The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and EU Commission’s Inter-European Union Reference Laboratories (EURL) Working Group on Next Genome Sequencing (NGS) organized the second Science Meets Policy conference this week. More than 100 people from 20 countries attended in-person while online viewers peaked at 257.

Stefano Morabito, from the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS); George Haringhuizen, at the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM); João André Carriço, of bioMérieux; Katja Alt, from the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture and Coen van der Weijden, from the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) were featured on a panel discussion.

Panelists highlighted the need for flexibility, especially as there are 27 countries in Europe at different stages in use of Whole Genome Sequencing and as outbreaks can involve nations outside the EU. They discussed the types of data needed, data quality and comparability, resource issues, how to build trust and the role of different parties including regulators and industry.

EFSA and ECDC’s One Health WGS system has been operating since July 2022 and while things are going well, not all member states are contributing equally.

Data sharing dilemmas

Bernhard Url, EFSA’s executive director, said genomic data sharing is now at a turning point.

“We believe that from a technological and methodological point of view we are ready to use WGS data more widely and with more impact. Many of the problems have been solved and the technical infrastructure has been built. There is no doubt, at least within the community, that data sharing adds value, because it leads to faster outbreak detection and better tracing. It increases the likelihood of connecting sporadic cases to clusters and to detect outbreaks and there is measurable economic impact,” he said.

However, despite the knowledge that sharing data helps, there are still some obstacles that prevent wider use, said Url.

“There are technological gaps as not all member states or organizations use WGS on a routine basis. There is also a worry that people and countries say we don’t have a robust legal basis to share data. There is a fear that people lose control of data, they produce the data, share it but don’t know what happens afterwards. There is a concern that if this technology would be used widely, many more clusters would be detected, which is good from a public health point of view, but it also would increase the workload of national authorities to follow-up and deal with these clusters.”

Url said it would be “unwise” to wait for legislators to define the rules of the game.

“The WGS community must do our part to create the conditions for success. We think there is a lot we can do to move data sharing forward in the current legislative framework. We still have to work on creating a mutual understanding about benefits and limitations of this technology. We have to agree on common guidelines, processes and procedures, otherwise we wouldn’t know how to compare different outcomes,” he said.  

“We want to act as openly as possible but as confidential as needed, there is a fine line that we have to find. EFSA has invested resources in creating a technological infrastructure for enabling WGS data sharing, mainly to tackle foodborne threats. We will continue to do our part to move genomic data sharing forward.”

United States perspective

Eric Stevens, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, said the GenomeTrakr network is the result of 12 years of work. At the end of 2021, there were 600,000 genomes in the public database, today it is more than 1,000,000 sequences.

“After more than a decade of experience, it is not the sequencing that is the challenge when transitioning to this data, it is how you are going to analyze it, train staff, gain the skills and enable the entire system to utilize it effectively,” he said.  

“Metadata helps to tell a complete picture, without it you have a DNA sequence, which can only tell you some stuff. Contextual data gives that data life, it tells you where those bacteria came from, how they were living and when we are starting to think about the interventions we can make, we need that information to understand the complete picture.

“For us, the best use is making it open data available to anyone because somebody maybe interested in Salmonella, somebody else in E. coli and sometimes they overlap with interventions you can make for preventive controls and reducing contamination.”

Stevens said once data is in the database, a variety of things can be looked at.

“When you start thinking of the global food chain you can think where do we need more data from and start doing some projects to tackle those problems to better understand how food becomes contaminated in the first place. You wouldn’t know any of this unless you had the data that can help point the way,” he said.

“GenomeTrakr is responsible for almost 100,000 food and environmental isolates to tell a more complete picture of linking clinical isolates back to their sources, so we can not only respond to foodborne outbreaks but then try to prevent them. When you start looking at where your sources of food and environmental isolates linked to human illnesses come from, you can start doing source attribution and more preventive targeting. If we can get to a point where we can upload data in real time we can start to make those connections as early as possible to get a contaminated product out of the market.”

It can also help in moving from responding to outbreaks to trying to prevent contamination occurring.

“In a facility for example, you are not going to do WGS to identify a pathogen, you can do a quick culture method to see presence or absence. But if you have a facility that is concerned about whether they have a resident pathogen you would 100 percent like this information from WGS. You could expand that further to farms and potential water sources,” said Stevens.  

“When you start doing projects in different parts of the world you start understanding that everybody has issues that maybe aren’t issues for you. We’ve done a lot of work in Latin America and the big problem in getting started in sequencing is availability of reagents. We hear it costs five to seven times more than what we pay. When we talk about this being utilized by the world we have to start focusing on those issues that are going to make the most impact.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The study evaluated remote assessments for Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) re-rating inspections in England. The Food Standard Agency’s (FSA) COVID-19 recovery plan enabled local authorities to conduct an FHRS re-inspection under certain conditions remotely.

It found that remote assessment should be encouraged, provided the concept incorporates hybrid approaches, and the scope is extended to the entire FHRS rating process. Findings will also be considered part of FSA’s modernization of official food hygiene controls.

Low use of remote assessment
Twenty local authorities were interviewed, including 14 that had never used remote assessment for a hygiene re-rating, four that had previously used it, and two that were still using it at the time of the interview. Ten interviews with food businesses of varying sizes included eight with no experience of a remote assessment for a food hygiene re-rating and two that had received them.

A definition of remote assessment was not given, so local authorities were largely uncertain about the concept.

The report found two local authorities had used remote assessment for ratings, which was against FSA guidance. Several also incorrectly believed that any hygiene re-rating remote assessment still had to be followed by an in-person visit before a rating was issued.

Support for remote assessment was mixed. Local authorities that had not used it were not interested in doing so in the future, primarily because the low number of re-rating requests meant it was unlikely to impact their resourcing. Most respondents with experience of remote assessment would either be open to using it again or had continued to use it.

The use of remote assessment to carry out re-ratings entirely remotely was uncommon. This was mainly because local authorities received only a few eligible requests. FSA data shows 63 of 304 local authorities had used remote assessment for a FHRS re-inspection. Participants often used hybrid approaches such as digital tools to collect information and an in-person inspection.

Identified pros and cons
Such assessments were judged appropriate for highly compliant outlets with a history of good scores, lower-risk companies such as home bakers, and structural or document-related non-compliances.

Food firms were open to receiving a remote assessment, delivering it consistently across areas and to a sufficient standard with clear guidance.

Benefits included staff travel time savings and reduced costs. The drawbacks mentioned were that they sometimes took longer than in-person visits and perceived reduced validity due to a loss of sensory aspects and their scheduled nature, so the surprise element was lost.

External issues covered the types of firms requesting re-ratings being unsuitable for such an assessment, limitations in technological capacity, language and communication barriers, lack of familiarity with the remote assessment process, and privacy and data concerns.

Eight authorities noted that firms wanted value for money and would be unwilling to pay the same amount for a remote assessment as an in-person inspection.

Internal barriers to using technology included getting support from environmental health officers, insufficient guidance from the FSA, technological limitations, and knowing if and how much businesses should pay for remote ratings.

To support future use of remote assessment, respondents wanted to see clear messaging from FSA to local authorities and companies to illustrate support; and increased flexibility for councils to choose the scenarios in which they used remote or hybrid approaches.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Jennifer Beal, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Laura Gieraltowski, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave the U.S. perspective while Anna Manore, of the Public Health Agency of Canada spoke about the practice in Canada.

Social networking websites like Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit focused on foodborne illness reporting such as iwaspoisoned.com. Some forums including iwaspoisoned.com and Yelp, allow people to share details of symptoms, illnesses, or experiences with food products, companies, or brands and retail or dining locations.

However, because these platforms are open, posts vary widely in format and content. These inconsistencies can make it difficult to determine the accuracy of information and to interpret the data. Anonymous posts can also make further investigation with consumers challenging.

Crowdsourced data use in outbreak investigations
Public health professionals and food regulators are evaluating these tools to determine their usefulness in outbreak investigations. 

Setting the scene, Ben Chapman, from North Carolina State University, said crowdsourcing could be used as part of early warning systems and contribute to real-time monitoring of food safety hazards.

Benefits include increased or enhanced data collection, community engagement, a deeper view on certain situations, and a cost-effective approach to data collection.

Chapman said ProMED-mail was likely the first example of crowdsourcing in the field of public health while posts on Twitter and iwaspoisoned.com have played roles in identifying outbreaks.

