comparing hog health today with 70years ago isn’t an entirely fair comparison.Given the scientific advancementsin animal production since the 1940s,it might be possible to allow hogs outdooraccess without the concomitantpathogens and parasites experienced bythe 1940 farmer. Yet even today, researchfinds that hogs given outdoor accessexperience higher rates of Salmonella,Toxoplasma and Trichinella than hogson conventional farms. 19, 20 In outdoorsystems, Salmonella is spread throughsows’ wallowing in the same mudhole, 2150 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

presenting a dilemma for farmers whowant to produce safe pork in an outdoorenvironment.Free-range systems for layers andbroilers face similar problems. Some ofthese systems confine the birds at nightin large cages on wheels, taking the birdsto different locations where they mayforage naturally. This more “natural”existence, however, brings the birds incontact with the feces of deer, rodentsand feral hogs, and because these wildanimals can contaminate vegetables withSalmonella, 22 then free-range poultry canbe contaminated also. Free-range poultryoften share the pasture with cattle, sheepor goats, allowing cross-contaminationbetween species.Scientists have measured Salmonellaprevalence in poultry meat derived frompasture and organic systems, and tend tofind the rates are comparable or higherthan in conventionally produced poultrymeat. 23 Another study tested broilerchickens for Salmonella and found that60 percent from an organic-free rangeproducer tested positive, leading them to conclude, “Consumers should not assumethat free-range or organic conditions will have anything to do with the Salmonellastatus of the chicken.” 24 While organic meats are generally more contaminated withpathogens, those pathogens are less likely to be resistant to antibiotics, so it is difficultto say whether organic meats are riskier to eat. 25 The point is that one cannot assumeorganics are safer.Other articles on the welfare-safety link 26 considered animal treatment beforeslaughter, so we concentrate on other production stages in this paper. Contrary toother discussions on this issue, we also ignore antibiotic resistance in livestock. Thereis a widely held notion that animals can be raised in cramped confinement only ifthey are routinely fed antibiotics to prevent the spread of disease. This does not seemto be the case. Our European contacts testify that the ban on antibiotics in Sweden,Denmark, the United Kingdom and other nations has not altered the production systemsused. 27Consumer PerceptionsPerceptions of food safety are just as important as actual safety, insofar as drivingconsumer choice and retail sales. Food producers face a daunting challenge. Notonly must they raise live animals that are naturally covered with bacteria, viruses andprions, and then transform the animal products into safe foods, producers must convincethe public that the food is safe. Their success is already astonishing if not publiclyacknowledged—for every 39 million Americans, only 1 will die of a food-relatedillness, and he or she is typically very old, very young or has a compromised immunesystem. 28 However, food activists will go to great lengths to convince the public theirfood is unsafe, so livestock industries must not only battle bacteria and germs but sensationalizedinformation as well.Our new Autoplate ® Spiral Plating System: the hot new lab accessory.Now you can spiral plate bacteria with blazing speed and performance that other platers can’t touch.Our new Autoplate delivers 35-second cycle times with three new spiral plating modes. Its 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 fromAdvanced Instruments that’s so hot, it’s really cool!www.aicompanies.com/Auto1 +1 781.320.90001318002 AutoplateFoodSafety.indd 1 1/8/13 9:39 AMF e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 51

Despite developments in traceability systems, it is often impossible to preciselydetermine what actually causes a food to become contaminated. The technology existsto trace meat back to the farm using meat’s DNA, 29 but even then it is difficult to determineexactly what caused the contamination in the first place, or how the pathogenevaded the myriad precautions employed at modern slaughtering facilities. This, however,does not let the farmer off the hook.When Food, Inc. told the true story of a young boy who died from infection withEscherichia coli O157:H7, the documentarians blamed the illness on the poor conditionsin which the cattle were raised and on the feeding of corn instead of grass. Thefilmmakers knew viewers would disapprove of the cattle being “ankle-deep in theirmanure, all day,” and thus the film gave the impression that cattle in feedlots are sad,and that sadness translates to humandeath. Other people havedied from E. coli infection, buttheir deaths were not sensationalizedby documentaries. Threepeople died from contaminatedorganic spinach in 2006. The bacteriumcould have been carried by the wind or water from a nearby farm to where thespinach was growing, but it could also have been the cattle manure used as fertilizer. 30There was no documentary exploiting the three deaths in an effort to “expose”the dangers of organic farming. Nor do food activists criticize those who oppose irradiation—perhapsthe most effective method of killing pathogens. Why the doublestandard? We believe much of it has to do with activist and consumer perceptions.Because livestock industries use large-scale, factory-like methods of production, andbecause the processing and distribution stage are dominated by large corporations,food activists believe these corporations are motivated largely by greed for immediateprofits, even at the expensive of consumer health.While many readers of this article will rightly balk at this caricature of meat productionindustries, it must be recognized that this is the view subtly expressed by fooddocumentaries such as Food, Inc., Fresh or Forks Over Knives. As a result, in this sensationalisticatmosphere, the livestock industry is likely to be deemed guilty in everyoutbreak of foodborne illness until proven innocent. The apparent anti-industry biasalso means that illness traceable to organic or local food producers will probably bechalked up to an innocent mistake.The cattle industry’s past mistake in feeding rendered carcasses to cattle continuesto haunt it, allowing documentaries like Fresh to use this example as proof that “factoryfarmers” will cut every corner and do anything to animals that increases short-runprofits. Many “so-called” experts once thought this feeding practice to be scientificallysound. It wasn’t. The result was mad cow disease, and subsequent scientific “experts”since then have been understandably viewed with greater skepticism. If farmers hadabstained from using a feed that they knew most people would find repugnant—andabout which there was still some scientific doubt—the reputation of livestock industriesmight not have been tarnished.The public knows little about livestock agriculture and so will infer the integrity ofan industry from a farm’s appearance, in addition to what they read on Grist or seeon Real Time with Bill Maher. If a farmer prevents a sow from turning around becauseit saves money, will the farmer also cut corners on food safety to save money? If afarmer crams a hen into a small cage with four other hens to boost production, wouldhe be unwilling to lower output by removing sick hens from the food productionchannel? If organic farmers are not held accountable for the foodborne illness theycause simply because they are trying to raise ethical food, livestock producers will beheld accountable for the illness they do and do not cause because, in the public’s perception,they seem to be acting unethically toward hens and hogs.In a telephone survey we conducted with the American Farm Bureau Federation,“One recent survey of food safety experts suggestsa belief that eating produce is riskier than eatingpork, beef, eggs, poultry or dairy.”78 percent of Americans agreed with thestatement, “Animals raised under higherstandards of care will produce safer andbetter tasting meat.” 7 There is no separationbetween perceived animal welfareand perceived food safety. While the firstpriority of producers of meat, eggs anddairy products is ensuring food is safe,in reality, safe food only has value if it isalso perceived to be safe. Let there be nodoubt, regardless of whether higher animalwelfare creates safer food, food fromhappy animals will be considered safer.In SummaryIn general, production systems thatprovide animals outdoor access have thepotential to expose animals to pathogens,viruses and other parasites. In somecases, it appears that this potential is realized.However, in other cases, perhapsdue to effects of lower stocking densitiesor better managerial competence, therisks can be alleviated or even reversed.In short, animal housing conditions arebut one factor, and a far from decidingfactor, affecting food safety.However, consumers don’t alwayssee it that way. Consumers conflateperceptions of safety with perceptionsof animal welfare. They are not necessarilyirrational in doing so, as care andmanagerial competence in one domainare likely to be correlated with meticulousnessin another. Food safety is hardto observe on the farm, especially forthe average consumer who doesn’t knowSalmonella from Campylobacter. However,through pictures and videos, consumerscan readily observe tidiness and stockingdensity, and the ability of animalsto exhibit natural behaviors. Althoughthese do not necessarily relate to foodsafety, it is not wholly unreasonable forconsumers to presume that someonewho cares about the one cares about theother. If we are really concerned aboutthe volume of pathogens people actually52 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

consume, then we must also be aware oftheir perceptions—which drive what theyput in their mouths.•F. Bailey Norwood, Ph.D., is anassociate professor in the Departmentof Agricultural Economics atOklahoma State University, wherehe researches farm animal welfareissues, survey methods andteaching effectiveness.Jayson L. Lusk, Ph.D., currentlyserves as professor and WillardSparks Endowed Chair in the Departmentof Agricultural Economicsat Oklahoma State University. Afterearning a B.S. in food technologyfrom Texas Tech University in 1997, he received a Ph.D.in agricultural economics from Kansas State Universityin 2000.References1. Shamberg, S.S. and G. Jacobs [producers].Soderbergh, S. [director]. Burns, S.Z. [writer]2011. Contagion [film]. Warner Brothers Pictures[distributor].2. Hoffman, S. 2009. Knowing which foods aremaking us sick. Choices 2nd Quarter. 24(2).3. Batz, M.B., S. Hoffmann and J.G. Morris Jr.2012. Ranking the disease burden of 14 pathogensin food sources in the United States usingattribution data from outbreak investigations andexpert elicitation. J Food Prot 75(7):1278–1291.4. Jacobson, M.F. and Staff of the Center forScience in the Public Interest (CSPI). 2006. Sixarguments for a greener diet. Center for Sciencein the Public Interest.5. Matthews, K.R. 2009. The produce contaminationproblem: Causes and solutions, eds. G.M.Sapers, E.B. Solomon and K.R. Matthews. Burlington,MA: Elsevier Inc.6. We contacted the CSPI to discuss this calculationand believe their assumption of one-third isreasonable.7. Norwood, F.B. and J.L. Lusk. 2011. Compassion,by the Pound. New York: Oxford Press.8. Expenditures on beef, pork, poultry and othermeats (as a single group) are $842 per year. Thenumbers for dairy, fruits and vegetables, eggs,and fish and seafood are $481, $842, $60 and$120, respectively. Numbers for beef, pork andpoultry are $300, $180 and $180, respectively.These numbers are taken from www.bls.gov/cex/home.htm#publications.9. Prickett, R.W., F.B. Norwood and J.L. Lusk.2010. Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: results from a telephone survey of U.S. households.Animal Welfare 19:335–347.10. Gallaway, T.R., J.L. Morrow, T.S. Edrington, K.J. Genovese, S. Dowd, J. Carroll, J.W. Dailey, R.B.Harvey, T.L. Poole, R.C. Anderson and D.J. Nisbet. 2006. Social stress increases fecal shedding ofSalmonella Typhimurium by early weaned piglets. Current Issues Intest Microbiol 7:65–72.11. Brown-Brandl, T.M., E.D. Berry, J.E. Wells, T.M. Arthur and J.A. Nienaber. 2009. Impacts of individualanimal response to heat and handling stresses on Escherichia coli and E. coli O157:H7 fecal sheddingby feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis 6(7):855–864.12. Rostagno, M. 2009. Can stress in farm animals increase food safety risk? Foodborne Pathog Dis6(7):767–776.13. De Mol, R.M., W.G.P. Schouten, E. Evers, H. Drost, H.W.J. Houwers and A.C. Smits. 2006. A computermodel for welfare assessment of poultry production systems for laying hens. Netherlands J Ag Sci54:157–168.14. Bracke, M.B.M., B.M. Spruijt, J.H.M. Metz and W.G.P. Schouten. 2002. Decision supportsystem for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows: A model structure and weighting procedure.J Animal Sci 80:1819–1834.15. Welshans, K. 2011. Modern hog production results in safer pork. Feedstuffs 14.16. Davies, P.R. 2011. Intensive swine production and pork safety. Foodborne Pathog Dis 8(2),DOI:10.1089/fpd.2010.0717.17. Davis et al. 1928. Livestock enterprises. Chicago: J.B. Lippincott Company, pp. 284 and 391.18. Kinde, H., D.H. Read, R.P. Chin, A.A. Bickford, R.L. Walker, A. Ardans, R.E. Breitmeyer, D. Willoughby,H.E. Little, D. Kerr and I.A. Gardner. 1996. Sewage effluent: Likely source of Salmonella enteritidis,phage type 4 infection in a commercial chicken layer flock in southern California: Bacteriologic andepidemiologic findings. Avian Dis 40(3):665–671.19. It should be noted these outdoor systems also did not receive regular supplements of antibioticsat the subtherapeutic level. Most outdoor production systems do not administer growth hormonesor antibiotics to healthy hogs, as being able to label pork “antibiotic-free” and “hormone-free” allowsretailers to charge higher premiums.20. Gebreyes, W.A., P.B. Bahnson, J.A. Funk, J. McKean and P. Patchanee. 2008. Seroprevalence ofTrichinella, Toxoplasma and Salmonella in antimicrobial-free and conventional swine production systems.Foodborne Pathog Dis 5(2):199–203, DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2007.0071.21. Callaway, T.R., J.L. Morrow, A.K. Johnson, J.W. Dailey, F.M. Wallace, E.A. Wagstrom, J.J. Mcglone,A.R. Lewis, S.E. Dowd, T.L. Poole, T.S. Edrington, R.C. Anderson, K.J. Genovese, J.A. Byrd, R.B. Harveyand D.J. Nisbet. 2005. Environmental prevalence and persistence of Salmonella spp. in outdoor swinewallows. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2(3):264–273.22. Hanning, I.B., J.D. Nutt and S.C. Ricke. 2009. Salmonellosis outbreaks in the United States due tofresh produce: Sources and potential intervention measures. Foodborne Pathog Dis 6(6), DOI:10.1089/fpd.2008.0232.23. Melendez, S.N., I. Hanning, J. Han, R. Nayak, A.R. Clement, A. Wooming, P. Hererra, F.T. Jones, S.L.Foley and S.C. Ricke. 2010. Salmonella enterica isolates from pasture-raised poultry exhibit antimicrobialresistance from class I integrons. J Appl Microbiol, DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04825.x.24. Bailey, J.S. and D.E. Cosby. 2005. Salmonella prevalence in free-range and certified organic chickens.J Food Prot 68(11):2451–2453.25. Van Loo, E.J., W. Alali and S.C. Ricke. 2012. Food safety and organic meats. Ann Rev Food SciTechnol 3:203–225.26. Voogd, E. 2009. Does animal welfare affect food safety? Food Safety Magazine February/March42–53.27. This information is based on an e-mail exchange with Frank Aarestrup, whom we consider the mostinformed European on antibiotic use in agriculture.28. Coclanis, P.A. 2011. Food is much safer than you think. The Wall Street Journal. June 14, A13.29. Felberbaum, M. 2011. New frontier in food safety: meat traceable by DNA. The Commercial AppealMay 31.30. Chew, W.-P. 2008. Correlation of in-field survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 with rainfall, relativehumidity and soil moisture. Master’s thesis. Department of Food Science. Oklahoma State University.F e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 53

