THIS MONTH:
NEWS:
PRODUCT SPOTLIGHT:
John Williams, Jr.
For many food retailers and manufacturers, the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) revolution is here to stay. In boardrooms everywhere, companies are contemplating gaining a berth on the “GFSI Express” via a handful of globally recognized certification schemes, including the Safe Quality Food (SQF) Program, International Food Standard, and the British Retail Consortium (BRC).
In almost every certification scheme, companies are required to have effective prerequisite programs and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control (HACCP) plans in place before departing the gate. Without these all-important components, all boarding tickets are subject to rejection. Consequently, growing numbers of companies with GFSI certification aspirations are seeking professional training to help them fine-tune and improve their HACCP plans.
Abundant Supply
Conceived by the Pillsbury Company in the late 1960s as part of NASA’s manned space missions, HACCP is commonly acknowledged as the industry’s foremost program for assuring the production of safe and wholesome foods. HACCP and its guiding seven principles require companies to document in-process monitoring activities, corrective actions and other relevant aspects of their plans. Moreover, companies are charged with establishing verification programs to assess the accuracy of collected data and overall effectiveness of their HACCP programs.
Due to the almost universal acceptance of HACCP training programs—ranging from straightforward, reliable PowerPoint® presentations to state-of-the-art multimedia programs—are in abundant supply throughout the food industry. No matter which platform you select, it is imperative to choose a detailed HACCP training program that ensures a return on your investment.
Key Components
HACCP plans, according to scores of food safety experts, are only as good as the prerequisite programs that lend to their ultimate effectiveness and success. Accordingly, high-level and relevant HACCP training programs should cover a host of integral components, including the following:
• Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs): Under U.S. law, manufacturers and processors are required to take proactive steps to ensure the production of safe foods. The regulations require a quality approach to manufacturing, enabling companies to minimize or eliminate instances of contamination and errors. Recordkeeping, personnel qualifications, sanitation, cleanliness, equipment verification, process validation, and complaint handling are among the issues addressed in GMP regulations.
• Standard Sanitation Operating Procedures (SSOPs): Food companies should have written sanitation standard operating procedures on their plant premises. SSOPs clearly define cleaning and sanitizing activities, as well as specific responsibilities for the entire processing environment. The overall success of a plant’s cleaning and sanitizing program is largely dependent on the stringency of its pre-operational inspection and quality of its verification program. Sanitation is the basic food safety foundation for all operations.
• Product Identification, Tracking, and Recall Programs: Companies should have procedures in place to trace and recover products from the time when they received as raw ingredients to the moment the product is put into distribution. All ingredients, packaging materials and raw materials should be included in these programs.
• Preventative Maintenance: In-plant programs should be designed to ensure all equipment, especially those units that assure food safety, is properly maintained and functional. Written plans should include schedule of repairs and maintenance, detailed cleaning/maintenance instruction for staff, and staff training guidelines.
• Environmental Monitoring: Programs, encompassing sampling sites, frequency of testing, sampling methods, and testing protocols, are essential for assessing the effectiveness of cleaning and sanitizing programs, identifying microbial niches and determining whether pathogens are present in the processing environment.
• Employee Education and Training: Training for plant workers should be an ongoing process. All training should be documented and immediately included in employee personnel files. Even the most meticulously planned food processing system will fail if employees are poorly trained or unmotivated. Other key training components include: allergen management programs, product and process specification programs, approved supplier programs, and labeling programs.
Qualified Professionals Need Apply
Comprehensive HACCP training, as indicated above, is by no means a stroll in the park. To achieve their training objectives, companies should partner with highly qualified training groups with proven and successful track records (actual in-plant experience in developing, implementing and monitoring HACCP programs). Companies should also strive to work with training organizations with programs that are accredited by reputable safety groups, such as the International HACCP Alliance. Boarding the “GFSI Express” requires a punched and validated HACCP ticket. Professional trainers can help you get your company program ready for a rewarding trip.
John Williams, Jr. is a Silliker, Inc., senior communications specialist. He can be reached at info@silliker.com.
♦
Atta Hussain Shah, Ph.D.
Food adulteration means that a food product fails to meet federal or state standards via acts of intentionally debasing the quality of food offered for sale; this process occurs by either the addition or substitution of inferior substances or by the removal of a certain valuable ingredient.