However, he warned about “armchair epidemiology” and separating out “noise” from useable information. Other negatives include data quality, privacy concerns, participant biases, bots on social media and misinformation skewing data.

Chapman added it was important to look at as many data sources as possible, depending on the question that needs to be answered. Crowdsourced data is a tool to signal things that might not have been caught before and then resources can be allocated to see if it is a real problem.

General Mills cereal example
Beal and Gieraltowski talked through the challenges via four stages including the case definition and identification of a cluster, confirming an outbreak vehicle, implementing control measures and communicating unknowns, using an example of people reporting illness on iwaspoisoned.com after eating Lucky Charms cereal in 2022.

Beal said crowdsourced data turns the normal process upside down as CDC traditionally leads epidemiological investigations but it is the FDA that heads-up the investigation for crowdsourced or non-traditional data types.

One issue is epidemiological data is not standardized as it is provided by complainants, there are also questions around identifying the vehicle, the agent involved and contact with the company.

Beal said FDA was unsure what to tell General Mills, which hampered the firm’s ability to find out what was happening, as there was limited lot code information and variability in symptoms made it hard to know what testing to do.

She added the public scrutiny that often accompanies such incidents adds urgency but people tend to think it was the last thing they ate that made them sick. Also, if they saw others saying Lucky Charms made them sick, they could assume it was the cereal that also made them ill.

Manore presented the use of online surveys in two outbreak investigations.

The first was Salmonella Newport in 2018 and confirmed what Foodbook had told health officials, that the incident was linked to red onions. Foodbook is a survey that was done to describe what foods Canadians eat over a seven-day period to inform outbreak investigation and response.

The second was an outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis in 2019. Two foods were of interest: frozen fish and mixed fruit cups but they were not asked about in Foodbook. However, it was later found the epidemic was caused by contaminated imported frozen profiteroles.

She said this shows online surveys require careful consideration and their use must be considered alongside other available evidence from epidemiological, food safety and traceback and lab investigations. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here) 

Based on case studies and an OECD survey, the report examines the cost, benefits and effectiveness of remote audits. For case studies, interviews were between May and November 2022 with authorities in 10 countries and five other stakeholders including Critereon, Tesco and Red Tractor. The survey received 163 responses between mid-October and early December 2022.

The analysis reveals that key benefits are lower travel expenses, reduced emissions footprints, flexible use of time, and opportunities to train and involve more staff.

Drawbacks include limitations to gather audit evidence, the additional burden of preparation time, internet connectivity issues, and the lack of personal engagement. In one case, an uneven paint surface was wrongly perceived as condensation on the ceiling. The onsite representative had to demonstrate the sealed surface was dry and show its uneven nature.

Different viewpoints
Prior to COVID-19, remote auditing was used only for small-scale, specialized cases. The pandemic saw a significant increase, although use varied across countries and sectors. It is relatively easy for importing countries to request a remote audit, even at short notice, but for auditees, each response can entail considerable work.

A range of technologies have been used in remote audits but full potential has not been realized. In a few cases, particularly in the private sector, tools such as wearable technologies and proprietary platforms have been employed.

Perceived costs, benefits, effectiveness, and opinions on the continued use of remote audits varied by the respondent’s role in the food safety system, whether authority, food business, auditor or auditee, exporter or importer, small or large firm, or developed or developing economy.

The report found emerging and developing nations are likely to be less able to use remote auditing because of shortcomings in digital infrastructure, access and capability. This risks excluding such countries from export markets, or at least creating a competitive disadvantage.

Most stakeholders found fully remote audits to be less effective than onsite visits but partially remote, also known as hybrid or blended, audits were welcomed. Many considered they could be one “tool in the toolbox”, but should be limited by certain criteria.

The report highlighted the need to harmonize terminology and to develop practical guidelines on how and when to conduct remote audits.

Remote audits finding their place
Critereon’s auditing experience was that there had been consistently fewer non-conformances in remote audits. This seemed unlikely to be because of improvements in actual food safety compliance, particularly as many establishments were also suffering from staff absences and other disruptions and pointed toward an issue with remote auditing.

Remote auditing had been focused on areas with relatively high food safety risks – notably the livestock sector and the fish and seafood sector, which together accounted for 75 percent of audits in the survey.

More than 70 percent of auditors considered remote audits to be less or much less effective than onsite audits, while over half of auditees said they were as effective as onsite checks.

Questions were raised about the trustworthiness of remote audit evidence, including the risk of misrepresentation or fabrication of evidence, as well poor quality evidence potentially leading to misunderstanding or omissions.

Many respondents said remote audits could be used for document-based reviews, but were problematic as a replacement for physical auditing of establishments.

Situations where remote audits work include cases where the food safety risk is low; there is an established relationship; there is a simple objective such as addressing a particular non-conformity; or for geographically remote or high-risk locations. They may not be appropriate for audits of regulatory systems or for products with high food safety risks.

Survey results indicated 33 percent would support continued use of partially remote audits and almost half backed use in specific circumstances, such as emergencies or low-risk scenarios.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The World Health Organization (WHO) will launch a guide in July that outlines the capacities that need to be in place before WGS can be useful for foodborne disease surveillance and outbreak response; options for implementing it; and how to integrate WGS within existing systems.

Dr. Eric Brown, from the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, said WGS has been one of the greatest recent impacts in science.

“For us, WGS has been tantamount, to an advancement in food safety, as the Hubble telescope has been for astronomy, to put it in perspective and that is not an understatement. There is no question that WGS has revolutionized the way we can monitor and survey for contamination in the food supply,” he told attendees of a WHO Health Talks webinar.

Development of WGS use
Two incidents highlighting the power of WGS in the early days of its use were shared by Brown.

“One involved nut butter, because we saw illnesses across multiple parts of the country, just 2 or 3 illnesses, we were able to put those together with high-resolution WGS, figure out a nut butter contamination event was beginning to emerge, and stop it before it became an outbreak. The second was a Latin-style cheese event where we were able to link multiple states on the East Coast back to a common cheese provider. It meant we could now sort through a large area of geography quickly and link related illnesses and contaminated products as quickly as possible.”

Brown said the paradigm shift was using WGS for traceability with data openly available in real-time.

“This gave rise to the field of genomic epidemiology, where instead of epidemiology always leading the way, sometimes a genomics signal could be produced early that might show a linkage, and then epidemiology can trace that back and forward,” he said.

“A few characteristics of WGS that make it so powerful are fewer clinical cases are needed, much higher unambiguous scope and definition of an outbreak, we can determine what is related or not more quickly, we can also do source tracking now. Raw ingredients can be traced and this gives rise to enhanced root cause analysis because it can tell you what raw ingredient from what part of the world contamination might be coming from. Complex food vehicles like a salad can have ingredients that start anywhere around the world.”

Brown cited two recent examples of data sharing in the GenomeTrackr database.

“In a series of events related to tahini that was exported internationally, multiple countries were able to identify a common source of tahini contamination. Another example is the Listeria outbreaks associated with enoki mushrooms. This involved four countries in particular: Australia, South Korea, Canada, and the U.S. who shared their data and you could see a linkage from a root cause that came out across multiple countries,” he said.

“Right now we continue to improve the process and the database with greater data integrity, capacity building to get the technology in more people’s hands around the world and make sure we can share as much as we can in real-time. As my FDA colleague Marc Allard likes to say, for every thousand genomes we can get into the database, we can prevent six more illnesses each year. We now know increased use of WGS leads to more outbreaks and contamination events that we can identify and that equates to fewer sick people.”

Key components of the WHO guide
Dr. Kirsty Hope, manager of the Foodborne and Waterborne Diseases and One Health Branch in New South Wales, Australia, said early detection helps to reduce the burden of disease in the community.

“WGS has greater sensitivity and specificity in foodborne pathogen sub-typing. It gives a lot of information on virulence factors and antimicrobial resistance. It allows us to compare strains nationally or internationally. The module enhances our routine surveillance in place already for foodborne pathogens, allows for outbreak detection, helps in outbreak response, and incorporates the One Health response, with animal health and food safety people, laboratories, and databases of sequences and isolates that allow early detection,” she said.

The WHO guidance document covers principles to consider when deciding if it is appropriate to use WGS. Countries need an established surveillance and response system that can be built on. There is a need for political and financial buy-in and a resource burden when using WGS. Three modules include the introduction, surveillance and outbreak investigations.