INGREDIENTSBy Rupa Das, M.Sc.Quality Control of Botanical IngredientsPartnerships with dependable, qualityconscioussuppliers are key to a manufacturer’sreputation and success.As the nutrition science industry grows, sodo the questions and concerns regarding quality.Most, if not all, quality-related questionscan be answered by evaluating the cultivationand harvesting practices, the manufacturingpractices and the quality control program adoptedby the ingredient suppliers.One of the challenges the industry faces today is the lackof standardized methods for product assessment. Using differentmethodologies produces different test results. Therefore,a product that may meet all the requirements using a certainmethod may not meet the requirements using a different method.Several industry organizations are currently working towardstandardization of processing and testing methodologies.Manufacturing PracticesManufacturing processes affect the quality of herbal ingredients.Cross-contamination with other products, environmentalcontamination, mix-ups and mislabeling can lead to poorqualitymaterial. These can be avoided by implementing GoodManufacturing Practices (GMPs). Quality-conscious ingredientStandardizedmethods forbotanicalingredient safetyare urgently neededsuppliers have adopted some form of GMPs,whether the product is a drug, a food, a proposeddietary supplement or a combinationof the three. Manufacturers also must contendwith the challenge that ingredients are sourcedfrom diverse geographic locations. Althoughmost of these locations have some form ofGMPs, the standards and enforcement arenot the same as those in the manufacturer’shome market. It is therefore important to check and evaluatethe manufacturing practices of suppliers to ensure high-qualitybotanical products.Ingredient SpecificationsA quality botanical ingredient is one that uses the correctplant species and plant part, is unadulterated, safe for humanconsumption and has the potency (level of chemical constituents)it claims.Different types of identification methods, such as macroscopic,microscopic, organoleptic, thin-layer chromatography(TLC), high-pressure (HP) TLC, HP liquid chromatography(HPLC) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, may beused to identify the genus, species and plant part. Each of theseidentity tests has advantages and limitations. At the very least,54 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

INGREDIENTSthe type of identification method(s) used should be specificenough to differentiate between species and plant parts. Inmost cases, different methods must be combined to identifythe plant species and plant part beyond a reasonable doubt.Other than identity, botanicals should be tested for adulterantssuch as heavy metals, pesticides and ethylene oxideresidues. Most countries have regulatory guidelines related toadulterants, and products must meet these guidelines.Aflatoxin and microbiological testing are required to ensurethe product is free of pathogenic bacteria and is safe for humanconsumption. Raw ingredients usually have a high microbialIngredient Supplier SelectionA key step in ensuring the quality of finished products ischoosing an ingredient supplier that will provide material thatmeets all of the requirements. The vendor should be providedwith the detailed ingredient specification—which should bepart of the contract with the customer—so that they can fullyunderstand the customer’s requirements. The supplier shouldreview the specification thoroughly and provide feedback to thecustomer in the form of comments or ask for further clarification.The customer and supplier should agree on the ingredientspecification before placing or accepting orders.“A quality botanical ingredient is one that uses the correct plant speciesand plant part, is unadulterated, safe for human consumption and hasthe potency...it claims.”load and thus require some form of sanitization. Several sanitizationoptions are available, but it is important to understandthe regulatory and quality impact of such sanitization processesbefore choosing one that is appropriate for the specific product.Chemical tests are required to confirm that the materialmeets the claimed potency of active or marker chemical constituents.Depending on the constituent, different instrumentalmethodologies, such as HPLC, gas chromatography or ultravioletspectrophotometry, may be used to quantify these chemicalconstituents.One of the very first things needed to ensure the quality ofbotanicals is to create an ingredient specification sheet detailingidentity (genus, species, plant part), physical (appearance,particle size, density), chemical (chemical constituents, markercompounds), heavy metal, pesticide and microbiological requirementsas well as the preferred sterilization process. Sinceusing different methods could lead to different test results, it isimportant to identify the sterilization and test method on thespecification sheet.In the case of botanical extracts, the ingredient specificationshould also list the raw herb-to-extract ratio, extraction solventsused and any excipients and/or carriers that may have beenused in the production of the herbal extracts.Certificate of Analysis (COA)The ingredient supplier should provide a COA with all shipments.The results of identity, physical, chemical, heavy metaland pesticide residues testing as well as microbiological testingresults should be listed on the COA along with the specificationsand methods of analysis. The COA should be a guaranteethat the product is what it claims to be, is unadulterated and issafe for human consumption. However, the COA provided bythe ingredient supplier should be verified and the test methodsused should be evaluated. It is important for suppliers and customersto agree on test methodologies prior to accepting COAresults.It is very important to review and evaluate the vendor’s capabilitiesand expertise. Some areas that need to be evaluatedare the vendor’s quality unit, including but not limited to theeducation, training and experience of the quality unit staff.The vendor’s Standard Operating Procedure programs, testingcapabilities (including certification of any third-party testinglabs used), laboratory equipment, sanitation programs, processcontrol and pest control programs are some of the areas thatshould be evaluated. It is necessary to assess whether the vendorfollows some form of GMPs and Good Laboratory Practicesin terms of product and document traceability. A site visitand audit of the vendor facility provide critical informationregarding vendor quality.Since the ingredient supplier receives material from diversegeographic regions, a vendor qualification program is essentialto have in place to ensure the quality of raw botanicalsreceived.ConclusionsIt is essential to partner with vendors that understand yourquality requirements and are capable of meeting them. It isonly through this partnership that we can provide high-qualityfinished products to consumers.•Rupa Das, M.Sc., is vice president of global quality and compliance forBI Nutraceuticals. She has more than 20 years of quality and regulatory compliancemanagement experience in the dietary supplement and personal care productindustries. She is a certified GMP auditor and Safe Quality Foods (SQF) practitioner.She is involved at different levels with leading industry organizations. Prior to herwork in the industry, she was a chemistry lecturer at several California State Universitybranches.To read more about ingredient safety,please visitwww.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature-series/.F e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 55

SEAFOODBy Gary P. Richards, Ph.D., and David H. Kingsley, Ph.D.Noroviruses in Shellfish and Other Foods:Challenges of the 21st CenturyIf you were unfortunate enough to have a boutof norovirus illness during your lifetime, youprobably still remember it. Nothing is moredisheartening than to develop norovirus illnesswhile traveling on that well-deserved vacationor after a wedding reception or celebratorymeal at your favorite restaurant. The fact is,noroviruses are the principle cause of foodborne illness. Inthe United States alone, there are an estimated 5.5 millioncases annually. 1 Although other enteric viruses contribute tofoodborne illness, noroviruses are by far the most prevalent.Noroviruses are transmitted by ingesting the pathogen, throughcontaminated food, water or person-to-person contact. Theyare highly contagious and found in high numbers in both fecesand vomit.Norovirus particles can cause illness even in relatively smallnumbers, estimated at perhaps as few as ten. Symptoms ofteninclude projectile vomiting and explosive diarrhea, usually atthe same time, making this illness most unpleasant. Combatingnoroviruses in the food supply chain takes an all-hands-on-deckapproach involving growers, harvesters, transporters, processors,Noroviruses inmolluscan shellfishcan causefoodborne illnessfood handlers and of course, consumers. Somepractical measures to reduce noroviruses infoods involve pre- and postharvest interventions,product testing and targeted research. 2Poor Hygienic PracticesOne of the most common means for foodcontamination is poor personal hygiene, which leads to handcontamination and subsequent transfer of viruses to foods simplyby handling. Foods commonly implicated in enteric virusillness include fruits and vegetables, deli meats, bakery products,ready-to-eat foods and molluscan shellfish. Foods handledby ill workers or persons with unsanitary hands are frequentlythe source of contamination, at harvest, during transport, at thegrocery store or during food preparation and serving. Fruits,vegetables and berries may be contaminated in the field bythe harvesters’ hands, but also by polluted irrigation water orsewage-contaminated drainage ditches or septic systems in thevicinity of the farms. Maintaining clean dishes and silverwareis also important in reducing illnesses. Hand washing withsoap and water prior to harvest, transport and preparation of56 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

We Just Got Better!Visit our completelyredesigned site for aweb experience thatgives you, the foodsafety professional,everything youneed, right at yourfingertips.Improved NavigationArticles are organized into categories and subcategories to helpyou easily access the content you need, when you need it.Easy Access to Current ContentNew articles from all sources: the print edition, twice monthlyFSM: eDigest newsletters, and Signature Series articlesappear on the homepage as they are released, making newcontent available regularly.Daily News UpdatesWith so much happening everyday, we keep an eye on foodsafety news for you and post it as it happens, making theFood Safety Magazine website your go-to site.Social SharingTweet it, email it, post it to your favorite social network or tagit in Evernote-we’ve got all the bases covered and the socialnetworking sites you need.CommentsWe’ve added a comment section to each article so youcan interact and engage with the Food Safety Magazinecommunity of thought leaders.BlogsOur new Blog features commentaries from members of ouresteemed Editorial Advisory Board as well as a host of regularcontributors.www.foodsafetymagazine.com