Adulteration is a major issue in the world and is of concern among consumers. Food is said to be adulterated if it meets any of following criteria:
• Contains any “poisonous or deleterious substance” that may render it injurious to health;
• Contains any added poisonous or added deleterious substance that is unsafe
• Is contained by packaging that is composed, in whole or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render the contents injurious to health
• Bears or contains a pesticide chemical residue that is unsafe
• Bears or contains an unsafe food additive
• bears or contains an unsafe new animal drug
• Bears or contains an unsafe color additive
• Consists, in whole or in part, of “any filthy, putrid or decomposed substance” or is otherwise unfit for food
• Has been prepared, packed or held under unsanitary conditions (insect, rodent or bird infestation) whereby it may have become contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health.
• Has been irradiated and the irradiation processing was not done in conformity with a regulation permitting irradiation of the food in question
• Contains a dietary ingredient that presents a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury under the conditions of use recommended in labeling (e.g., foods or dietary supplements containing aristolochic acid, which has been linked to kidney failure, have been banned.);
• Has had a valuable constituent removed, in whole or in part, or replaced with another substance
• Has been damaged or its inferiority has been concealed in any manner
• Contains a substance to increase the product's bulk or weight, reduce its quality or strength or make it appear of greater value than it is (i.e., “economic adulteration”)
To construct a “check and balance” system to tackle these problems, every country enacts and enforces its own food safety act/regulations. For example, Malaysia has a very complex food safety system. It involves several bodies, including the Ministry of Health (Food Quality Control Division, Pharmacy Division and Disease Control Division) and the Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture, Department of Veterinary Services, Department of Fisheries and Federal Agricultural Marketing Authority). Other ministries include the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Department of Royal Customs and Excise. Initiatives are currently ongoing to harmonize and coordinate activities.
Examples of Adulteration
Melamine is generally used as an adulterant in food in dairy products and animal feed to lend the appearance of higher protein levels. At the risk of sounding pessimistic, China’s melamine-laced milk scandal may only be the tip of the iceberg.
The melamine scandal continues to expand and day by day as additional tainted foods are found in markets around the world. The tentacles of the melamine-tainted milk scandal, blamed for the deaths of children in China and the illnesses of more than 53,000 others, continue to spread worldwide.
Since the news of melamine-contaminated Chinese dairy products, a number of countries have imposed blanket bans on Chinese milk products or its derivatives and have called for tighter checks on other Chinese food imports. Malaysia imposed a level-six import ban on all Chinese dairy products and a level-four ban on imported Chinese vegetables.
Most Malaysian dairy importers, vendors and manufacturers, understandably keen to ensure that their products are not lumped together with dairy products originating from China, have been quick to release advertisements, confirming that their products do not contain milk sourced from China. The beneficial effect is that consumers now know from which source the milk in the dairy products they consume actually originate.
Even Malaysia’s Ministry of Health (MOH) set up a specific Web page on this issue. It is also interesting to note that products that have been “certified” as melamine-free appear to be “certified” on the basis of a warranty supplied by the manufacturers, importers and/or vendors. No doubt these “warranties” have been provided by manufacturers pursuant to s.30 of Malaysia’s Food Act. Nevertheless, that practice of requesting “warranties” seems puzzling when the responsibility lies with the MOH to test products (and samples from time to time) prior to the relevant permits allowed for their sale.
As another example, dioxin is the by-product of chemical processes, including chlorine bleaching during paper manufacturing and polyvinylchloride production. It is easily absorbed into animal and human fat, and it is a class 1 carcinogen, which can affect the reproductive system and human growth. The dioxin issue was publicized when the Belgian government detected high levels of dioxin in feed for chickens, cows and swine in June 1999. In 2001, Malaysia immediately prohibited the import of dioxin and has taken products containing this compound, including milk and meat products, off the market.
Presently, contamination with chloroesters is an emerging food issue. It is a carcinogenic substance, found in certain foods and vegetable oils. The Malaysian Palm Oil Board is conducting extensive research on 3-monochloropropandiol (3-MCPD) esters in a number of oils, looking at all stages of production. Additionally, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which to date, has only been concerned with free 3-MCPD in hydrolyzed proteins and soy sauces, reported that they “will continue its collaborations to ensure that appropriate data are developed on the formation of 3-MCPD esters in foods and their potential impact on human health.”