“We tried to recognize that countries are all at different places in their development and use of WGS, the modules are set up so you can pull out a component and use it solely or you can use the whole document. The first module defines the minimum capabilities that are needed before a country can embark on this journey of WGS to enhance outbreak investigations and routine surveillance. It also gives them options of different ways to implement WGS,” said Hope.

“The second module is about outbreak investigations and how to use WGS. It is meant for countries at the initial stages of lab-based surveillance for food pathogens so you can start building on that. It talks about how you can use it to detect outbreaks and the response process. The third module is around surveillance. It is for countries that have a lab-based surveillance system and it has been in use for quite some time. There is some overlap between the outbreak and surveillance modules. The modules are used as a process to help you step through, think about, and plan within your countries and different agencies on how to move forward with WGS.”

Case studies by the CDC, UKHSA, and PHAC and mock outbreaks are included in the guidance.

“For surveillance and response, we are trying to stop illnesses from occurring and taking public health action. To do that we use information from epidemiologists and our food safety and animal health colleagues. WGS is one part and is helping to do our work with more precision but traditional epidemiology and collaboration is still required. It’s also important to be clear on the questions you are asking to get the answers you want or you may get more questions,” said Hope.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) officials mostly invited Kansas politicians to the May 25 ceremonies.

The federal agencies claim the NBAF facility provides the highest level of biocontainment laboratories and safety protocols, is the first in the United States, and will allow scientists to study and diagnose critical animal diseases.

Until now, this animal disease work was conducted only on the isolated Plum Island, located off the East Coast. The new lab is on a university campus setting in the heart of Manhattan.

“America’s farmers, ranchers, and consumers count on our researchers to understand, monitor for, and develop solutions to combat a variety of high-consequence animal pathogens, and a facility of this magnitude positions us to respond,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “This new, innovative facility will give USDA scientists access to cutting-edge, safe, and secure technology so they can continue to lead the world in animal health research, training, and diagnostics to protect our food supply, agricultural economy, and public health.”

The valuable scientific information delivered by researchers at NBAF also claims to allow America to remain a leading contributor to countermeasures that will protect agriculture, economies, and citizens across the globe.

NBAF will replace DHS’ Plum Island Animal Disease Center, which is a biosafety level-3 facility in New York that is more than 68 years old. Both departments have collaborated on the requirements for this next-generation science facility since 2006, and Manhattan was selected as NBAF’s site in 2009. DHS led NBAF’s design and construction, and USDA will own and operate the facility.

“NBAF is a historic investment for agriculture and our Nation in ensuring the health, safety, and security of the U.S. food supply,” said Under Secretary and USDA Chief Scientist Chavonda Jacobs-Young. “As the first facility of its kind in the United States, the innovative and cutting-edge solutions our scientists and partners can produce here will lead efforts to protect public health and address new and emerging diseases for many years to come.”

“This new facility highlights USDA’s commitment to taking every step possible to protect the United States from transboundary, emerging, and zoonotic animal diseases,” said Under Secretary for USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs Jenny Moffitt. “Through investments like these, we can ensure our country has the tools to keep the American people and our agricultural animals safe and to prevent diseases costly to farmers.”

With more than 400 employees, USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will share NBAF’s operational responsibilities. ARS will primarily focus on research to understand high-consequence and emerging animal diseases and develop countermeasures, such as vaccines and antivirals. APHIS will focus on prevention, surveillance, diagnosis, and response to these diseases, including the expertise to manage two vaccine banks and train state and federal veterinarians to recognize livestock diseases.

The ribbon-cutting ceremony at the facility highlighted the state and local community’s support. City of Manhattan Mayor Mark Hatesohl, Kansas State University President Dr. Richard Linton, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran, and former U.S. Senator Pat Roberts also addressed the crowd during the ceremony.

It was, however, little noticed outside of Kansas.

NBAF’s Midwest location offers researchers and diagnosticians closer proximity to develop key partnerships with the animal health industry and several academic institutions,” said NBAF Director Dr. Alfonso Clavijo. “NBAF will create opportunities between scientists and animal health companies to enhance and expedite the transition of new veterinary countermeasures from research to market to protect the nation’s agriculture if needed.”

Adjacent to Kansas State University and on the Western edge of the largest concentration of animal health companies in the nation, the 48-acre NBAF campus includes more than 700,000 square feet of total building space. At 500,000 square feet, the main building includes containment laboratories, animal holding facilities, office spaces, facility support areas, and required safety systems — such as redundant high-efficiency particulate air filters and waste decontamination systems.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

IAFP non-members will have the opportunity to browse through more than 100 recorded webinars dating back to 2009 on the IAFP website. Unlike usual access requirements, no login will be necessary during this period, allowing individuals to freely explore the wealth of knowledge and insights shared by experts in the field.

While access to the webinar archives is typically a benefit exclusive to IAFP members, the organization has decided to extend this privilege to non-members during the month of June as part of their commitment to promoting food safety on a global scale. The webinars cover a wide range of topics, offering valuable information on emerging trends, best practices, and innovative approaches to ensure food safety and protect public health.

IAFP membership comes with a host of advantages, including access to the association’s free webinars that are generously sponsored by the IAFP Foundation. Members can take advantage of these educational resources year-round, gaining valuable knowledge and staying up to date with the latest developments in food safety. For those who are not yet members but are interested in joining, IAFP encourages them to consider taking this opportunity to explore the benefits and significance of becoming a member.

For more information, visit IAFP’s website.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The World Health Organization (WHO) looked at the food analysis capacity of Pacific Island countries. These nations are often vulnerable to food safety incidents and emergencies because of their geography and dependence on food imports.

The costs of establishing and operating food laboratories are relatively high. Considering the limited number of food samples tested in most Pacific Island countries, it is not practical for them to have sophisticated labs. Food is rarely tested to protect domestic consumers. It is generally only analyzed after it has become the potential source of a complaint or an illness.

WHO said it was crucial appropriate labs are identified prior to a food safety incident or emergency. A guide lists considerations for selecting referral labs and submitting samples to them.

Several nations have implemented sampling and testing of environmental water and fish and fishery products to facilitate the export of fish products. Fiji and Solomon Islands were among the first to undertake such routine analyses to meet European Union requirements.

Country and pathogen examples
Diarrheal agents are the biggest cause of foodborne illness in the Western Pacific region with norovirus, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E. coli among the most common pathogens, affecting millions of people annually. The region also reports the highest death rate globally as a result of foodborne parasites.

No food testing capacity is available in American Samoa, Cook Islands, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Tonga, Tuvalu, or Wallis and Futuna. Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, and Vanuatu do have a laboratory developing the capacity for food testing.

Fiji, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, and Solomon Islands have significant lab capacity, being able to test food and water for a range of biological and chemical hazards. However, no labs can detect viral agents or foodborne parasites in food.

Countries associated with the U.S. submit clinical referral samples to the Hawaii State Department of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Palau usually refers to food samples from Korea, the Philippines, and the United States.

Yersinia enterocolitica is detectable in food only in New Caledonia and Vibrio cholerae in food only in Samoa. The most widespread chemical hazard testing capacity is histamine in fish. One lab in French Polynesia said it could detect ciguatoxin.

None of the labs reviewed reported the ability to test for marine toxins such as domoic acid, lipophilic shellfish toxins, lyngbyatoxin, saxitoxin, and tetrodotoxin. Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury can be detected in several countries.

The guide covers accreditation, cost, sample collection and transportation requirements, and border control issues. It also supports the implementation of the Regional Framework for Action on Food Safety in the Western Pacific from 2018 to 2025.

Lab capacity on the radar of the Codex committee
Meanwhile, the FAO/WHO Coordinating Committee for North America and the South West Pacific met earlier this year in Nadi, Fiji.

Emerging issues expected to impact food safety in the region in the next five to 10 years included limited support to manage food regulatory systems; climate change; innovative food technologies; risk communication; increased foodborne disease transmission; pesticides residues on food crops; antimicrobial resistance; indigenous foods; and labeling of new and novel foods.

Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, and Tonga also emphasized the need for capacity building in food safety, including analytical support to food analysis labs.

A lack of lab capacity was highlighted by several members and the need for regional collaboration regarding analytical work was identified. The sustainability of national labs in small island countries was mentioned as a challenge.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) said cell-based food production involves growing animal agricultural products directly from cell cultures.

The agencies published a report to capture the key food safety issues and provide authorities, particularly those in low- and middle-income countries, with up-to-date information and scientific knowledge related to cell-based food production, when considering regulatory actions.