SEAFOODfoods is essential to reducing norovirus illnesses in the generalpopulation. If gloves are used to handle foods, they should bemaintained in a sanitary manner. Noroviruses are generally resistantto alcohol-based products, including hand sanitizers, sothorough washing is very important.Environmental Contamination of ShellfishUnlike most food products, in which handling is often thesource of contamination, bivalve molluscan shellfish (oysters,clams, mussels and cockles) are most commonly contaminatedby fecally polluted water in the harvest area. These shellfishfeed by filtering out particles in the water through their gillsProcessing InterventionsWashing. Since honest efforts can go only so far in providingsafe foods, postharvest processing interventions are often necessaryto enhance food safety. The outer surfaces of foods such asfruits and vegetables, leafy greens and berries should be washedwith potable water to remove surface contamination to thegreatest extent possible. Foods with porous or crinkly surfaces,like strawberries and curly leaf lettuce or spinach, are more difficultto wash and may require more effort to remove surfacecontamination. Several rinses of produce with copious amountsof water would be expected to lessen the number of virusespresent. Even then, viruses may remain within pores, cracksor surface folds. Peeling vegetables will also remove surfacecontamination. Melons should be thoroughly washed beforecutting to prevent the transfer of surface contamination to theinside of the fruit via the knife.The outer shell of molluscan shellfish should be washedclean to remove mud and potential surface viruses, particularlyif the shellfish are to be shucked and eaten raw. In a food processingenvironment, food contact surfaces should be washed“...bivalve molluscan shellfish (oysters, clams, mussels and cockles) aremost commonly contaminated by fecally polluted water in the harvestarea.”and diverting the particles to their mouths and digestive tracts.Bivalves can bioconcentrate viruses within their edible tissuesto many times the levels in the surrounding water. This makesraw shellfish susceptible to high levels of norovirus contaminationwhen the water is polluted. To minimize illnesses, regulatorsin the U.S. monitor shellfish growing waters for signs offecal pollution using fecal coliform (bacterial) standards. Thesebacteria are not the best indicators for virus pollution, becausebacteria and viruses have different tolerances to ever-changingenvironmental conditions. Nevertheless, the detection of bacterialcontamination of fecal origin signifies the likelihood thatnorovirus and other enteric viruses are also present. The converseis not true; that is, water that tests clean for fecal coliformbacteria may still contain viruses that are more persistent thanbacteria. Shellfish from such waters could still pose a threat tothe consumer. Other factors that contribute to shellfish contaminationinclude storm water runoff, particularly in areaswith septic tanks, faulty sewage treatment plants and the illicitdumping of boat wastes into harvesting areas. Dumping of boatwastes and vomiting overboard have been associated with specificoutbreaks. 3, 4 Harvesting only from areas approved by stateregulators will reduce the threat of illness but cannot guaranteesafety. Other factors, like storing shellfish in a sanitary manner,chilling them with “clean” ice and handling the shell stock andshucked products under hygienic conditions, are necessary precautionsto enhance shellfish safety.with dilute bleach solution to inactivate (kill) potential noroviruses,although the effective concentrations and exposure timesfor bleach and other disinfectants against human noroviruseshave not been defined.Heating. Pasteurization and/or cooking are effective meansto inactivate enteric viruses, but their effectiveness depends onthe type of cooking (frying, steaming, baking, boiling) and theduration. 5 Internal temperatures must be sufficient to inactivateviruses, although the times and temperatures required to inactivatehuman noroviruses have not been clearly defined. Cookingis effective and useful as a disinfection process for manyfoods, including vegetables. A short blanching may be sufficientto eliminate surface contaminants on fresh vegetables. Forshellfish, thorough cooking can leave them overly chewy, soalternative processing strategies are needed.Depuration. A popular method to cleanse shellfish of bacterialand other contaminants is known as controlled purificationor depuration. Molluscan shellfish are placed in tanks of cleanseawater and allowed to purge the contaminants from their systems,generally over a 3-day period. 6 Depuration has been practicedfor over 100 years and is effective in reducing bacterialcontamination and sand, but is less efficient in reducing entericviruses from shellfish. Enteric viruses apparently become sequesteredin motile, phagocytic hemocytes (blood cells) of theshellfish. Motile, phagocytic hemocytes can travel back andforth from the digestive tract, through the epithelial cells surroundingthe tract and into the shellfish’s connective tissues. 7Although these hemocytes have acidic interiors, enteric virusescan be highly acid tolerant. Laboratory studies have shown thathepatitis A virus was very acid tolerant and persisted for 21 daysin oyster hemocytes, whereas other viruses were less tolerant. 7No studies of acid persistence of human norovirus have beenperformed, but judging from the number of norovirus illnessescaused by shellfish, it is suspected that noroviruses may alsopersist in hemocytes for extended periods. Preliminary testing58 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

SEAFOODsqueezed juices than heat-pasteurized products. Pressures of250 MPa or higher are commonly used in the processing industryand kill most bacteria. A simple conversion for MPa is that1 MPa = 145 psi of pressure, which is about five times whatis normally used in a car tire. Therefore, 250 MPa is 36,250psi. Pioneering work on enteric virus inactivation using HPPshowed that hepatitis A virus and norovirus surrogates couldbe inactivated using moderate levels of pressure (450 MPa orless). 8, 9 In a collaboration between the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA), Emory University and Virginia Tech, it wasdetermined that pressures greater than 400 MPa are requiredto inactivate norovirus particles in oysters using human volunteers.10 However, 400 MPa is higher than pressures used forcommercial HPP treatments of shellfish.Irradiation. Other postharvest processing methods includegamma and ultraviolet light irradiation. Gamma irradiation canbe effective in eliminating some viruses, like hepatitis A virus,rotavirus, poliovirus and the norovirus surrogates feline calicivirusand canine norovirus; however, some studies reported thatthe levels required for inactivation negatively affected shellfish“High-pressure processing...is an alternative method to inactivatemicrobes in foods, including shellfish.”suggests that many of the viruses within oysters may residewithin hemocytes that migrate from the digestive tissues intothe connective tissues of the shellfish. Consequently, shellfishdepuration appears inadequate to purge viruses from shellfish.High-Pressure Processing. High-pressure processing (HPP) is analternative method to inactivate microbes in foods, includingshellfish. HPP has been used to reduce vegetative bacteria infoods to enhance food safety and prolong shelf life. Foods likeguacamole and fruit juices are often pressure treated. Pressureinactivates the spoilage enzymes in guacamole to preserve itsgreen color, while HPP-treated fruit juices taste more like fresh-flavor. 6 Ultraviolet light inactivates viruses on the surfaces ofproducts, but is ineffective in the case of shellfish due to its inabilityto penetrate into the tissues where virus contaminationgenerally resides. Procedures like salting or freezing and thawingappear relatively ineffective in reducing noroviruses.Product TestingVirus Analysis of Foods. Several methods have been developedto extract and test for total norovirus contaminationF e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 59

SEAFOOD(infectious and noninfectious virus particles) in foods; however,there are no internationally recognized standard methods todate. In an effort to develop standardized procedures, the EuropeanCommittee for Standardization established a TechnicalAdvisory Group for Viruses to develop and publish standard virusextraction and assay procedures for food surfaces, soft fruitand salad vegetables, bottled water and bivalve molluscan shellfish.11 After many years of work, their results should be availablesoon. Virus isolation from foods, either through a rinsingprocedure or by extraction, must be followed by analysis of theInadequacies of Norovirus SurrogateResearchThe quest for an assay to detect infectious noroviruses infood and water has been hampered by the inability to propagatehuman noroviruses in cell or tissue culture systems and theinability to infect common laboratory animals. Consequently,other viruses that can be assayed for infectivity are often used asnorovirus surrogates. One of the earliest viruses to stake a claimas a norovirus surrogate was feline calicivirus, which produceseasily quantified plaques in feline kidney cell culture. A morerecent entry in the search for a surrogate is murine norovirus,which is genetically more similar to human norovirus than isfeline calicivirus and produces plaques in a mouse macrophagecell line. To date, over 400 papers have been published on the“Several methods have been developed to extract and test fortotal norovirus contamination...in foods; however, there are nointernationally recognized standard methods to date.”viruses. In spite of improvements in our ability to extract virusesfrom foods, the analysis of rinses and extracts leaves muchto be desired. Assay methods are almost exclusively based onreverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), amolecular-based procedure that amplifies viral RNA into complementaryDNA (cDNA) copies. RT-PCR-based assays have anumber of limitations. Perhaps the most significant is that theydetect total virus presence (both infectious and noninfectiousvirus particles). Thus, viruses inactivated by chlorine, other disinfectants,sunlight, heat, high pressure, etc. can still test positiveby RT-PCR. Other limitations of RT-PCR are that the assayis subject to laboratory contamination and is frequently inhibitedby compounds in the extracts of shellfish or other foods.Various controls must be included in both virus extraction andassay to demonstrate the effectiveness of the extraction and thelack of inhibitors or contaminants in the assay. Such controlsincrease the time and complexity of the procedures but are necessaryfor accurate interpretation of the results.Determining Norovirus Infectivity. For over 40 years, researchershave attempted to propagate noroviruses in culture. Unlikemany human viruses, which can be assayed and quantified incell culture, norovirus propagation has not been successful, inspite of some reports to the contrary. Plaque assays and cytopathogenicityassays are the basis for quantitative assessmentfor many viruses, but are ineffective for human noroviruses.Animal models are another way to monitor the infectivity ofsome viruses, but human noroviruses are incapable of replicationin laboratory animals. Recent advances suggest it will soonbe possible to separate inactive from potentially active norovirususing magnetic beads coated with molecules that mimic thecellular receptors to which noroviruses bind. It would then be12, 13possible to extract potentially infectious norovirus particles.use of feline calicivirus and murine norovirus to determine theeffectiveness of chemical disinfectants and processing technologieson norovirus inactivation. Other norovirus surrogates havebeen proposed; however, it has become abundantly clear thatnone of the surrogates tested to date perfectly mimics humannorovirus. 14 In many cases, human noroviruses may be morepersistent than the surrogates. Such variability in inactivationrates between the surrogate and the pathogen itself might havebeen anticipated, because different strains of even the same viruscan have widely varying inactivation kinetics. For instance,different strains of feline calicivirus showed differences in theirinactivation by chemicals, heat and pH, 15, 16 whereas differentstrains of hepatitis A virus showed substantial differences in inactivationby heat and HPP. 17 Since human norovirus illnessesare caused by any of a wide variety of norovirus strains, it isunlikely that surrogate testing in itself will provide accurate dataor data useful for the promulgation of regulations for the foodindustry. Currently, only human volunteer studies with the actualpathogens can definitively determine norovirus infectivityor the efficacy of sanitation interventions. 14The Need for Clinical TrialsClinical trials have been performed on human norovirusfor decades, but the perceptions that they may be too risky orexpensive have dissuaded some governments from fundingsuch trials. In the United States, clinical trials are still fundedby some agencies, and the information provided in respect tonorovirus inactivation is essential to developing methods applicableto food processing. However, as a practical matter, thehigh cost and complexity of human trials limit the scope of thistype of research. As previously mentioned, the results to date ofsurrogate-based studies are of limited value. Human clinical trialsare needed to evaluate the effectiveness of disinfectants andprocessing technologies on human norovirus inactivation andto identify true norovirus surrogates. 14 Only then will definitiveinformation be available to properly evaluate the retention anddisinfection of infectious noroviruses in foods.60 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