Antibiotic residues in foods are of concern as well, presenting potential health risks due to possible allergic reactions, carcinogenicity and promotion of the spread of bacterial resistance to antibiotics used in human medicine. In addition, starter cultures used in cheese and yogurt manufacture can also be affected by antibiotic residues in milk, resulting in considerable economic loss as product batches may be downgraded or discarded. Producers are required to offer an antibiotic-free product and are responsible to ensure illegal antibiotic residues are prevented.
The health risks associated with antibiotic residues are toxicological (antibiotic toxicities) and immunopathological hazards (allergic reactions). Furthermore, the presence of such residues is a barrier to trade as such tainted foods are banned by importing countries. In Malaysia, the presence of antibiotic residues and veterinary drugs, such as nitrofurans and beta agonists, is of major concern. Table 1 shows the data of antibiotic residues in meat.
In Malaysia, belacan (shrimp paste) was recently sold in market without prawns. It looked like belacan, smelled like belacan, but it was not, in reality, what it was touted to be. Through testing, it was reported that this shrimp paste packed and distributed had an insufficient amount of protein and did not meet the requirements as stated in the 1985 food regulations, which states that belacan should not contain less than 25% protein and 15% salt, and not be composed of more than 40% water and 35% ash.
Conclusions
Food adulteration is not unique to Malaysia, but is a growing concern worldwide. Food manufacturers and producers must be vigilant in their efforts to curb this growing issue in our global food network. Together, we can work to detect and control adulteration. The effectiveness of the Malaysian food safety system is a good example of how these efforts can pay dividends to the future of global food safety.
Atta Hussain Shah, Ph.D., is presently a scholar at Veterinary Public Health Lab, Department of Veterinary Pathology and Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Putra Malaysia. Since 2008, he has been working as a lecturer in the Department of Animal Product Technologies, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, Pakistan. His current areas of interest are meat microbiology and food hygiene. He can be contacted at vetdr_atta@yahoo.com.
♦
NEWS:
There are many validated Listeria detection test methods on the market today. However, most of these methods were compared to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) reference method, the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook (MLG) reference method, the AOAC OMA 993.12 or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 11290 reference method for Listeria. Countries like Canada have reference methods that differ from the U.S. and ISO reference methods for pathogen detection and are therefore left without certified rapid methods with direct comparison to the Health Canada reference methods. AOAC Research Institute (RI)’s GovVal Program has been developed to address this need. The GovVal program provides method extensions to existing Performance Tested MethodsSM (PTM)- and Official Methods of AnalysisSM (OMA)-validated methods for comparison to other reference methods, in this case, the Health Canada reference method for detection of L. monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meats and Listeria species on stainless steel surfaces.
The GovVal program is based on the PTM program operated by the AOAC RI. Candidate test kit methods will be evaluated using blind coded samples and the results reviewed by the AOAC General Referee for Microbiology, Health Canada (HC) and Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Successful candidate methods that have demonstrated equivalency to MFHPB-30 through the GovVal process will be invited by HC and CFIA to submit the AOAC report, along with raw and summary data to the Editor of the Compendium of Analytical Methods. This data will be reviewed by the Microbiology Methods Committee (MMC) for consideration as an acceptable method for regulatory testing in Canada. The project is anticipated to take less than 7 months to complete. A conference call with Listeria test kit method developers will be scheduled in the next 3 to 4 weeks, after which GovVal method extension applications will be accepted. Interested participants should contact AOAC Research Institute.
The GovVal program takes advantage of the existing pool of PTMs. All of these methods have been extensively evaluated, but may not have been evaluated in comparison to the Health Canada reference method for detection of Listeria (MFHPB-30). For an up-to-date list of PTMs, visit www.aoac.org/testkits/testedmethods.html.
♦
Earlier this year, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg issued a press release announcing a major and broad initiative to increase FDA enforcement against illegal claims on food labeling, including unauthorized nutrient content claims, health claims and all drug and disease claims. FDA is also committed anew to cracking down on technical violations on both the front-of-package labeling and on nutrition facts panels.