Francesco Branca, from WHO, said the report has information about the technologies used to produce cell-based foods, potential food safety hazards, and regulatory frameworks in various countries.

“Experts stated that many hazards are well-known and exist in conventional foods but we cannot exclude new hazards from new technologies, materials, or ingredients used to produce cell-based foods. We see this as a first step of a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment. More data generation and sharing are needed to identify the similarities and differences between conventional foods. WHO and FAO will support Codex Alimentarius on future work in this domain,” he said.

While most hazards are already known and can also occur in conventionally produced food, the focus may need to be on the specific materials, inputs, ingredients including potential allergens, and equipment used in cell-based food production.

National views and terminology
The document looks at terminology issues, principles of cell-based food production processes, and the global regulatory picture. Case studies from Israel, Qatar, and Singapore are included. In December 2020, the first cell-based chicken nuggets were approved in Singapore. However, Italy recently announced plans to ban cell-based meat.

Teng Yong Low, from the Singapore Food Agency, said reaction to approval had been mixed.

“Some people welcomed the benefits, as it gives them a new choice in their diet, some people, for various reasons, choose not to consume such products and some are in-between. SFA tries to provide information for these people with accurate information about the technology and products so they can then make their own informed choice on whether to consume them,” he said.

There are more than 100 start-ups developing various cell-based food products including meat, fish, poultry, dairy, and eggs, according to FAO.

While “cell-based,” “cultivated” and “cultured” are preferred terminologies, other terms such as “in vitro,” “artificial,” “fake,” “clean” and “lab-grown” have been used. Debate is also ongoing around if cell-based meat products can be labeled as halal or kosher, based on initial cells and materials.

Corinna Hawkes, FAO director of the Division of Food Systems and Food Safety, said the publication is part of the larger context of trying to achieve a healthy and sustainable food system.

“When it comes to new technologies for food production, the first question many people have is will that food be safe? We know new and innovative technologies and production processes are going to evolve, that is part of the reality of what it’s going to mean to ensure food security into the future while also trying to reduce impacts on the environment,” she said.

“We are still in the early phase of this technology and only have data from small-scale production facilities. It promises improvements but needs to be validated in large-scale production. This hazard identification is just the first step of a long process that will need the engagement of all those who care about food safety.”

Mitigating risks from hazards
It is possible that a case-by-case approach is suitable for the food safety assessment of cell-based products, said FAO.

Manufacturing processes for these products vary depending on the type of cell line used such as livestock, poultry, fish, or seafood, and the final product, like a burger, steak or nuggets. However, the general process includes four production stages: target tissue or cell selection, isolation, preparation, and storage; cell proliferation and possible cell differentiation during large-scale biomass production; tissue or cell harvesting; and processing and formulation of food products.

Cell sourcing, isolation, and storage steps may introduce microbial contaminants. To prevent contamination in these stages, it is common for antibiotics to be used. Cell cultivation is also sensitive to microbial contamination so is performed under sterile conditions. During manufacturing, contamination by other bacteria, yeast, and fungi from the production environment can occur. There are also potential hazards during harvesting and processing.

Identified hazards include foreign matter, veterinary drugs, microbial toxins, additives, residues, allergens, microplastics, and pathogens. Cell lines may also come from species with limited or no history of safe food use.

As most potential food safety hazards are not new, risk-mitigating tools such as good hygiene, manufacturing, cell culture, and hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) practices should be considered.

With cell-based food products not yet available in most parts of the world, consumers are unlikely to be familiar with them or the processes used. FAO said it was the perfect time for regulatory agencies to communicate about food safety questions associated with the products and processes, and to establish themselves as sources of information.

“Solving the many challenges and hurdles that still exist with cell-based foods such as high production costs, scale-up hurdles, and gaps in fundamental knowledge will require a significant level of both technical and financial commitments from all stakeholders,” said the report.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Singapore Standard 687: 2022 (Guidelines for food e-commerce) provides guidance to e-commerce players on their roles and responsibilities to ensure the safety of food products sold via online platforms.

Grace Fu, Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, said businesses, e-commerce platforms, and food delivery companies can gain clarity on best practices in food safety in the different stages of the supply chain.

“For example, the standard provides guidance on the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, as well as their responsibilities in food traceability and recalls. The standard also aims to improve the online ordering experience for end consumers. When implemented, consumers will have access to more details on the food products they are purchasing online and be empowered to make more informed decisions,” she said.

“I encourage you to adopt the practices outlined and hold one another to high food safety standards. Some of the industry leaders — foodpanda, Amazon, and Lazada — will be sharing how they will implement the guidelines in their companies.”

Industry urged to adopt the advice
Fu said e-commerce and delivery companies are playing an increasingly significant role in the food supply chain.

“While consumers shopping at a physical store can check on the condition of the food and find out important details via the label before purchase, this is not always possible when buying food online. E-commerce consumers have to rely on the product information provided by the e-commerce platform, which can vary significantly depending on the level of oversight the e-commerce platform has on its suppliers,” she said.

The voluntary standard was developed in 16 months by a working group including Food Industry Asia (FIA), the Singapore Food Agency (SFA), the Singapore Manufacturing Federation and industry players such as local food e-commerce and food delivery platforms, as well as supermarkets.

Tan Lee Kim, deputy chief executive officer of the Singapore Food Agency, said: “The publication and adoption of this standard would elevate industry standards and guide food business operators to achieve better transparency, traceability, and accountability when selling food online. Additionally, consumers would be empowered to make better-informed purchase decisions by buying from businesses that have implemented these practices and have greater food safety assurance.”

Growth of sector
Online purchases of food and the use of food delivery services in Singapore has grown in recent years. In 2021, 2.5 million consumers used delivery platforms to buy food products in the country, a 14 percent increase compared to 2020.

Currently, different food e-commerce and delivery platforms have varying practices around the traceability, safety, and transparency of food products sold through them.

By implementing the standard, the industry may gain clarity in the standardization of information to be displayed at points of sale and delivery; responsibilities of food traceability and recalls and ownership of managing potential issues such as consumer complaints, food safety incidents or recalls.

The document also aims to improve end consumers’ experience by strengthening the credibility and trustworthiness of food e-commerce platforms and by encouraging stakeholders in the e-commerce supply chain to conduct due diligence through proper implementation of food safety practices as part of their operations.

Matt Kovac, CEO of Food Industry Asia, said the standard shows Singapore’s response to a rise in the adoption of food e-commerce by consumers.

“It will provide food business operators with a practical set of voluntary e-commerce guidelines that can be applied to enhance current processes in order to ensure food safety whilst importantly not stifling innovation. Singapore is the first country to develop such a comprehensive set of voluntary guidelines, and hence the standard could be utilized by other authorities to help inform best practices for the industry,” he said.

Fu added that Singapore was also participating in the development of international standards for food sold through e-commerce, as part of the Codex Committee on food labeling. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

According to the announcement, IAFP’s decision was motivated in part by its Editorial Board’s desire to make the journal’s essential research open to all and to reach the widest audience across all its sectors in corporate, government, and academia. When prior issues of the Journal of Food Protection older than five years were made free to read online, usage data skyrocketed, confirming a need for the content. These back files include JFP’s two prior titles: Journal of Milk and Food Technology (1947-1976) and Journal of Milk Technology (1937-1946). 

Noticeable growth in authors choosing open access indicated a desire to have their content freely available for all to read. In the current model, all authors already pay page charges. This fee will be replaced by an Article Publishing Charge of $1,600 for IAFP Members, for which the articles will become fully accessible upon publication. Under this model, authors can also share their research more broadly, without paywalls or copyright issues. 

Following a full exploration and consideration of its options, the IAFP Executive Board chose to work with Elsevier based on their experience transitioning subscription journals to fully open access journals and the strength of their platform that will help increase the discovery and visibility of JFP content. The agreement will reduce the cost of open-access publishing for both IAFP members and nonmembers. 

IAFP looks forward to making all JFP research available for everyone to read, download, copy, and distribute.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The funds are given to support the institute’s work to provide scientific information to fight food-related illness and enable the development of sound public health policy.

JIFSAN, established in 1996, combines the expertise of the FDA with UMD researchers. 

The institute promotes research, education and outreach in food safety, security and applied nutrition. It has also developed innovative partnerships across industry, government and other stakeholders in support of the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act.

According to Jianghong Meng, a professor of nutrition and food science at UMD and director of JIFSAN, the enduring partnership and funding will allow the institute to continue its collaborative research efforts between UMD and the FDA. “We are in a new era of food safety where better protections and preventative measures are more important than ever. The last few years have shown that as a community we must all work together to eradicate illness and disease.”