SEAFOODConclusionsStrategies to reduce human noroviruses in the food chaininvolve: (a) pre- and postharvest interventions to precludenoroviruses from food or food contact surfaces; (b) processingtechniques to inactivate viruses on or within the products and(c) product analyses. Cooking, washing and peeling could havea significant effect on eliminating human noroviruses in somefoods, but viruses tend to persist in molluscan shellfish. Effortsusing norovirus surrogates identified to date have not resultedin new disinfectants or processing techniques, and have not significantlyadvanced food safety. Currently, human clinical trials4. McIntyre, L., E. Galanis, K. Mattison, O. Mykytczuk, E. Buenaventura, J.Wong, N. Prystajecky, M. Ritson, J. Stone, D. Moreau and A. Youssef. 2012.Multiple clusters of norovirus among shellfish consumers linked to symptomaticoyster harvesters. J Food Prot 75:1715–1720.5. DiGirolamo, R., J. Liston and J. Matches. 1970. Survival of virus in chilled,frozen, and processed oysters. Appl Microbiol 20:58–63.6. Richards, G.P., C. McLeod and F.S. Le Guyader. 2010. Processing strategiesto inactivate enteric viruses in shellfish. Food Environ Virol 2:183–193.7. Provost, K., B.A. Dancho, G. Ozbay, R.S. Anderson, G.P. Richards and D.H.Kingsley. 2011. Hemocytes are sites of enteric virus persistence in oysters.Appl Environ Microbiol 77:8360–8369.“Human clinical trials are needed to evaluate the effectiveness ofdisinfectants and processing technologies on human norovirusinactivation and to identify true norovirus surrogates.”remain the only method to conclusively show the effectivenessof processing techniques on virus persistence. Over the nextdecade, technological advancements may lead to simple, quantitativeassays for human noroviruses. In the meantime, clinicaltrials will provide the best opportunity to identify processinginterventions to reduce noroviruses in foods. The food industry,regulatory agencies and the public face many challenges inregard to norovirus contamination of the food supply, but witha concerted effort, obstacles that compromise food safety willbe overcome.Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication issolely for the purpose of providing specific information and does notimply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA, which is anequal opportunity provider and employer.•Gary Richards, Ph.D. (right), and David Kingsley, Ph.D. (left),are research microbiologists at the USDA Agricultural ResearchService’s Microbial Safety of AquacultureProducts Center of Excellence in Dover,DE. Their research involves the developmentof food safety and intervention technologies toreduce bacterial and viral contaminants in foods with emphasison molluscan shellfish.References1. Scallan, E., R.M. Hoekstra, F.J. Angulo, R. V. Tauxe, M.A. Widdowson, S.L.Roy, J.L. Jones and P.M. Griffin. 2011. Foodborne illness acquired in theUnited States — major pathogens. Emerg Infec Dis 17:7–15.2. Richards, G.P. 2001. Enteric virus contamination of foods through industrialpractices: A primer on intervention strategies. J Indust MicrobiolBiotechnol 27:117–125.3. Kohn, M.A., T.A. Farley, T. Ando, M. Curtis, S.A. Wilson, Q. Jin, S.S. Monroe,R.C. Baron, L.M. McFarland and R.I. Glass. 1995. An outbreak ofNorwalk virus gastroenteritis associated with eating raw oysters. Implicationsfor maintaining safe oyster beds. JAMA 273:466–471.8. Kingsley, D.H., D.G. Hoover, E. Papafragkou and G.P. Richards. 2002. Inactivationof hepatitis A virus and a calicivirus by high hydrostatic pressure.J. Food Prot 65:1605–1609.9. Kingsley, D.H., D.R. Holliman, K.R. Calci, H. Chen and G.J. Flick. 2007.Inactivation of a norovirus by high pressure processing. Appl EnvironMicrobiol 73:581–585.10. Leon, J.S., D.H. Kingsley, J.S. Montes, G.P. Richards, G.M. Lyon, G.M. Abdulhafid,S.R. Seitz, M.L. Fernandez, P.F. Teunis, G.J. Flick and C.L. Moe. 2011.Randomized, double-blinded clinical trial for human norovirus inactivationin oysters by high hydrostatic pressure processing. Appl Environ Microbiol77:5476–5482.11. Lees, D. and CEN-WG6-TAG4. 2010. International standardisation of amethod for detection of human pathogenic viruses in molluscan shellfish.Food Environ Virol 2:146–155.12. Dancho, B.A., H. Chen and D.H. Kingsley. 2012. Discrimination betweeninfectious and non-infectious human norovirus using porcine gastric mucin.Int J Food Microbiol 155:222–226.13. Tian, P., A. Engelbrektson and R. Mandrell. 2008. Two-log increase insensitivity for detection of norovirus in complex samples by concentrationwith porcine gastric mucin conjugated to magnetic beads. Appl EnvironMicrobiol 74:4271–4276.14. Richards, G.P. 2012. Critical review of norovirus surrogates in food safetyresearch: rationale for considering volunteer studies. Food Environ Virol4:6–13.15. Di Martino, B., C. Ceci, F. Di Profio and F. Marsilio. 2010. In vitro inactivationof feline calicivirus (FCV) by chemical disinfectants: Resistance variationamong field strains. Arch Virol 155:2047–2051.16. Lee, K.M. and H.H. Gillespie. 1973. Thermal and pH stability of felinecalicivirus. Infect Immun 7:678–679.17. Shimasaki, N., T. Kiyohara, A. Totsuka, K. Nojima, Y. Okada, K. Yamaguchi,J. Kajioka, T. Wakita and T. Yoneyama. 2009. Inactivation of hepatitis Avirus by heat and high hydrostatic pressure: variation among laboratorystrains. Vox Sanguinis 96:14–19.To read more about seafood safety, please visitwww.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature-series/.F e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 61

Product ShowcaseShelf-Life Extenderfor MeatPleva International Inc.has over 50 meat formulationsthat include the useof natural ingredients, withno chemicals, synthetics orartificial flavors,to increase theshelf life ofmeat. Their naturalmeat inclusion,called BLENDit, naturallyextends shelf stability andenhances the meat fiber andprotein bind. The productworks to create a functionalfood with a much highernutritional value without alteringthe taste of the meat.It coats fat for a more robustflavor, improving juiciness,taste, tenderness and digestibility,has no warmed-overflavor and is packed withantioxidants and vitamins.Pleva International, 231.933.3300 •www.plevainternational.comVacuum Thermocouple AssemblyOmega’s new temperature control valve series of stainless steel thermocoupleprobe assemblies with M12 connectors are available in standardlengths of 3, 6 and 12 inches, with a grounded or ungroundedthermocouple junction at the tip. Standard probes are available inK, T and E calibrations. Single or dual thermocouple constructionis optional. Ideal for vacuum furnace, food processingand storage, food products in transit and fish farming inorder to record environmental conditions to complywith health and safety regulations.Omega Engineering, 800.622.2378 • www.omega.comRapid Pathogen DetectionNeogen haslaunched a new testdriveprogram forits ANSR (“answer”)rapid pathogen detectionsystem. This is alimited-time, risk-free30-day trial for anon-site evaluation of the ANSR system. The program givesfood testing labs and food companies an opportunity to doon-demand pathogen testing for Salmonella and Listeria spp.Incorporating an internal control for each assay, ANSR resultsare DNA definitive as well as rapid, providing a high level ofconfidence in the results.Neogen, 800.234.5333 • www.neogen.comCryogenic GrindingFor size reduction of sample materials that cannot be processedat room temperature, RETSCH’s CryoMill is an idealchoice. An integrated cooling system ensures that the grindingjar is continually cooled with liquid nitrogen both before andduring the grinding process. The mill achieves considerably improvedgrind sizes thanks to the increased oscillating frequencyof 30 Hz. Further improvements include a reinforced housing,optimized liquid nitrogen duct and new accessories such as anadapter for six reaction vials and a 10-mL grinding jar. The millcan also be operated without cooling, which makes it suitable for a vast range of applications.RETSCH, 866.473.8724 • www.retsch.comFood Defense ToolFoodQuestTQ has addedfunctionality to their FoodDefense Architect tool in theversion 1.5 release. The toolis based on observationaldata across the food industry.Observed events are reverseengineeredand evaluatedat each step in the event foropportunities to avoid ormitigate outcomes. All stepsin the process are peerreviewedfor accuracy. It allowsan operator to walk throughthe step-by-step process ofbuilding a food defense programsuitable for that sizebusiness and their position inthe food supply chain.FoodQuestTQ, 240.439.4476www.foodquesttq.comGet into the ProductShowcasePlease send your product orservice press releases and images toBarbara VanRenterghem atbarbara@foodsafetymagazine.comCryogenic SolutionsLinde North America has introduced state-of-the-art solutions that canboost yield and processing line throughput—including the Cryoline CW(Cryowave), the world’s first hygienic individually quick-frozen (IQF) tunnelfreezer with a patented rolling-wave action. Cryogenic technology uses CO 2or liquid nitrogen to chill or freeze products, providing significant cost savingsversus flighted freezers, eliminating CO 2snow carryover and improvingcleanability. The freezer is ideal for sliced and diced poultry and beef, pizzatoppings, tortellini and other pastas.Linde North America, 800.232.4726 • www.lindeus.com62 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

July 13 – 16McCormick Place SouthChicago, Illinois USAJoin food science professionals from aroundthe world to experience, first-hand...• The newest products and solutions• The hottest emerging trends and developments• The most current applied scientific education• The widest selection of suppliers from around the worldLearn about the latest advances in food science and their real-world applications, and discover how toturn innovative ideas into a competitive advantage for both yourself and your organization. If you’reserious about the science and the business of food, join us in Chicago for the 2013 IFT Annual Meeting& Food Expo!Registration Opens March 1, 2013Visit ift.org/IFT13 for more information about this year’s event, our Pre-Annual Meeting Short Courses,and our co-located IFT International Food Nanoscience Conference. Plan now to join us!Exhibit at the IFT Food ExpoPromote your company’s products to thousands of food professionals from around theworld. The IFT Food Expo is the most efficient way for you to reach your buying audience!For more information, contact Bato Prostran at +1.312.604.0278 or bprostran@ift.org.

Coupler BrakeForce Control Industries Inc. recently developed a double C-facecoupler brake that mounts on the drive end of a standard C-face motor,replacing the commonly used motor brakes mounted on the back ofa special motor designed with a mounting flange and extendedshaft on the fan end of the motor. Mounting the brake betweenthe reducer and motor allows a standard C-face motor to be used.Since many plants stock C-face motors for other applications, thiseliminates the purchasing and stocking of both a brake motorand a standard C-face motor, simplifying inventory andreducing costs. Applications include palletizers, packagingmachinery, baggage handling systems, concrete block manufacturing,cranes and more.Force Control Industries, 513.868.0900 • www.forcecontrol.comManaged Cleaning ProgramSpartan Chemical Company has announced therelease of Spartan HealthCheck, which uses a threeprongedapproach to ensure proper environmentalcleaning is achieved: training, validation and documentation.The training system educates staff on cleaning standardsand methods, and portable procedure cards providereinforcement as a framework for adherence to thestandard going forward. This process is supported by thecompany’s UVcheck ® validation tools. Hermetically sealedUV marker swabs and a portable black light allow managers to train and assess staff cleaningoperations. In combination with Spartan’s wide range of cleaning and disinfecting chemicals,the system provides an end-to-end solution for environmental cleaning for health.Spartan Chemical Company, 800.537.8990 • www.spartanchemical.comOzone WasherOzone Safe Food hasintroduced an ozone washingsystem, which uses nochemicals to wash harmfulbacteria, such as Escherichiacoli and Salmonella, from food.An environmentally friendlyapproach to disinfecting freshfruits and vegetables, thewasher uses ozonated water(aqueous ozone) to kill nearly100 strains of bacteria andviruses without the use ofharmful chemicals.Ozone Safe Food, 951.674.9222www.ozonesafefood.com“Big Six” E. coli StrainsATCC is now offering strains from each of the six non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) serotypesto the food safety community. The strains referredto as the “Big Six” have been linked to a growing number offoodborne illnesses, prompting the U.S. Department of Agricultureto add them to their test regimen. Routine verificationtesting for the presence of STEC serogroups O26, O45, O103,O111, O121 and O145 is required in raw beef manufacturingtrimmings and other raw ground beef components produceddomestically and imported.ATCC, 800.638.6597 • www.atcc.orgThermal Guard PackageThe Serco ® Thermal Guard Package, available on SercoVertical Storing Dock Levelers, provides the ultimate energyand security seal for climate-controlled loading docks. Thisadditional package allows truck doors to be opened frominside the building after the truck is positioned at the doorwithout breaking a thermal seal at the dock. It includes anenhanced hinged bottom draft pad, bumper covers and extendedbumper gussets to provide greater sealing capability.Serco, 800.933.4834 • www.sercocompany.comShelf-LifeEnhancerSterilex is now offeringPerQuat ® , a unique productspecifically designed for usein any type of clean-in-placesystem as an additional measurefor increasing shelf life,as well as producing a cleaner,safer product for consumers.Injection systems treatedwith the product keep foodsmelling fresher much longerand maintain normal colorand normal texture twiceas long as nontreated systems.Validated by a majorU.S. poultry processor, theseproducts were used to disinfectbrine injection systemsand needles, and were foundto lower both aerobic platecounts and total coliformcounts.Sterilex, 800.511.1659www.sterilex.comGlove LineAnsell has announced newadditions to its VersaTouch brand, a line of versatilehand protectionand apparel solutionsfor the food processingindustry.Featuring PolarBear® cut-resistanttechnology, the newgloves and the complementarycut-resistantsleeve raise the standardin worker safety and comfortfor food processors.Ansell, 732.345.5400www.ansell.com64 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