FDA has issued more than 15 warning letters to major food and beverage manufacturers. FDA seems particularly focused upon food labels that bear false or misleading claims about fat content in foods, which are a type of nutrient content claims. These content claims dominated FDA’s warning letters, including allegations that well known food and beverage makers and distributors were improperly using words such as “light”, “cholesterol free,” “plus” and “good source” in food labels without meeting the strict regulatory criteria that apply to such claims. In a bit more nuanced move, FDA attacked “antioxidant” claims for food ingredients and nutrients. The agency is prepared to back up its position by threatening enforcement action. FDA clearly believes the consumer is influenced by nutrient content claims on food and beverage labels, which is good for food and beverage companies. But, in FDA’s view, with influence comes responsibility.
The agency is also taking issue with improper or missing percentage juice claims, which leave the consumer with a false impression that a juice blend with added flavor is a 100% juice. Not unsurprisingly, FDA found illegal and fraudulent disease and drug claims on a number of food labels and labeling (including product labels and product Web sites). What might be more surprising is FDA finding these claims in places industry is not used to FDA looking—advertising and internet marketing materials.
♦
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has announced the signing of a procedural agreement with Mexico's National Service of Health, Food Safety and Agro-Alimentary Quality (SENASICA). The “Terms of Reference” is a documented procedure for the way in which FSIS engages with its Mexico counterpart, SENASICA. The document has been a collaborative effort between the governments of Mexico and the U.S., and represents a new level of interaction and cooperation between FSIS and SENASICA.
“FSIS has been working diligently with SENASICA on this agreement to improve how we work together,” said FSIS Administrator Al Almanza. “Through the cooperation of SENASICA, we can jointly continue to enhance our efforts in ensuring food safety and protecting public health.”
The ceremony brought senior representatives from SENASICA to Washington, D.C. to sign the document, “Terms of Reference for the Operational Relationship of the Mexican National Service of Health, Food Safety and Agro-Alimentary Quality and the United States Food Safety and Inspection Service in the Trade in Meat, Poultry and Egg Products Between the United Mexican States and The United States of America” with FSIS officials. The document focuses on matters of equivalence, audit procedures, the listing and delisting of eligible establishments for export to the two respective countries, and establishing more effective means of communication in areas of public health. FSIS Administrator Al Almanza and SENASICA Director in Chief Enrique Sanchez-Cruz signed the agreement on behalf of their respective governments.
The agreement was intended to provide an opportunity for improvement of established procedures. FSIS and SENASICA worked together after SENASICA's request to FSIS for written standard procedures by which the agencies interact on matters of food safety and public health.
To view the full written procedural agreement go to the FSIS Web site at www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Terms_of_Reference_Mexico_US.pdf.
PRODUCT SPOTLIGHT:
TripleTrap™ scanning offers the ability to detect predicted components with the unique specificity of a triple quad, and identify them with the highest sensitivity MS/MS of a Linear Accelerator™ Trap. Watch even the lowest level components stand out from the background noise and yield information-rich spectra for identification – all with automated software.
• Lowest level detection and identification of multiple targets
• Measure hundreds of analytes in a single run with higher sensitivity and precision.
• A new level of specificity for quantitating low levels of compounds in complex matrices.
Only on the AB SCIEX QTRAP® 5500 System: www.absciex.com/qtrap5500
Visit AB SCIEX Website
♦
Tuesday, May 18, 2010 – EtQ’s Product Specialist will give a live overview of EtQ's solution for Food Safety and Food Quality. Through use of modules such as Document Control, Corrective Action, Audits, Supplier Management, Reporting and more, companies can manage and track food safety and food quality initiatives throughout the food chain. Also included in this webcast is a demonstration of EtQ's upcoming HACCP module.
Register for this Free Webcast Now
♦
When the authorities revealed a lack of food safety in a large, high-end grocery store chain, the media attack was a crushing blow. To counter the negative media and manage public pressure, the company had to make a few changes. Their credibility was at risk. Read the whole article and learn how DNV can help make your organization more sustainable.
Download the DNV Forum Article
♦
.jpg)
TISCOR is pleased to announce the InspectNTrack software system for your food processing pest management needs. With over twenty-eight years of experience, our products are used by thousands of facilities to automate their safety equipment inspections. We understand that assurance of inspection is vital to food safety and are excited to work with you to make your facility audit ready! With a software system designed for inspections, InspectNTrack ensures yours are always on-time and accurate. Utilizing a Pocket PC, InspectNTrack allows inspectors to carry a device capable of passing or failing inspections, entering notes, and creating reports.
Visit our Website for Your Free Demo!
♦ ♦ ♦