The new funding will help grow several programs, including a congressional mandate on imported aquacultured shrimp, which supports the FDA in regulating the sourcing and importing of shrimp to the United States.

The institute will also conduct multi-institutional, multidisciplinary research projects and develop mechanisms for the exchange of technical information and scientific concepts. The institute plans to continue to advance the development of innovative education and outreach programs that enhance the FDA’s efforts with other nations to improve U.S. and global health.

For more information about JIFSAN, visit their website.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The researchers’ work, titled “Self-Powered Edible Defrosting Sensor” was published in ACS Sensors, by Ivan Ilic, Mario Caironi, and their colleagues.

The device can detect defrosting events by coupling a temperature-activated galvanic cell with an ionochromic cell. All components of the sensor are made with entirely edible materials, including table salt, red cabbage, and beeswax.

The galvanic cell operates with an aqueous electrolyte solution, producing current only at temperatures above the solution’s freezing point. The ionochromic cell uses the current generated during the defrosting to release tin ions. This forms complexes with natural dyes, causing the color to change and providing information about defrosting events.

The temperature at which the sensor reacts can be tuned between 0 and −50 degrees Celsius. The temperature range allows the device to be used in the supply chain in several ways: as a sensor, it can measure the length of exposure to above-the-threshold temperatures, while as a detector, it can provide a signal that there was exposure to above-the-threshold temperatures.

According to the study, the device could ensure that frozen food is handled correctly and is safe for consumption. Furthermore, the sensor could be used by workers in the supply chain as well as consumers, ensuring that the food was properly frozen during the whole supply chain.

Learn more about the research here.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) will organize the event from Nov. 1 to 4.

The aim is to develop a document with up-to-date technical knowledge on the safety aspects of cell-based food production. This is likely to be published in early 2023.

An online session held by FAO and WHO in October saw scientists decide to use the term cell-based but they suggested more work was needed before there is international harmonization of the terminology.

“Nomenclature can have a significant impact on consumer perception, marketing efforts and relevant regulatory actions such as labeling,” said Masami Takeuchi, food safety officer at FAO. 

Most hazard already known

FAO and the Israeli Ministry of Health hosted a meeting in September where researchers and developers discussed the safety of cell-based foods. The technology produces animal proteins without slaughtering them via in vitro cultivation of cells.

Ahead of the meeting in Singapore, three documents have been published on terminology, production processes and regulation.

The first work found cell-based, cultivated and cultured were the three major terminologies used or preferred by consumers, industry and authorities. Other terms include in vitro, artificial, lab-grown and fake.

It will support policymakers to make informed decisions on selecting cell-based food terminologies that could be used in communications or in legislation on such products.

In December 2020, cultured chicken nuggets became the first commercialized product after market approval in Singapore.

There are currently a range of different terminologies in relation to the technologies, production processes and final products, which may hamper communication. Terms can also influence consumer perceptions and national regulatory frameworks, including the possible labelling requirements to provide consumers with information on safety, allergens, and nutrition.

Production and legislation points

The second document looked at the generic production process to lay the foundation for potential hazard identification. Cell-based food production could include different animal proteins from beef, pork, poultry, fish, shellfish and others, including dairy and eggs.

Manufacturing steps vary depending on the type of cell line used such as livestock, poultry, fish or seafood and the final product, for example a burger or nuggets. However, it generally includes four key stages: target tissue or cell selection, isolation, preparation and storage, cell proliferation and possible cell differentiation during large-scale biomass production, tissue or cell harvesting, and processing and formulation of food products.

Based on a literature review, most potential food safety hazards, such as microbiological contamination and residue issues, are not new, so risk-mitigating tools are available.

It is just a matter of time before cell-based food is being authorized in countries besides Singapore and traded across borders, according to the third document.

In addition to food safety, regulatory considerations may include issues such as labelling, consumer preference and acceptance and ethical or religious aspects.

Analysis indicates that, in most countries, cell-based foods can be assessed in existing novel food regulations.

In the United States, jurisdiction is dependent on the animal from which developers take the cultured cells. FDA will handle the initial stages of production, including the collection, banking, growth and differentiation of cells for livestock, poultry, and Siluriformes fish. USDA-FSIS will oversee the processing, packaging, and labelling of the resulting meat and poultry products.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) and the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry organized the event, which was attended by 400 participants from 65 countries.

Country presentations from Brazil, Cambodia and Indonesia highlighted benefits such as reduced time and financial costs, potential for remote audits to be a good tool for follow-up checks, to help people develop new skills, and better use of human resources.

Negatives included timezone and translation issues, factories being busy and noisy, technology problems, a need for standardization of procedures and ICT requirements, longer preparation time and a fear of missing something because of a lack of sensory clues and inability to read body language.

Audit survey feedback
Annelies Deuss, from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), presented initial findings from a survey on remote audits with 12 countries.

“Effectiveness is an important factor as countries are trying to understand and decide whether or not to continue with remote audits in the future, now the initial disruptions of the pandemic have resided. We thought there would have been a lot of remote audits before the pandemic but we noticed most were done in response to COVID-19. Before the pandemic, remote audits were mostly in remote locations or high risk destinations. We had expected to see a shift to using big data analytics and artificial intelligence but we saw the technology used is fairly basic with smartphones and video conferencing platforms,” she said.

Preliminary findings include agreement that remote audits are likely to become more efficient over time, said Deuss.

“It is clear we will see at least an ongoing role for partially remote audits. This means an audit where the site visit is done in person but it is informed by a document review in advance. The most significant benefit was that it enabled food trade to continue despite the pandemic. There were also cost savings in terms of travel expenses, greater flexibility in processes and personal benefits,” she said.

“On the other hand, one consistent concern was the limitations of technology to visualize sites and the lack of sensory inputs such as taste and smell. This led to the impression that the quality of evidence that could be gathered might not be as high. Many interviewees mentioned the preparation time increased related to more documents being shared in advance of the audit and the time to evaluate and verify these documents. ICT elements could raise issues around data protection and commercial confidentiality.”

European experience
Javier Tellechea Vertiz, who is involved with food audits at the European Commission, said remote audits commenced in September 2020.

“The principles of an audit have not changed. You need to have clear objectives, an audit plan and pre-audit questionnaire and clear reporting methods. When we do an audit we ask three main questions: Is there a control system in place? Can this system work? Is it working in practice? We found remote audits could answer the first two questions but it is limited to answer the third. The answer we get sometimes might not be accurate because we are missing certain elements. This is related to the openness of the authority and trust in auditors and the process. It is very hard to follow virtually an official delivering the controls so we decided not to visit any operators during a remote audit,” he said.

Tellechea Vertiz said challenges included document sharing, internet connectivity, the use of interpretation, people’s attention span, ensuring the relevant people are available and defining when the audit begins.

“We noticed from the beginning that we cannot expect our auditors to work in a remote meeting the same hours as on the ground. On the spot many times working seven to eight hours, no problem, but in a virtual setting on a screen, it is really hard to do meetings over four hours. That’s why most of our meetings are half a day. We saw a reticence by authorities to share documents belonging to operators or to themselves due to security of the sharing platform or other considerations. On the screen, the speed of processing information from documents is much slower. Can we take screenshots of the documents or store data from them?” he said.

“What is clear is that in a remote audit setting we need to put more emphasis on audit preparation and analysis of the data because you need to prepare for your meetings, they have to be targeted or time is wasted. We see, and our auditors tell us, it takes more time from the human resource point of view to carry out a remote audit. Some topics we cover are more suitable for the remote setting, for example, visiting a laboratory is more suitable than visiting a slaughterhouse to see how the official performs the controls.”

DG Sante has done 154 fully remote audits between March 2020 and the end of 2021.

“Since late 2021, we moved to a mainly hybrid, partially remote, blended approach, where we have meetings to establish how the system should work and can it work before we go to the country to verify how the system is implemented to answer the third question,” said Tellechea Vertiz.  

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The event, organized by UNIDO, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment of Australia and the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF), also raised concerns about data ownership, privacy and quality, as well as trust between stakeholders.

Donald A. Prater, associate commissioner for imported food safety at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, said the agency was talking about data and information every day.

“Increasingly, we are using predictive analytic tools, artificial intelligence and machine learning to drive our risk-based resource allocation so in those oversight activities such as inspections and sampling, we want to use data and information to guide us. We have constrained resources, we can’t be in every place all the time so we are looking to do regulatory activities that are the most impactful for public health. We want to go places where there is increased risk,” he said.