Testing(continued from page 15)Figure 1: Chromatograms Obtained in Multiresidue Analyses of More than 300 PesticidesAnalyzed by GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MSrange of compounds independent oftheir elemental composition and providesimultaneous quantitation and structuralidentification of detected analytes. It alsoadds another degree of separation/selectivityon top of chromatographic separations.These unique features have madeMS the number one choice for detectionand identification/confirmation of tracelevelorganic chemical contaminants inmodern testing laboratories.First, the combination of MS withgas chromatography (GC-MS) has becomepopular for the analysis of volatileand semivolatile compounds, includingmany pesticide residues, PAHs, PCBsand other less-polar POPs. More polar,thermolabile and less volatile analyteswere difficult to analyze until the morerecent introduction of atmosphericionization techniques, such as electrospray,for liquid chromatography-massspectrometry (LC-MS). LC-MS hasopened the door to the direct analysis ofmany more polar contaminants, includingmodern, new-generation pesticides,and the majority of veterinary drugsand toxins, such as mycotoxins. Manyof the emerging and recently identifiedcontaminants, including acrylamide,melamine or Sudan dyes, are analyzedpreferably by LC-MS.Thus, modern food contaminant testinglaboratories utilize both GC-MS andLC-MS to cover the wide polarity rangeof possible organic chemical contaminants.Tandem MS (MS/MS) is typicallyemployed to provide an increased selectivity(especially in LC-MS) that helpsfurther distinguish target compoundsfrom potential matrix interference.Figure 1 shows an example of chromatogramsobtained in a multiresidue analysisof more than 300 pesticides analyzedby GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS, demonstratingthe speed and selectivity ofstate-of-the-art instruments that enablethe simultaneous and highly sensitiveanalysis of many compounds.Identification of UnknownChemical Contaminants in FoodDetection and identification ofunknown contaminants is not an easytask, especially if they are present at lowconcentration levels. It requires expertiseand a good analytical strategy that isbased on all gathered information aboutthe sample and potential sources of contamination.Any clues, such as changesin smell, taste or texture, as well as adescription of potential poisoning symptomsmay be important in this respect.Concurrent analysis of control (“good”)samples with suspect samples is often essentialto find differences and eliminatepotential false positives.If a certain compound or a group ofcompounds is suspected, then a targetedsample preparation and instrumentalmethod(s) can be employed (see “TheImportance of Moisture in SamplesPrior to Chemical Analyses,” p. 14).For a truly unknown analysis, differentextraction and separation approachesshould be used to isolate compoundswith a wide range of physicochemicalproperties (polarity, solubility, volatility,etc.). Nontargeted analysis should beperformed, such as MS with full-spectraacquisition. Statistical analysis of theacquired chromatographic and MS dataof contaminated and noncontaminatedsamples may help identify differencesand reduce the number of componentsthat have to be examined. The acquiredMS spectra of suspected contaminantscan be compared with MS spectral librariesand compound databases. In LC-MS,high-resolution/accurate-mass measurements,using time-of-flight (TOF) ororbitrap MS instruments, should beused for added selectivity. In addition,tandem MS should be employed to helpelucidate the structure of unknown contaminants.In the end, strong knowledgeand expertise in both analytical and foodchemistry are typically required to succeedin this task.Current and Future Trends inChemical Contaminant Analysis inFoodThe current and future trends in theanalysis of chemical contaminants areand will be strongly affected by developmentsin analytical instrumentation. Thespeed, sensitivity and selectivity of stateof-the-artMS instruments enable analysisof many compounds in one analyticalrun. Consequently, streamlined samplepreparation approaches, such as QuECh-ERS (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Ruggedand Safe), can be used that requireminimum extract cleanup without anypreconcentration steps—thus, they can beminiaturized and automated.The advancements in high-resolution/accurateMS instruments and developmentof related software tools showgreat potential to bring this technologyfrom the research environment into testinglaboratories, where it could be employedfor nontargeted testing of knownand unknown chemical contaminants. •Katerina Mastovska, Ph.D., is alead staff scientist at Covance Laboratories.She is actively involved inthe AOAC International as a co-chairof the AOAC Chemical Contaminantsand Residues in Food community.F e b r u a r y • M a r c h 2 0 1 3 65

Advertisers IndexAdvanced Instruments, Inc............................................................ 51781.320.9000 • www.aicompanies.com/Auto1AIB International............................................................................ 21800.633.5137 • www.aibonline.orgAmerican Proficiency Institute......................................................59800.333.0958 • www.foodpt.comBeckman Coulter, Inc....................................................................... 5www.bcfoodsafety.com/fsBia Diagnostics, LLC....................................................................... 11802.540.0148 • www.biadiagnostics.comBioControl Systems, Inc................................................................. 37800.245.0113 • www.biocontrolsys.comCEM Corporation............................................................................ 13www.cem.comFood Safety Summit......................................................................... 3www.foodsafetysummit.comFoodChek Systems Inc.................................................................... 67403.269.9424 • www.foodcheksystems.comFoodHACCP.com..............................................................................66www.foodhaccp.comHygiena, LLC....................................................................................25888.HYGIENA • www.hygiena.comIFT Food Expo.................................................................................63312.604.0278 • www.ift.org/IFT13LaMotte...........................................................................................29800.344.3100 • www.lamotte.com/biopaddles.htmlMichelson Laboratories, Inc..........................................................27888.941.5050 • www.michelsonlab.comMicro Essential Laboratory Inc........................................................ 2718.338.3618 • www.MicroEssentialLab.comMicro Identification Technologies.................................................23www.micro-identification.comMicrobiologics, Inc......................................................................... 31www.microbiologics.comMicrobiology International............................................................ 15800.EZ.MICRO • www.800ezmicro.comNeogen Corp...................................................................................68800.234.5333 • www.neogen.comPickering Laboratories, Inc............................................................27www.pickeringlabs.comPuritan Medical Products Co, LLC.................................................45800.321.2313 • www.puritanmedproducts.comQ Laboratories, Inc......................................................................... 19513.471.1300 • www.qlaboratories.comQC Laboratories..............................................................................66215.355.3900 • www.qclaboratories.comR-Biopharm Inc...............................................................................49877.789.3033 • www.r-biopharm.comRoka Bioscience, Inc......................................................................... 9855.ROKABIO • www.rokabio.comSilliker, Inc......................................................................................33www.silliker.comSpartan Chemical Company, Inc...................................................43800.537.8990 • www.spartanchemical.comStainless Motors, Inc......................................................................39505.867.0224 • www.stainlessmotors.comT&D Corporation, Inc......................................................................17www.food.tandd.com/FSWaters............................................................................................... 7www.waters.comWeber Scientific.............................................................................. 41800.328.8378 • www.weberscientific.com66 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e

Introducing the FoodChek TMMICT Nanotechnology to yourListeria spp. testing choices.FoodChek TM provides the fastest “Time-to-Results” in theindustry today. No other pathogen testing system gives youthe ease-of-use, accuracy and cost effectiveness that theFoodChek TM MICT System provides in both the enrichmentgrowth phase and assay screening phase.Enrichment PhaseFOODCHEKTESTEDThe FoodChek TM Actero TM Listeria Enrichment Media reduces thesample enrichment growth phase timeline by up to 30%-70% providingthe fastest “Time-to-Results” on the market today.Assay Screening PhaseFOODCHEKTESTEDThe FoodChek TM Listeria spp. Assay Cassette allows the quantitative detectionof Listeria spp. from your environmental samples in less than 24 hours, including“Enrichment, Setup and Assay Results”.End ResultFOODCHEKTESTEDAchieve peace of mind with a more accurate and AOAC approved pathogentesting process that virtually eliminates human error, protecting your brandand improving your bottom line.“FoodChek TM provides producers with a cost benefit and competitive food safetyMarketing Edge. Their system is 510(k) FDA Certified, AOAC Certified and has qualifiedfor the CE Marking. It is breaking new ground in the food industry, and I have yet to find apathogen testing system that compares to it in speed and accuracy.”Carl ZerrDirector of International Food Safety and Quality Assurance at Rastelli Foods GroupFoodChek TM Listeria spp.Assay CassetteExclusive DistributorCertified111202Certified111202Full product demonstrations and free samples are available now.Please visit foodcheksystems.com for more details. FoodChek TM also offers E. coli O157 assays.FoodChek Systems To Inc. purchase our products, t: contact 1.403.269.9424Suite 450, 1414 - 8 FoodChek's St. S.W. exclusive distributor tf: 1.877.298.0208Calgary, Alberta, T2R 1J6, Canada e: info@foodcheksystems.com

Allergens LabeledSanitation VerifiedResidues NoneMycotoxins NonePathogens NoneBuild a better burger.From crown to heel Neogen offersan integrated approach.Great foods are more than great ingredients. Science-based ingredientinspection and testing builds better burgers, better quality, and betterbrands. Neogen has built its reputation by delivering superior productperformance and innovative products and services such as our newNeoSEEK STEC testing service and our new NeoCare customer supportprogram.Increase your level of confidence with diagnostic testing solutions fromNeogen—leading the way in food safety for more than 30 years.For a Limited TimeTest Drive ANSR for FREE!ANSR is a rapid pathogen detectionsystem that will accelerate yourListeria and Salmonella testing.ANSR delivers DNA definitive resultsin as fast as 10 minutes from thestart of the assay!This free 30 day trial offer includeseverything you need to get started.There is no equipment to purchase,no hidden fees; even our NeoCareService support is included!www.neogen.com/ANSRTestDrive800/234-5333 or 517/372-9200foodsafety@neogen.com • www.neogen.com

INFORMATIONSOLUTIONS FOR TODAY,PLANNING FOR TOMORROW ®®15 YEARS OF EXCELLENCEAPRIL 30 – MAY 2, 2013BALTIMORE CONVENTION CENTER, MDwww.FoodSafetySummit.comSOLUTIONSA BNP Media Supplement

Solutions for Today,Planning for Tomorrow®Now in it’s 15th year, the Food SafetySummit moves to a new location inBaltimore, MD and introduces some of themost innovative and exciting developmentsof the industry. Our mission is to provideSolutions for Today, Planning for Tomorrow with acarefully developed educational program designed toaddress the critical issues of food producers, processors, retailers,distributors, regulators and trainers. Our goal is to advance food safetyby providing relevant food safety information and solutions across theentire food supply chain, while keeping your business safe.We’ve made some exciting changes to the 2013 Summit:Exclusive Exhibit Hall Hours• No overlap with Summit education sessions• Lunch served on the show floor on both days• 8 dedicated hours on the Exhibit Hall floorExhibitor Showcase Theatres• Vendor-produced education presentations willnot overlap with Summit education sessionsWelcome Reception• Networking event held off the show floor, offeringmore opportunity to meet with peers and prospectsLive Webinars Available• Unable to attend the Summit in person? Attend selectsessions remotely by registering in advance and joiningin from your computerWHO ATTENDSFood 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 AgenciesAuditorsAPRIL 30 – MAY 2, 2013Baltimore, MDwww.FoodSafetySummit.comFind Us On:®twitter.com/FoodSafetySumitGOLD SPONSORSILVER SPONSORBRONZE SPONSORMEDIA PARTNERS

SUMMIT AT-A-GLANCEProgram subject to changemonday, april 299:00 AM – 6:00 PM HACCP Certification Training Part 19:00 AM – 5:00 PM ServSafe ® Training and Certification Part 1tuesday, april 308:00 AM – 5:00 PM HACCP Certification Training Part 28:00 AM – 12:00 PM ServSafe ® Training and Certification Part 28:00 AM – 12:00 PM Workshop 1: Food Defense Plan Builder Application: Let the Tool Work For You!Workshop 2:Workshop 3:Tools for the Food Safety Professional: Business Acumen, Executive Speak,Communcation and Leadership StyleIndustry, Local and State Food and Drug Officials – How They Can Effectively Work Together1:00 PM – 5:00 PM Workshop 4: 2013 Impact of the US Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) on International RegulatoryPolicies and Trade5:00 PM – 7:00 PM Welcome Reception Sponsored byWednesday, May 17:00 AM – 9:00 AM HACCP Certification Training Part 38:00 AM – 9:15 AM Session 1: Traceability — How to Do It EffectivelySession 2:Session 3:The Impact of Social Media on Food SafetyUnderstanding and Controlling Norovirus9:30 AM – 10:30 AM KEYNOTE ADDRESS: The Future of Food Safety, Will Daniels, Earthbound Farm10:30 AM – 2:30 PM Exhibit Hall Open - Luncheon on Exhibition Floor2:30 PM – 3:45 PM Session 4: Solutions for Allergen ControlSession 5: Large Venue / Event Food Defense Efforts: The Industry, Government and Consumer InterfaceSession 6: Understanding the Regulatory Community and the Partnership for Food Protection4:00 PM – 5:15 PM Session 7: Back to the Basics: Proper Use of Pre-Requisite ProgramsSession 8:Session 9:Smoking Guns - Effective Food Liability ProgramsHow to Make a Risk Based Food Safety Decision5:30 PM – 7:00 PM Food Quality Awards & Reception Sponsored bythursday, May 28:00 AM – 9:15 AM Session 10: Go Onto the Farm: Review the Journey of an Agriculture Product through DistributionSession 11: Creating a Strong Commitment To Food SafetySession 12: Food Fraud / Economically Motivated Adulteration9:30 AM – 10:30 AM TOWN HALL / NSF Food Safety Leadership Awards10:30 AM – 2:30 PM Exhibit Hall Open - Luncheon on Exhibition Floor2:30 PM – 3:45 PM Session 13: Listeria: A Practical Look Into the Produce Supply Chain Continuum (Part 1)Session 14: The GFSI Audit — Its Future, Its Acceptance & Its ImplementationSession 15: FSMA and Supplier Verification: Practical Approaches to Implementation4:00 PM – 5:15 PM Session 16: Listeria: Federal Challenges and a Deeper Dive Into Mitigating Strategies (Part 2)Session 17: Combating Cross Contamination — With a Focus on HandsSession 18: Food Safety 20 Years After E.Coli 0157:H7LIVE WEBINARS AVAILABLE!Food Safety Summit will offer the opportunity to register to attend selected sessions remotely through Live Webinars.Look for the Live Webinar icon throughout the brochure to indicate the available sessions. Selected sessions are subject to change.