Value of providing data
Regulators sit on a mountain of data but industry also has quite a bit and there are other sources, said Prater.

“Data quality is a big issue. One challenge in sharing data and information is ensuring confidentially and creating that environment where the fear of punitive action is minimized, that will help us to get better together. We’re looking at data-sharing platforms, leveraging reliable third-party audits and partnerships with international food safety regulators. How we get data and share it is a challenge. We’re looking at techniques like aggregation, de-identification and anonymization to provide levels of confidentiality but still monitor trends and public health outcomes,” he said. 

Julie Pierce, director of openness, data and digital at the Food Standards Agency, said a lot has been learned through years of experience in the UK.

“Now, we have a different mindset. It is much more about having the right information available at the right time to make a decision. It is about predicting the future, we don’t want to be looking backwards as to what has happened. We learned the importance of data governance, data owners, those who need to use or access the data and understanding those roles. We need to improve accuracy of the data, there is a lot out there, some of it is good and some is not. Where it isn’t good we can improve it. Timeliness of data and getting hold of it as close to real-time as possible is important. We need to get better at overcoming some of the trust issues,” she said. 

“In discussions with businesses we are finding that having standardization, consistency and knowing what is required is valuable. That is one of the roles we can play to make it easier for businesses to share data with ourselves and others. We have to try to demonstrate where the value is downstream if someone invests this piece of data. We need to show the value that can be pushed back upstream. So, I provide this data and get some value back either to help ensure my next production run is safer, or to improve yields or get a better price. Data needs to be an asset rather than it just being an overhead with the regulator demanding data for a certificate.”

Trust in third parties
Friedrich Sövegjarto, of the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), asked as there is a high level of food safety in Europe, is data from private sources needed?

“On the other hand, we have reduced resources and new challenges like sustainability and the problem of food fraud. The EU system means inclusion of self-control data and our risk assessors ask about the possibility of getting this private data to do a better risk assessment. They only have data from official controls. We just started these discussions but we face some challenges. The main one is confidentiality and also trust in data,” he said.

“In Austria, the food safety authority gets data from the food business and there are no private assurance systems in between. Whenever we have an outbreak or some food crisis, the food business is responsible but the second most responsible is the authority. If data is taken from private systems, how can we make sure that we don’t lose our independence?”

Dubai’s digital work
Bobby Krishna, from Dubai’s food safety department in the UAE, spoke about how the region had been using digitalization in recent years.

“Most regulators use data from foodborne illness notifications, surveillance and inspections but these data sets are lagging because you get the information after a problem has occurred. If you want to be preventative you need data that tells you something is going to go wrong,” he said.

“Compliance costs can be bearable if it allows companies to export their food elsewhere or show evidence to get more business but that value is not there for digitalization. Everything on a record is a data source, provided it is in a digital format and not trapped on paper. It is anything that can be converted into a useable decision-making or predictive tool.”

Nima Bahramalian, industrial development expert at UNIDO, said it is key to ask what drives the decision of a food company to record, self-report and share data.

“One theory is the perceived benefits and costs of participating in schemes or adopting a new practice. Whether it will bring additional commercial benefits is not always visible. In developing contexts, the return on investment is not immediate in many cases. Would sharing data result in reducing controls and cost to get assurances and certification? Second, is the perceived ease of using the technology. Digitalization can facilitate access to training materials and certification but it is important that technical assistance creates an environment that makes use of technologies easier.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

In recent years, VR technology has found its way into every part of life. From video games to job training, VR attempts to give users an experience as close to reality as possible. Though to many, this advancement in technology may sound dystopian, researchers across the country are finding ways it can improve our daily lives.

Melha Mellata, associate professor, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Iowa State University, and Graham Redweik, a recent doctoral student in the Interdepartmental Microbiology Graduate Program at Iowa State, are seeing if VR can be used in yet another unconventional way, this time for the birds.

The Iowa State researchers recognized that the increasing demand for cage-free eggs arises from the goal to provide hens with better welfare, particularly in terms of natural behavior. But because the cage-free systems can present challenges, such as injuries and bacterial infections, most laying hens are kept in conventional cages. Mellata saw VR technology, as a way to simulate a free-range environment in laying hen housing.

“There are many challenges associated with free-range production environments for laying hens, including potential for additional injuries, disease and risks from predators,” Mellata said. “However, hens in free-range environments do tend to engage more often in positive, ‘normal’ behaviors that seem to enhance their overall health and immunity.”

The study, “Exposure to a Virtual Environment Induces Biological and Microbiota Changes in Onset-of-Lay Hens,” published in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers of Science, found that showing hens VR scenes of chickens in more natural environments reduced indicators of stress in the hens’ blood and gut microbiota. “It’s intriguing to think that even just showing hens free-range environments can stimulate similar immunological benefits,” Mellate said.

Chickens are highly receptive to visual stimuli. Like their T-rex ancestors, chickens have poor depth perception and recognize objects better when they are moving than stationary. According to the study, this means that environmental factors, such as color, light quality, duration and intensity all affect the feeding behaviors of poultry.

For example, when looking at a video of chicks feeding, the birds will imitate these behaviors and approach their feed more quickly.

The study found that the VR scenes induced biochemical changes related to increased resistance to E. coli bacteria, which poses health risks to poultry and to humans who eat contaminated eggs.

Researchers displayed video projections of chickens in free-range environments. Scenes showed indoor facilities with access to an outdoor fenced scratch area and unfenced open prairie with grasses, shrubs and flowers. A group of 34 hens from commercial poultry flocks was exposed to the videos over five days on all four walls of their housing. The videos were tested during a high-risk period for stress — 15 weeks after hatching, a stage when commercial hens are regularly moved to egg-laying facilities.

The visual-only recordings showed diverse groups of free-range chickens performing activities associated with positive poultry behaviors based on time of day, such as preening, perching, dust-bathing and nesting. Videos were not shown to a control group of the same size and age in the same type of housing.

The researchers analyzed blood, tissues and samples of their intestinal microbiota. Chickens in the treatment group showed several beneficial changes compared to the control group. The differences included lower indicators of stress and increased resistance to Avian Pathogenic E. coli bacteria that can cause sepsis and death in young birds.

“We need more research, but this suggests virtual reality could be a relatively simple tool to improve poultry health in confined environments and improve food safety,” Mellata said. “It could also be a relatively inexpensive way to reduce infections and the need for antibiotics in egg production.”

The team hopes to expand the research to conduct a similar study over a longer time, with more chickens and chickens at different stages, to see if the results can be replicated.

“Future research in collaboration with our partners in veterinary medicine is also needed to investigate the neurochemical mechanisms linking the visual stimuli to changes in the chickens’ intestines,” Mellata said.

The full study can be viewed here.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

To win the first-place awards on the national level, she had to win first-place awards in the organization’s  At-Large division, which included about 20 different states.

One of the articles, “Agrivoltaics Scores Impressive Triple Win, but Some Food Safety Concerns Remain” deals with using solar panels to generate power for houses, barns or even farm equipment but also to grow crops.

The other article, “Super Bugs Bedevil Food” deals with antibiotic resistance, which some human and animal health experts are referring to as a “slow moving pandemic.”

The judge of the first piece about solar power complimented Beecher for writing a well-thought-out and executed article. “The difference between a good writer and a great writer is the ability to take a complicated topic, or one that is completely foreign to the reader, and explain it thoroughly,” said the judge.

The judge of the second piece about antibiotic resistance complimented the article for being well-organized and well-written.

The awards were presented at NFPW’s 2022 conference in Fargo, North Dakota, in June.

About Cookson Beecher: Beecher spent 12 years working as an agriculture and environment reporter for Capital Press, a four-state newspaper that covers agricultural and forestry issues in the Pacific Northwest. Before working at Capital Press, she was the editor of a small-town newspaper, the Courier Times, in Skagit County, WA. She received her bachelors in political science from Hunter College in New York City, and before moving West, she worked for publishing companies in mid-town Manhattan. In the 1970s and ’80s, she and her family lived in North Idaho, where they built a log home and lived a “pioneer life” without running water and electricity for almost 10 years. She currently lives in rural Skagit County, WA.