keynote theatre special events2013 Food Safety SummitWednesday, May 1Keynote Address9:30am – 10:30amThe Future of Food Safety: When Industry,Academia and Regulators Work TogetherWILL DANIELSSenior Vice President, Operations and Organic IntegrityEarthbound FarmFood safety professionals will have the opportunity to hear from Will Daniels, Senior VicePresident, Operations and Organic Integrity, Earthbound Farm who will address the needto have better collaboration between industry and government with emphasis on breakingold models and creating new ones that focus on transparency, understanding and a desireto truly protect public health.Wednesday, May 1food quality awards andreception 5:30pm – 7:00pmThe 12th annual Food Quality Award, sponsored by DuPont and presented byFood Quality magazine, honors the dedication and achievement of a North AmericanQuality Assurance/Quality Control team that has made exceptional contributions to foodsafety and consumer satisfaction with a positive impact on business results.Thursday, May 2Town HallMICHAEL TAYLOR Deputy Commissioner for FoodsFood and Drug Administration (FDA)9:30am – 10:30amELISABETH HAGEN, M.D. Under Secretary for Food SafetyUS Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Invited)JOSEPH CORBYExecutive DirectorAssociation of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO)The FDA’s Mike Taylor, USDA’s Elisabeth Hagen, M.D. and AFDO’s’ Executive Director JoeCorby have been invited to host a Town Hall discussion at the Food Safety Summit. Duringthis open forum, moderated by Gary Ades, Ph.D., President of G&L Consulting Group, LLCand Chair of the Food Safety Summit Executive Educational Advisory Committee, theywill address the most pressing issues for today and tomorrow in regards to regulatoryagencies and the private sector.Thursday, May 2nsf food safety leadershipawards 9:30am – 9:50amImmediately preceding the Town HallRecognizing individuals and companies that have demonstrated excellence in thefoodservice industry. Winners are recognized in several award categoriesincluding the major award category of lifetime achievement, which is an awardfor contributions of more than 20 years in advancing foodservice food safety.

MEET OUR EXECUTIVE EDUCATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEEThese progressive and insightful thinkers have aided in creating our unequalled educational program.Gary Ades, Ph.D.PresidentG&L Consulting Group, LLCDr. Ata (Al) BaroudiVP QA & Food SafetyThe Cheesecake FactoryIncorporatedJason Bashura, MPH, RSGeneral Health ScientistFDA Food DefenseOversight TeamScott Brooks, DVMDirector of GlobalQuality AssuranceYUM! BrandsWill DanielsSr. Vice President, Operationsand Organic IntegrityEarthbound FarmJay Ellingson, Ph.D.Corporate DirectorFood Safety and QualityAssurance, Kwik TripOscar GarrisonDivision Director,Consumer ProtectionGeorgia Department ofAgriculturePeter GoodOwnerPeter Good SeminarsCraig Henry, Ph.D.ERS Director, Business RiskDeloitte & Touche LLPJohn Marcy, Ph.D.Professor and PoultryProcessing SpecialistUniversity of ArkansasGina Nicholson, RSSubject Matter Expert,Food Safety and Quality ManagerThe Kroger Co.Thomas PackerPartnerGordon & Rees LLPJohn Spink, Ph.D.Assistant Professor & AssociateDirector, Anti-Counterfeit andProduct Protection ProgramMichigan State UniversityBrian TurnerSenior ManagerFood Safety Information ServicesSodexoSharon WoodDirector Quality Assurance,Food SafetyH-E-Bpre-conference training & Certification CoursesINSTRUCTORSDonna F. SchaffnerFood Innovation Center, Rutgers UniversityChristopher Doona, M.D.US Army – Natick Soldier RD&E CenterJohn Spink, Ph.D. Michigan State UniversityJoseph Meyer CovanceBryan DiMenna EurofinsFlorence FeeherryUS Army – Natick Soldier RD&E CenterSteven Lyon, Ph.D. Chick-Fil-A, Inc.Will Daniels Earthbound FarmRichard Ritota NJ Department of HealthCOST: $850SPONSORED BY:INSTRUCTORClay HoshInstructional Design ManagerNational Restaurant AssociationCOST: $275HACCP Certification Training • PARTS 1 – 3PART 1: MONDAY 9AM – 6PM • PART 2: TUESDAY 8AM – 5PMPART 3: WEDNESDAY 7AM – 9AMAll professionals in the food processing industry at companies(domestic and international) that manufacture, process,pack, or hold food need this training for the establishmentof preventative controls, to monitor their effectiveness, toimplement corrective actions and to maintain the properrecords and documentation. This 2.5-day course provides theinformation that professionals in the food processing industrywill need for writing a new Hazard Analysis Critical ControlPoints (HACCP) plan or for conducting the annual re-assessmentof an existing HACCP plan.> Learn the 7 basic principles of HACCP through lectures and break-outsessions and exchange “best practice” advice with participants andexperienced instructors.> Earn the International HACCP Alliance “HACCP Certified” TrainingCertificate required to review documents or write HACCP plans forUSDA or FDA (non-seafood programs).ServSafe ® Training and Certification • PARTS 1 – 2PART 1: MONDAY 9AM – 5PM • PART 2: TUESDAY 8AM – 12PMThe ServSafe ® Food Safety Training Program leads the wayin providing comprehensive educational materials to therestaurant industry. ServSafe ® training and certification isrecognized by more federal, state and local jurisdictionsthan any other food safety certification.The program blends the latest FDA Food Code, food safetyresearch and years of food sanitation training experience.Managers learn to implement essential food safety practices and create a cultureof food safety. All content and materials are based on actual job tasks identified byfoodservice industry experts.Register by 4/9 and Save • www.FoodSafetySummit.com

WORKSHOPS • TUESDAY, APRIL 30WORKSHOP 1 • 8:00AM – 12:00PMFood Defense Plan Builder Application:Let The Tool Work For You!The FDA has recently completed the Food Defense Plan Builder Tool – designedto provide the industry stakeholders with a ‘build-it-yourself’ Food Defense plan,complete with vulnerability assessment procedures, potential mitigation strategyidentification and response planning. A food defense plan is a written documentthat records the practices implemented to control/minimize the risk of an intentionalcontamination incident. Having a food defense plan can reduce the overallvulnerability of the facility’s food operation, and therefore the nation’s food supply,from intentional contamination.SESSION OBJECTIVESn Share tools and resources available to industry for developing and implementingfood defense, including the new Food Defense Plan Builder Tool. (Guenther)n Illustration of Vulnerability Assessment outcomes, findings and related mitigationstrategies improvements. (Woody)n Attendees participate in a series of mini-exercises, affording them the opportunityto build a food defense plan. (Mitenius)SPEAKERSJason Bashura, MPH, RSGeneral Health ScientistFDA Food Defense Oversight TeamJulia GuentherPolicy Analyst, Office of Food Defense,Communication, and Emergency ResponseCFSAN, FDAJon WoodySenior Policy Analyst for theFood Defense OfficeCFSANNed MiteniusFounder & Sr. ConsultantPeriscope ConsultingWORKSHOP 2 • 8:00AM – 12:00PMTools for the Food Safety Professional: BusinessAcumen, Executive Speak, Communication andLeadership StyleThis session will focus on the tools that will assist the food safety professional andscientific expert improve their business acumen to better assist them in the board roomor other business meetings where food safety needs to be communicated. A uniqueapproach to the workshop will include 4 stations around the room and a common‘theater in the round’ home station in the center of the room. An overarching goal will beto provide leadership information or “nuggets” during the workshop.BREAK OUT STATIONSA Beginner’s Guide to Finance 101Learn how to read a profit / loss statement, key business / accounting terminology, basics ofbuilding a budget, approach to projecting costs and finance basics. Skills shared to be usedwhen speaking to the CFO.Lights, Camera, Action!Understand the key elements to writing an effective elevator speech. Are you ready for that unexpectedelevator ride with the CEO? Participate in preparation of an elevator speech. Live video recordings willbe performed as an exercise.Death by PowerPointThe dos and don’ts of presenting to upper leadership will be discussed to include when it’s best to usePowerPoint presentations. Alternative approaches to presenting data and information will also be shared.Metrics, Measurements and MessagingData on Food Safety Metrics is so important when setting goals, assessing compliance andcommunicating success. Attendees will learn some creative ways to link food safety to businessmetrics as well as useful indicators such as shrink, energy, labor and more.SPEAKERSGina Nicholson, RSSubject Matter Expert,Food Safety & Quality ManagerThe Kroger Co.Sharon WoodDirector of Quality Assurance and Food SafetyH-E-BDan FoneDirector of Business Development, Global FoodNSF InternationalJorge HernandezSenior VP Food Safety & Quality AssuranceU.S. FoodserviceGlenda ChristySr. Mgr. Quality Assurance and Food SafetyGiant Eagle, Inc. (invited)Ann Marie McNamaraVice President of Food SafetyJack In The Box (invited)WELCOME RECEPTION • 5:00PM – 7:00PMNetwork with hundreds of food safety professionals while you enjoy food and drink in arelaxed and friendly environment. The Tuesday night Welcome Reception provides timefor attendees to connect with peers and colleagues and set up appointments before theshow begins.2013 Food Safety Summit

WORKSHOPS • TUESDAY, APRIL 30WORKSHOP 3 • 8:00AM – 12:00PMIndustry, Local and State Food and Drug Officials –How They Can Effectively Work TogetherThis session will be broken up into different segments including surveillance,regulation, and inspection and will include a discussion on the alliancesdeveloped as part of FSMA rules. This session will provide an update on alliancesas part of FSMA and how federal, state, and local officials and industry can worktogether during a natural disaster.SPEAKEROscar GarrisonDivision Director, Consumer ProtectionGeorgia Department of AgricultureSESSION OBJECTIVESn Need for open honest discussion with regulators. What resources are available,how can they help.n Educating internal people to meet with regulators before they have a problemwithin a region or localen Identify there is a process to go through to file a grievance an inspector has filedand how to work it out. Get basic understanding that it varies county to county,state to state, but know the process exists.WORKSHOP 4SESSION OBJECTIVES1:00PM – 5:00PM2013 Impact of the US Food Safety ModernizationAct (FSMA) on International Regulatory Policiesand TradeIn light of the economic instability in the US, the estimated $3 billionrequired to properly implement the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)is again at stake. Congress mandated that FDA publish a number ofproposed rules no later than 9 months after the date of enactment of theFSMA and a final rule no later than 9 months after the close of the commentperiod for the proposed rule. For various reasons the numerous proposedrules were delayed beyond the required publication date.The vast majority of the food supply chain, including US trading partnersare uncertain about what in the new regulations addressing preventativecontrols, performance standards, traceability requirements and user feesto name a few will require. Therefore what impact will US food safetypolicy as a result of FSMA have on international trading partner’s foodsafety regulations and/or policies? What will be the impact on supply chainlogistics and in the marketplace?n Define what the White House administration will do to enhance food safetyin 2013 and beyond. Will FSMA be fully implemented and if so when?n Gain a clear understanding of how US trading partners are changing their foodsafety policies and regulations in light of FSMA.n Learn how leading food producers from the US and Canada have enhanced theirfood safety programs as a result of changing federal policies and regulations.CONFIRMED SPEAKERSDeborah AutorDeputy Commissioner for Global RegulatoryOperations and PolicyFDAJohn Bode, Esq.John Bode LLCJoseph CorbyExecutive DirectorAssociation of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO)Faye FeldsteinDC Senior Advisor, FED TS&A FHCDeloitte & Consulting LLPCraig Henry, Ph.D.ERS Director, Business RiskDeloitte and Touche LLPCarlos VazquezMinister of AgMexican EmbassyINVITED SPEAKERSCongressman John DingellCameron PrinceCanadian Food Inspection AgencyPaul WeisenfeldAssistant to the Administrator,Bureau for Food SecurityUS Agency International DevelopmentSPONSORED BY:Register by 4/9 and Save • www.FoodSafetySummit.com

Sessions • WednESDAY, May 1SESSION 1 • 8:00AM – 9:15AMTraceability – How to Do It EffectivelyThis session will be a hands-on interactive class where the attendees will be givena food safety problem and then work backwards to trace the origin. A lot of us aregood at doing recalls and have a procedure but don’t fully understand why it takesFDA so long to determine source. How do we narrow down the source of the recalland remove the recall company from media quickly to resolve the problem? To fullyunderstand what’s involved, attendees will be given a problem and be tasked towork through the paperwork (invoices and supply chain).SPEAKERSFaye FeldsteinDC Senior Advisor, FED TS&A FHCDeloitte Consulting LLPJennifer McEntire, Ph.D.Senior DirectorLeavitt Partners Global Food Safety SolutionsSESSION OBJECTIVESn Improve your understanding of the challenges related to global supply chaintraceability through a mock table top traceability exercisen Understand the need for traceback requirements in supplier verification policiesSESSION 2 • 8:00AM – 9:15AMSESSION 2 8:00AM – 9:15AMThe Impact of Social Media on Food SafetyIn the age of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and even Dr. Oz, food companies can bechallenged by food safety topics that are shared rapidly and broadly. Social mediais sometimes a means to spread false or negative information about food safetyand quality, whether specific to a company or to types of food products. Leadingcompanies proactively monitor social media and have plans to react quickly to getthe facts straight. This session is designed to provide insights from experiencedindustry and social media professionals on how they manage and respond to foodsafety issues and make use of the forums for positive company messages.SESSION OBJECTIVESn Learn how to effectively manage and respond to food safety issues insocial media forumsn Explore how social media can be used to develop and support company foodsafety messagesn Provide a forum to ask questions and share experiencesSPEAKERSScott Brooks, DVMDirector, Global Quality AssuranceYUM! BrandsDaniel WebberVice President of Digital Public AffairsEdelmanAnthony (Tony) FloodDirector of Food Safety & DefenseCommunicationsInternational Food Information Council (IFIC)Jeanne JonesDirector of Consumer AffairsConAgra FoodsSESSION 3 • 8:00AM – 9:15AMSESSION 3 8:00AM – 9:15AMUnderstanding and Controlling NorovirusUnderstanding the organism, prevention and what we all needto know to reduce illnessCDC estimates that 50% or more of foodborne illness is being caused bynorovirus. Dr. Kristen Gibson will help you understand the organism and thedisease. Dr. Hal King will explain policies and procedures for preventing illassociates from spreading the virus as well as handling possible viral exposurescaused by customers who become ill in-house. Dr. Angela Fraser will explain theresults of a national survey funded by the research consortium, NoroCore, thatasks retail food and foodservice educators and regulators what they know aboutnorovirus and what they need to teach people.SESSION OBJECTIVESn Have a better understanding of what makes human norovirus the ‘perfect’pathogen based on virus structure, function, and basic characteristics ofnorovirus infections.n Be able to identify the elements that contribute to a norovirus infection in retailfood establishments, and how operators can specifically use routine cleaning,health policy, and quick action procedures and tools to mitigate these risks.n Be able to identify effective strategies for educating and training their workforceabout the control of noroviruses and identify the gaps in knowledge of foodsafety/public health professionals .SPEAKERSKristen Gibson, Ph.D.Assistant Professor, Dept. of Food ScienceUniversity of ArkansasHal King, Ph.D.Director, Food and Product SafetyChick-Fil-AAngela Fraser, Ph.D.Associate Professor, Dept. Food, Nutritionand Packaging SciencesClemson UniversityJohn Marcy, Ph.D.Professor and Poultry Processing SpecialistUniversity of ArkansasLIVE WEBINAR AVAILABLE!2013 Food Safety Summit

Sessions • WednESDAY, May 1SESSION 4 • 2:30 PM – 3:45 PMSolutions for Allergen ControlFood allergies are a continuing public health and regulatory concern. Managing thefood allergen risk in a processing and retail/foodservice facility can be complicatedby many factors. The speakers in this session will discuss a Nationwide Survey ofAllergen Control Practices across the Food Industry; Strategies for Allergen Control:An Industry Perspective; and Allergen Controls and Allergen Recalls – A View fromthe FDA.SESSION OBJECTIVESn Recognize the complexity of the allergen management issues in variousindustry segmentsn Identify the obstacles to allergen management and control and mitigation strategiesn List key information/ criteria that will help you monitor and evaluate your ownallergen management systems and optionsSPEAKERSFaye FeldsteinDC Senior Advisor | FED TS&A FHCDeloitte Consulting LLPSteven M. Gendel, Ph.D.Food Allergen CoordinatorFDA Center for Food Safetyand Applied NutritionSPONSORED BY:LIVE WEBINAR AVAILABLE!SESSION 5 • 2:30 PM – 3:45 PMLarge Venue / Event Food Defense Efforts: TheIndustry, Government and Consumer InterfaceLarge scale events – from sporting events, to concerts, to political conventions,etc - pose food safety and food defense challenges for the planners / hosts of theseevents. Special training, outreach and coordination often begins in excess of ayear before the event transpires. This session will describe the unique planningchallenges that these types of events present and illustrate creative approaches toaddressing identified gaps in food defense awareness.SPEAKERSJason Bashura MPH, RSGeneral Health ScientistFDA Food Defense Oversight TeamLinda DohertyPresidentNew Jersey Food CouncilRich RitotaManager of Food and Drug Safety ProgramNJ Dept of Public Health (invited)SESSION OBJECTIVESn Appreciate the ‘behind the scenes’ work that goes in to large scale event fooddefense planningn Learn about the various tools and resources that are available and how toincorporate them into a Food Defense training and education program.SESSION 6 • 2:30 PM – 3:45 PMUnderstanding the Regulatory Communityand the Partnership for Food ProtectionIn 2008 the Partnership for Food Protection (PFP) was established by the FDA.The purpose of the PFP is to bring federal, state, local, territorial and tribalrepresentatives with expertise in food, feed, epidemiology, laboratory, animalhealth, environment and public health together to develop an Integrated FoodSafety System (IFSS). The ultimate goal of the PFP is to create an integrated foodsafety system. The importance of the work is underscored by the passage of theFood Safety Modernization Act of 2011, which codifies an expectation for an IFSS.SESSION OBJECTIVESn Hear from different PFP Workgroups (WGs) that have joint federal, state/localleadership on variety of important projects.n Find out the status of current ongoing activities including efforts to standardizetraining and expertise levels of inspectors and the effort to develop nationalstandards for federal, state, and local laboratories.n Learn about these national standards, including laboratory accreditation,which will increase the efficiency of the laboratories in responding tooutbreaks and facilitate the rapid acceptance of lab analytical data forregulatory actions.INVITED SPEAKERSBrian Collins MS, REHS, DAASPresidentNational Environmental Health AssociationDr. Jeff FarrarThe FDA’s associate commissioner for food protectionPat KennellyChief, Food Safety SectionState of CaliforniaBob WaltzBoard MemberAssociation of American Feed Control Officials, Inc.Oscar GarrisonDivision Director, Consumer ProtectionGeorgia Department of AgricultureSPONSORED BY:Register by 4/9 and Save • www.FoodSafetySummit.com

Sessions • WednESDAY, May 1SESSION 7 • 4:00PM – 5:15PMBack to the Basics: Proper Use ofPre-Requisite ProgramsStarting the production day with clean equipment and facilities remains thecornerstone of producing safe, high-quality foods. Pests must also be controlled inand around food plants. Attendees will be reminded of the important of verifyingthe effectiveness of pest control and sanitation program and the techniques, recordsand corrective actions expected by customers.SESSION OBJECTIVESn Understand the latest thinking applied to equipment and facility designnecessary to support an effective sanitation program.n Get refreshed on basic knowledge for selecting and applying cleaning and sanitizingchemicals while protecting the sanitation worker.n Learn from experts in the industry about the latest research as it relates tocleaning and sanitizing.SPEAKERSJay Ellingson, Ph.D.Corporate Director Food Safety and Quality AssuranceKwik TripErnie McCollough, Ph.D.PresidentShamrock ServicesSPONSORED BY:SESSION 8 • 4:00PM – 5:15PMSmoking Guns – Effective Food Liability ProgramsThis session will provide valuable lessons and tools on how to develop an effectivefood liability program at your company. You will hear how to protect yourselfthrough supplier/customer contracts and insurance, how to develop an effectivecustomer response team, and how to guard against exposure to legal liability asa result of contaminants and pathogens. The session also will deal with how todetermine the cause of an outbreak, deal with recalls and protect your customers.Lastly, you will hear how to get a handle on financial liability, preserve thereputation of your brand and company, and at the same time deal with the media,investigations, claims and lawsuits.SESSION OBJECTIVESn Learn from experienced professionals in the food, legal and insurance industriesn Participate in an interactive setting on how best to prepare for, respond to andresolve food liability issuesn Take away a new understanding of how to form and work with a food liability teamSPEAKERSTom PackerPartnerGordon & Rees LLPBernie StevesManaging Director, Crisis ManagementAon Risk Services Central, Inc.LIVE WEBINAR AVAILABLE!SESSION 9 • 4:00PM – 5:15PMHow to Make a Risk Based Food Safety DecisionFood Safety Professionals are constantly challenged on how to make the “right”Food Safety decision whether it is preventative in nature or responsive to aparticular situation. This session is designed to provide insights from experiencedFood Safety Professionals on how they make and communicate Food Safetydecisions. They represent various food industry segments as well as the regulatorycommunity. The format will allow for an extensive question and answer period.SESSION OBJECTIVESn Provide a forum to ask questions and share experiences to learn how Food SafetyProfessionals make decisionsn Explore how risk analysis can be used to develop and support Food Safety decisionsn Learn how to effectively communicate Food Safety decisions and recommendationsSPEAKERSSherri Dennis, Ph.D.Director of Risk Analysis StaffFDABarry Hooberman, Ph.D.Regular Policy AnalysisFDAScott Brooks, DVMDirector, Global Quality AssuranceYUM! BrandsDr. Ata (Al) BaroudiVP QA & Food SafetyThe Cheesecake Factory IncorporatedGary Ades, Ph.D.PresidentG&L Consulting Group, LLC2013 Food Safety Summit

Sessions • ThurSDAY, May 2SESSION 10 • 8:00AM – 9:15AMGo Onto the Farm: Review the Journey ofan Agriculture Product through DistributionIf you don’t live in California, Florida or a handful of other states, it’s likely that youhave not seen produce grown or processed. In this session, the attendees will learnfrom industry experts about how specific crops are grown and handled beforethey hit the marketplace. Three unique crops will be discussed in detail as to howthe produce is cultivated, harvested and handled to ensure the best quality andsafest supply. Crops that will be discussed will be carrots, spinach and cantaloupe.(products are subject to change)SPEAKERSWill DanielsSr. Vice President, Operations and Organic IntegrityEarthbound FarmJim RobbinsVice President Technical ServicesBolthouse FarmsMichael ScanlanOwnerScanlan Family FarmsSESSION OBJECTIVESn Learn how crops are grown without visiting the farmn Understand the challenges specific crops have with respect to quality and safetyn Ask the experts in each crop specific questions you may have regarding their cropsLIVE WEBINAR AVAILABLE!SESSION 11 • 8:00AM – 9:15AMCreating A Strong Commitment To Food SafetyThis session will focus on behavior modification, training, motivating the frontlines and handling cultural issues for all levels in the organization. Everyone fromfront line workers to middle managers and executive leaders need to engage inorder to most effectively commit to a strong food safety program. Speakers willspecifically address food safety behavior baseline observations and behaviorchange development.SESSION OBJECTIVESn The presenters will talk about specific behavior modification methods for seniorlevel management to the front line workers and provide tips on developing andevaluating training programs to change and sustain the behavior.n Dan Fone from the NSF will talk about “Behavioral Based Food Safety Forecasting& Mitigating Human Risk”.SPEAKERSDr. Ata (Al) BaroudiVP QA & Food SafetyThe Cheesecake Factory IncorporatedGina Nicholson, RSSubject Matter Expert, Food Safety & Quality ManagerThe Kroger Co.Ned MorsePartner and Managing DirectorBoston Consulting GroupMelissa KruseBehavior EngineerDan FoneDirector of Business Development, Global FoodNSF InternationalSESSION 12 • 8:00AM – 9:15AMFood Fraud/Economically Motivated AdulterationActivities are accelerating in the area of Food Fraud or Economically MotivatedAdulteration. Beyond the regulatory drivers businesses more clearly understandtheir current vulnerabilities and they are starting to take strategic steps toprevention. A broad range of global standards and certification bodies aresolidifying work in product fraud that will impact the food industry.SESSION OBJECTIVESn Understand the current Food Fraud trends and research activitiesn Learn the current direction of the FDA Working Group on EconomicallyMotivated Adulterationn Gain insight on industry initiatives by the likes of the Global Food Safety Initiative,the International Standards Organization, U.S. Pharmacopeia/ Food ChemicalsCodex, and the Grocery Manufacturer’s AssociationSPEAKERSJohn Spink, Ph.D.Assistant Professor & Associate Director,Anti-Counterfeit and Product Protection ProgramMichigan State UniversityJason Bashura, MPH, RSGeneral Health ScientistFDA Food Defense Oversight TeamNeil StiberSupervisory Operations RESEFDAWarren StoneSenior Director of Science PolicyGMA (Invited)Petra WissenburgProgram Director, Danone, Chair ofGFSI Food Fraud Think Tank (Invited)Register by 4/9 and Save • www.FoodSafetySummit.com