 About NFPW: NFPW members are professional women and men who adhere to the NFPW Code of Ethics, which calls for upholding truth, objectivity, fairness and freedom of the press, according to the organization’s website. They offer the opportunity to purchase affordable libel insurance. The NFPW Education Fund offers grants for professional development. They provide constructive feedback and accolades through professional communications contests at both the state and national levels. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)

The International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) 2022 Annual Meeting is set for July 31-Aug. 3 in Pittsburgh, PA. 

Pre-Meeting Workshop registration fees are separate from IAFP 2022 registration fees.

Workshop Listing: 

Workshops on Friday, July 29, 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. through Saturday, July 30, 8:30 a.m. – 5 p.m.

• Workshop 1 – Next Generation Sequencing: A Tutorial and Hands-on Workshop to Help Understand This Emerging Technology

Workshops on Saturday, July 30, 8:30 a.m. – 5 p.m.

• Workshop 2 – Microbiological Sampling and Testing: ICMSF Workshop for Risk Managers and Food Business Operators
• Workshop 3 – Mold Contamination in Foods and Food Production Facilities – Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Identification Techniques
• Workshop 4 – Use and Interpretation of the USDA-ARS-Predictive Microbiology Information Portal, Pathogen Modeling Program (PMP) and Combase

Click on any of the workshops for more information or to register.

You can still register for the IAFP 2022 Annual Meeting by clicking here.

About IAFP

The IAFP annual conference provides attendees with information on current and emerging food safety issues; the latest science, innovative solutions to new and recurring problems; and the opportunity to network with thousands of food safety professionals from around the globe. Set in various locations throughout North America, this event has grown over the years to become the leading food safety conference worldwide.

In a usual year, the IAFP Annual Meeting is attended by about 4,000 of the top industry, academic and governmental food safety professionals from six continents. The event is known for the quantity, quality, and diversity of each year’s program; the quality and relevance of exhibits sharing the latest in available technologies; leading experts speaking on a variety of timely topics; and special recognition of outstanding professionals and students for their contributions in the food safety field.

IAFP officials say the non-profit organization is committed to producing a high-quality program, including presentations, general sessions, symposia, poster exhibits and award recognitions. The event also includes a trade show for businesses, governmental and non-gonvernmental entities, and academic institutions.

For a better idea of what the event is like, watch the 2021 IAFP video below.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

Frank Yiannas was speaking at a Health Talks webinar on digitalization, food safety and trade with other panelists from Ghana, India and Ireland.

“The world around us is changing rapidly. Part of this rapid change is that data and information have become digitized and can be shared at the speed of thought. And new and emerging technologies are increasingly taking big and real-time data and putting it to good use,” he said.  

“For example, advances in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, sensor technologies, and blockchain are improving business processes. And the food system is reshaping itself, using these technologies, to meet the expanding global supply chain and the changing needs of consumers.

“I believe the new digital technologies offer the potential to help us predict and prevent food safety problems and better detect and respond to problems when they do occur. Leveraging the power of data is going to allow us to solve some of our food safety challenges that I never thought we could solve.”

Traceability developments

People often think that food traceability is a reactive tool but this isn’t true, said Yiannas.

“In the event of a foodborne outbreak, better traceability leads to better safety by enabling rapid traceback to the source of a contaminated food, the ability to speed up recalls, and better fueling the root cause analyses to understand how the incident happened and prevent reoccurrences again in the future,” he said.

“A digital, traceable food system will be a safer food system. But we, as food safety professionals and regulators have to be very aware, we can’t create a digital divide. If we do this right, it will allow small and medium enterprises to compete better with large institutions.”

The FDA is set to publish a final rule on food traceability in November 2022 and held a no or low-cost technology traceability challenge in 2021 that received 90 submissions and had 12 winners from the United States, Canada, and New Zealand.

Yiannas also spoke about a data analysis tool called 21 Forward.

“Unleashing the power of data is an overarching goal in FDA’s work to modernize food safety. We are now using this tool in the infant formula crisis that we are seeing in the United States with shortages. Analyzing high volumes of data is enabled by the scalability of this platform. This in turn has helped guide discussions with industry on how to increase production of various types of infant formulas,” he said.

“Better food safety begins and ends with better data. We have a lot of food safety data, it was often kept on paper but now we have these new tools that can bridge the gap between data and converting that into information.”

Predictions and seafood pilot

FDA is working with the private sector to create public-private data trusts to share data better, said Yiannas.

“In the U.S., we’ve seen repeated outbreaks with fresh leafy greens and there’s an organization called Western Growers that is doing just that. Getting the private sector to share all the data they have on fresh leafy greens, anonymously, is a great example of work that will strengthen predictive capabilities and inform risk-management decisions,” he said.

“It is clear that the FDA and food producers should also be looking at ways to tap robust, high quality data sources to strengthen our predictive analytics. We are continuing to explore the use of artificial intelligence, specifically machine learning, in a pilot designed to strengthen our ability to predict which shipments of imported seafood pose the greatest risk of violation. We are in the third phase of the pilot.

“Initial findings suggest that machine learning could greatly increase the likelihood of identifying a shipment containing potentially contaminated products. Doubling or tripling the ability to predict which shipments potentially are violative through the screening process is expected to result in much more effective utilization of resources to examine, sample, and test products at the port of entry.”

Irish perspective

Orla Moore, from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, said digitalization has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We’ve seen pop up kitchens, dark kitchens and new businesses, some registered and some unregistered, emerge during COVID and Brexit. We’ve seen changes in how people order food and get food delivered,” she said.

Applications of digital technologies include remote auditing, e-learning, horizon scanning, early warning systems, licensing and registration and e-certification for health certificates.

“Artificial intelligence makes for quick, easy and in some cases cheap, use of data and information. It reduces bias out of decision making quite often. A few examples are risk assessment, quality control, predictive modelling and hygiene monitoring of equipment,” said Moore.

“The key benefit with blockchain is the transparency, it is secure in that the files can’t be edited, so from an audit point of view it is a solid system. One of the main difficulties is that everyone along the supply chain has to adopt and use it.”

Moore also spoke about seeking out emerging threats and risks through horizon scanning.

“We want to be aware of the next thing that is going to happen. It boils down to data mining tools. We have an emerging risk screening group that meets quarterly, and there could be sub-groups if there are emerging threats. This is to acquire data, monitor social media platform and publications,” she said.

“The challenges of digitalisation are the financial cost or the perceived cost to businesses, a lack of information, training and resources, fragmentation in governance or regulatory frameworks, confidentiality and data protection, access, connectivity, data quality and ownership of the data. There is quite a difference in the level of adoption of digitalization across organizations, industries and countries. Whatever system is used by businesses they must be able to provide information to authorities on demand. Digitalization has already happened, everyone is trying to get on board, so they are not left behind.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

A project assessed the feasibility of using sensor technologies and advanced data analytics for poultry inspection. It focused on post-mortem inspection and included technologies such as visual, near-infrared, infrared and hyperspectral, X-ray and ultrasonic as well as IT-enabled benefits.

Poultry is the top consumed meat in the UK. Inspection is manual and challenging because of the short time to check each bird and the constant level of concentration required. Human error is possible and it is subjective based on opinion and experience of the meat inspector.

The project team visited a food facility in November 2019. This site uses optical imaging and X-ray in primary poultry processing. These technologies are to detect hock burn, to grade the carcass or to find foreign bodies in final products. The factory slaughters 250,000 birds a day and has two full-time meat inspectors working on each of their two processing lines.

Replace or complement existing methods
The data capture method for rejections is currently done manually using clipboards and requires repeated data entry, according to the report published by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

Five IT points identified included any system must be easy to use, reliable, robust, be well-understood and needs to solve a problem.

Concerns were raised based on previous failed attempts to install new technology, which added complexity for the inspector. A fear from meat inspectors was that the technology must be at least as reliable as the person, many of whom have decades of experience. Technologies could be used alongside the current inspector role to reduce the workforce burden.

Plants in which these technologies are being installed are regularly cleaned using corrosive chemicals and large quantities of water. Depending on where it is fitted, there may be variations in environmental conditions such as humidity and temperature.

Poultry processors operate in a competitive sector with tight margins. Any changes to timings or stopping the production line can mean the loss of vast quantities of product.

Other factors include concerns about job security, the impact on day-to-day operations, suitable training and an understanding of what data is needed and how it might inform actions.

Potential drawbacks and benefits
Seven problems were identified such as limitation of technology, the multiple stakeholders involved, retailer influence, legal issues and a lack of time for experimentation.