Sessions • ThurSDAY, May 2SESSION 13 • 2:30PM – 3:45PMListeria: A Practical Look Into the ProduceSupply Chain Continuum (Part 1)SPEAKERWill DanielsSr. Vice President, Operations and Organic IntegrityEarthbound FarmListeria has blanketed the news relating to fresh produce and its presence. Clearlythere needs to be more attention paid to this organism and how we control it. This willbe a two part series discussion. The first session will take you from grower/shipper todistributor and finally the retailer; covering their specific areas, the influence they haveon controlling the hazard and practical steps the attendees can take back to their ownfacility to mitigate listeria risk.SESSION OBJECTIVESn Learn how companies practically manage listeria riskn Learn from the government on why the regulations are the way they are and howcompanies manage the conflicting regs between countriesn Learn how to effectively manage a zone sampling programSPONSORED BY:SESSION 14 • 2:30PM – 3:45PMThe GFSI Audit - Its Future, Its Acceptance& Its ImplementationGFSI approved auditing programs continue to grow throughout the Food Supply Chainand are a valuable part of a comprehensive Food Safety Program. Learn more about theGlobal Food Safety Initiative and its future from the organization’s chairperson; and howit is used in the supplier selection process; and how it’s implemented at the plant level.SESSION OBJECTIVESn Learn more about GFSI from its leadersn Hear from Food Companies who have used these programsn Ask questions and get answers about the value, usefulness and future of theseauditing programs.SPEAKERSGary Ades, Ph.D.PresidentG&L Consulting Group, LLCYves ReyChairpersonGFSI and DanoneR. Craig WilsonVP, GMM Food Safety and Quality AssuranceCostco WholesaleMartha Hudak-RoosDirector of QualityNellson NutraceuticalLIVE WEBINAR AVAILABLE!SPONSORED BY:SESSION 15 • 2:30PM – 3:45PMFSMA and Supplier Verification:Practical Approaches to ImplementationThe new requirements for foreign supplier verification in the Food Safety ModernizationAct (FSMA) are challenging. These requirements will affect all sectors of the food chainand businesses sourcing nationally and internationally. For most, this will be a hugeundertaking which will require resources and novel approaches to verification.SESSION OBJECTIVESn This session will discuss practical approaches and tools for implementing andexecuting these new requirements.n Experts will share experiences and insights into program elements and tools used forsuccess.SPEAKERSJody HallDirector of ProcurementH-E-BMartin HahnPartnerHogan Lovell’sBenjamin EnglandFounder & CEOFDA Imports.com (author of The Ticking Time Bomb)Margaret EckertPresidentEurofoods Regulatory Advisors, LLC2013 Food Safety Summit

Sessions • ThurSDAY, May 2SESSION 16 • 4:00PM – 5:15PMListeria: Federal Challenges and a Deeper DiveInto Mitigating Strategies (Part 2)Listeria has blanketed the news relating to fresh produce and its presence. In thesecond session of the two part series, attendees will have the opportunity to hear fromthe federal government about the current regulation and how they conflict with othercountries, how companies deal with that issue and an in depth discussion on zonesampling strategies.SPEAKERSWill DanielsSr. Vice President, Operations and Organic IntegrityEarthbound FarmMickey ParishSenior Advisor, Office of Food SafetyFDASESSION OBJECTIVESn Learn how companies practically manage listeria riskn Learn from the government on why the regulations are the way they are and howcompanies manage the conflicting regs between countriesn Learn how to effectively manage a zone sampling programSESSION 17 • 4:00PM – 5:15PMCombating Cross Contamination –With a Focus on HandsThe association with food handlers and the transfer of foodborne illness has been anage old debate. One of the key challenges for food supply chain in combating this issueis the condition of the food handler’s hands! It’s essential to understand the sciencebehind how hands contribute to the transfer of microorganisms and the effect of thehandwashing process.SESSION OBJECTIVESn To provide the latest science for companies to craft the best handwashingprograms for their businessn Allow attendees to learn discussion points to approach upper management forvalidating and creating their preferred ‘handwashing culture.’n Provide example(s) on how this information can be utilized into action.SPEAKERSCapitan Wendy FanaselleRisk Assessment Project ManagerFDAJim MannExecutive Director & CSOIn focus Learning SystemsBrian TurnerSenior Manager Food Safety Information ServicesSodexoChef Peter FulgenziThe Atrio Restaurant’sSESSION 18 • 4:00PM – 5:15PMFood Safety 20 Years After E.Coli 0157:H7On January 13, 1993, the Washington Department of Health (WDOH) was notifiedthat a cluster of children suffering hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) secondary to E.coli infection was being treated in a Seattle-area hospital. The WDOH E. coli outbreakinvestigation led to the discovery that hamburger patties were the source of the E. colioutbreak. Bill Marler will discuss how this case truly changed Food Safety and will lookback over the past 2 decades in the industry. Bill will be introduced by Al Baroudi whowas VP, Corporate QA and Food Safety at the California company during the outbreak.SESSION OBJECTIVESn To provide a historical perspective on the changes in the meat industry since1993, when 99% of all food safety cases were related to e.coli; today it is nearly0% which is clear reflection of the work put in place from the meat industry.n Learn about new “bugs” that are trickier to determine in such recent cases as incookie dough, mangos and cantaloupe.n There is still more to do – the industry needs to be more proactive to deal withpathogens which are causing outbreaks. Mr. Marler will provide tips on creating afood safety culture, making food safety a part of the decision not just focusing onshareholder concerns.SPEAKERSDr. Ata (Al) BaroudiVP QA & Food SafetyThe Cheesecake Factory IncorporatedBill MarlerFood Poisoning AttorneyMarler Clark, L.L.P., P.S.Patti WallerSenior EpidemiologistMarler Clark, L.L.P., P.S.LIVE WEBINAR AVAILABLE!Register by 4/9 and Save • www.FoodSafetySummit.com

Exhibit hall — where solutions are foundAntimicrobialAuditingBacteriological TestingBird ControlCleaning SuppliesComputer SoftwareContract LaboratoriesConveyor Belting & Food Processing Equip.Data Collection & ReportingE.Coli TestingEnvironmental MonitoringFood Allergen TestsFood ForensicsFood Rotation Systems & LabelsFood Safety CertificationFood Safety Test KitsHACCP ConsultingHygiene MonitoringIdentification ProductsInformation Management SystemsIrradiationLaboratory, Outside TestingLaboratory Information Mgmt SystemsLaboratory Instruments & SuppliesListeria TestingLubricants, Food GradeMaintenance SoftwareMetal Detectors/X-Ray Inspection Equip.Pasteurization SystemsPathogen Control & DetectionPest ControlPlant AutomationProduct Inspection EquipmentProduct RetrievalQuality Control Software (Spc)Rapid Microbiological TestingRegulatory SupportSalmonella TestingSanitation Supplies & ServicesShelf Life ExtensionSpecialized IngredientsSwabs & SamplingTemperature MeasurementTraceback SystemsTracking Services/SoftwareTrainingTransportation Security…And More!EXCLUSIVE EXHIBIT HALL HOURS• 8 hours of uninterrupted Exhibit Hall time• No other education sessions or activity overlapwith Exhibit Hall hoursNETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES• Network with leading food safety professionals directlyresponsible for safeguarding the global food supply• Connect with your colleagues over lunch on the ExhibitHall floor both daysEXHIBITOR SHOWCASE THEATRES• Hear from Subject Matter Experts and learn about newand exciting technologies in food safety and security• Free to attend to all registered attendeesWEDNESDAY, MAY 110:30 AM – 11:00 AM11:00 AM – 11:30 AM11:30 AM – 12:00 PM1:00 PM – 1:30 PM1:30 PM – 2:00 PM2:00 PM – 2:30 PMTHURSDAY, MAY 210:30 AM – 11:00 AM11:00 AM – 11:30 AM11:30 AM – 12:00 PMExhibit Space and Sponsorship Opportunities Still Available!Contact Chuck Wilson at 630-962-0078 or wilsoncm@bnpmedia.com

egistrationFull Conference Packages:Includes: Keynote, Town Hall, Education sessions, Exhibit Hall access,Networking and meal functions.PACKAGE TYPE NON-PROFIT FOR-PROFITBefore 4/9 After 4/9 Before 4/9 After 4/93-Day Package2-Day Package(Tues/Wed or Wed/Thurs)1-Day PackageExhibit Hall Only:Access only to Exhibit Hall during scheduled hours.*Excludes lunch served on Exhibit HallPre-Conference Certification Courses:Not included with Conference Packages above.$795 $875 $925 $1,025$595 $675 $825 $895$395 $475 $625 $695YOUR EMPLOYER TYPE Before 4/9 After 4/9Retailers, Academia, Government/Military, Trade Associations andFoodservice companiesAll Other Industry SuppliersHACCP Certification and Training $850Includes: Welcome Reception, Wed/Th sessions, and Exhibit Hall accessServSafe ® Training and Certification $275Student Pricing:All Students are required to show valid proof of Student ID before obtainingtheir badge on-site.PACKAGE TYPE Before 4/9 After 4/93-Day Package2-Day Package(Tues/Wed or Wed/Thurs)1-Day PackageExhibit Hall OnlyLive Webinars:For information on pricing and to register to attend visitwww.FoodSafetySummit.comFREE $195$295 $295$249 $299$149 $199$99 $99FREE $49HOTELINFORMATIONBook Your Hotel Nowto Secure the Best Rates!Discounted room rates have been securedat the following hotels conveniently locatednear Baltimore Convention Center.Days Inn Inner HarborFrom: $159100 Hopkins PlaceDistance: 0.5 milesHampton Inn DowntownFrom: $159550 Washington Blvd.Distance: 1 blockHilton BaltimoreFrom: $209401 West Pratt St.Distance: AdjacentHoliday Inn Inner HarborFrom: $179301 West Lombard St.Distance: 1 blockHyatt Regency BaltimoreFrom: $209300 Light StreetDistance: 0.5 milesRadisson Plaza Lord BaltimoreFrom: $16920 West Baltimore St.Distance: 3 blocksSheraton Baltimore City CenterFrom: $199101 West Fayette St.Distance: AdjacentSheraton Inner HarborFrom: $229300 South Charlest St.Distance: AdjacentTo book your hotel,visit our travel page atwww.FoodSafetySummit.comor call 800-221-3531HOW TO REGISTERVisit www.FoodSafetySummit.comRegister Onlinewith credit card paymentDownload the Registration Formand mail or fax with form of paymentGroup Discounts Available!Buy 2 Get 50% off all Additional RegistrationsTo qualify for the group rate:• All registrations must be made together with the same method of payment(to do this, have 1 person register the entire group together)• All registrations must be for the same package-type*Excludes Pre-Conference Training Courses• 50% off discount applies starting with the third attendeeHave Questions?Please contact: Catrisha Fisher, 847-405-4124 or fisherc@bnpmedia.comREGISTER TODAY! www.FoodSafetySummit.com

155 N. Pfingsten Rd., Suite 205Deerfield, IL 60015Solutions for Today,Planning for Tomorrow®APRIL 30 – MAY 2, 2013BALTIMORE CONVENTION CENTER, MDwww.FoodSafetySummit.comEARLY-BIRD PRICINGENDS APRIL 9OWNED AND PRODUCED BY