Despite technology, a meat inspector would be needed to identify other conditions or to remove birds from the line and place them in the correct category bin. Automating this process would require a major investment in factory redesign. Regulator, food firm, retailer and consumer needs, concerns, and drivers do not always align, according to the research.

There are likely to be legal issues around who has responsibility for food safety, technology, and the data and changes to roles would require legislation to be changed.

Artificial intelligence, sensor and data analytic technologies would need to be tested before implementation to minimize disruption to the food firm. There are multiple stakeholders involved in the production process, making things complex. This may present challenges for achieving agreed standards for data access and governance, responsibility and liability for automated decisions, and committing financial resources.

Business benefits of new technology would include improved data usage and reliable measurements in real-time. Data could be shared with farms to allow earlier identification of issues and help maintain retailer trust.

Automation of the inspection process may reduce human error where healthy birds are incorrectly rejected or decrease the instances of retailers refusing products where poor quality birds have been missed. Improving accuracy of inspection will save time and money.

The project found deep learning could identify abnormal color from carcass images with a sufficient number of training images, but more efficient data labeling methods are required. However, some results from models would lead to acceptable carcasses being classed as unacceptable.

Imaging and classification could be an initial screen to identify carcasses where a condition may be present and these could be highlighted to an inspector for a more detailed look and decision.

Hyperspectral optical and X-ray imaging methods were also able to identify quality issues such as wooden breast and white stripe in chicken breasts but cost could be a barrier to adoption.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

In 2021 the United States of America experienced cybersecurity ransomware attacks on industry i.e., the Colonial Oil Company and Pilgrim’s Pride of JBS. Does your IT department and top management have your critical food safety and supply data protected from hacking?  The 2022 Food Safety Summit will provide the latest input from some of the leading experts of the federal government, the cybersecurity industry, and universities to define threats and preventive controls.  

Marcus Sachs, Deputy Director for Research at Auburn University’s McCrary Institute for Cyber and Critical Infrastructure Security, will provide a real world characterization on the cyber threat for the U.S. and its relevance to the food industry. Food and agriculture are critical infrastructures and are responsible not only for the food supply, but also for the production and distribution of non-food farm products such as fiber, oils, and services such as watershed protection, as well as the production of animal feed.  Both sectors have consolidated over the past two decades. The food chain is highly complex and must therefore continually guard against cascading effects, which can cause disruptions to cross interlocking support critical infrastructures, such as the power grid and water/sewage. In this way, a cyber-event can rapidly become a power grid event, which in turn rapidly becomes a food systems and water event — all at the speed of electrons across the cyber web.

As the food and sgriculture sectors become more digitally connected and automated, new sources and types of evolving threats are sure to occur.  Our nation’s adversaries are increasingly more sophisticated. Of particular concern are the kinds of threats that can be brought to bear by malevolent actors, below the threshold of actual warfare. Food and agriculture sectors need to become both more vigilant and self-reliant. Recent ransomware and other types of cyberattacks have made clear that our nation’s adversaries consider the food and agriculture sectors as a target of opportunity for exploitation. Food safety, food defense and cyber security are now inextricably intertwined and will have to be dealt with comprehensively through robust planning and resilient operations.  In this way our food supply can continue to remain the safest, most diverse, and abundant food supply possible.

Joshua Corman, former Chief Strategist for the CISA COVID Task Force, Cybersecurity, and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Department of Homeland Security, will address “Cybersecurity and the risk it presents to the food industry, especially regarding food safety.” During the past 18 months, we’ve seen successful hacking compromises of: the water we drink, the food we put on our tables, the oil and gas that fuels our cars and our homes and the timely availability of patient care — during a pandemic.  He will review recent cybersecurity exposures and compromises to the sector — including food safety, supply chains, agri-tech, manufacturing, water, and other critical dependencies to the nation’s food supply. We will also discuss some recent and upcoming legislation, regulations, and standards — so that this community is best prepared to understand and integrate some uncomfortable truths. Since so many in this sector are “Target Rich; Cyber Poor,” he will also outline the free and/or tax-payer-funded services and publications regarding pragmatic starting points — to meet you where you are and help you to identify and buy down risk.

Dr. John Spink, Director and Assistant Professor at Michigan State University, will provide an overview of the cybersecurity threat and current ISO 22000 standards. In 2018 the ISO 22000 standard was updated to acknowledge “external issues” including “cybersecurity and food fraud.” But what is cybersecurity?  Why is cybersecurity included in the same concept as food fraud? Do they intend to present two separate topics of cybersecurity and food fraud or both together in cybersecurity and food fraud? Does it matter? The ISO 22000 direction builds upon ISO 28000 Supply Chain Security, ISO 27000 Information Security and the specifically ISO 27032 Cybersecurity.  

Craig Henry, Food Safety Consultant for Intro Inc., will moderate the two-part workshop on May 10 at the Food Safety Summit taking place at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center in Rosemont, IL. The first part of the workshop is set for 12:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. with presentations from the various speakers.  The second part of the session is set for 3 p.m. – 5 p.m. with a question and answer session with the full panel of cybersecurity experts.  For more information, visit www.foodsafetysummit.com. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The first report looks at the impact of evolving food service business models and online providers on food safety and regulation. It covers third-party platforms for food ordering, online marketplaces, dark kitchens, direct-to-consumer options and rapid delivery solutions.

As digital platforms and retailers move into new market areas, the responsibilities for food safety and consumer protection are becoming blurred, found the analysis by the University of Cambridge.

The report recommends that FSA adopt a proactive anticipatory role in supporting industry to include food safety from the start of these novel business models.

Changing situation
With so many new entrants and ad-hoc traders in the market, often with only a small virtual presence and operating from dark or home kitchens, monitoring and oversight is challenging, according to the report. Even the main online ordering and delivery platforms are failing to fulfill requirements such as providing full details on ingredients, nutrition, and allergens.

The risk of uncertified vendors, particularly small and local ones, operating under the radar of FSA and local authorities is high in certain parts of the system and raises food safety, fraud and food crime concerns. If producers use direct to consumer channels, they may get away with selling food without a registration or compliance with food hygiene ratings.

The increasing complexity of supply chain networks increases the likelihood of risks, and the potential for incidents at a small part of the chain to have far reaching consequences, according to the report. Risk may come from unregistered or fraudulent vendors or from selling food without information on its origin, ingredients or allergens.

Dark kitchens, web-based delivery platforms, and online food and general marketplaces are considered to have a high potential to negatively impact food safety. Reasons include aggregation of deliveries to optimize productivity may pose cross-contamination risks and a dark kitchen may process 2,000 meals per day so there is a risk of an incident affecting a large number of consumers, the report states.

Medium impact areas are home kitchens, and smaller direct-to-consumer producers and processors, and social media marketplaces and community food sharing platforms for consumer-to-consumer exchanges.

Researchers suggest changing the status of food platforms from technology companies to food business operators and shifting responsibility from vendors that are listed on platforms to the platforms themselves for issues such as allergens and hygiene ratings.

Understanding businesses
The second report found digital platforms in the food and drink industry have evolved rapidly. Consumers are increasingly buying food via third-party intermediaries, known as aggregators, from a range of vendors.

Digital platforms are relatively new, with many launching in the past decade. This means there is a knowledge gap in government about how they work and impact the landscape in which they operate, according to the analysis.

Product, technology and data company, Foundry4 researched digital platforms within the food sector to help the FSA to make informed decisions.

It found platforms such as Just Eat, Deliveroo and Uber Eats can have an influence, such as specifying minimum food hygiene rating requirements, for vendors.

However, some businesses don’t own the assets being exchanged on their platform. This means they differ from the type of companies operating when the current food regulatory system was designed.

The direct-to-consumer model skips a step by selling food products directly to the public online, rather than via a retailer or physical store.

Redistribution platforms add a step, by sharing foods after they have already been on sale in a store. This can add complexity to traceability and accountability, according to the report.

The report found barriers to entering the food market have been lowered. A restaurant can be set up on an on-demand delivery platform in less than a week. They can hire space from a dark or ghost kitchen on an hourly basis, and use the staff and equipment.

This means, for consumers, it can be difficult to see how the food has reached them. For example, a virtual brand might not have a visible presence so it’s not clear where the food was prepared.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

EU-China-Safe included 16 partners from 11 EU countries and 17 participants from China such as government bodies, industry and research institutes.

Queen’s University Belfast coordinated efforts with help from the EU’s Joint Research Centre, Wageningen University, Nofima, Fera Science, Nestlé, Danone, China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment, Hong Kong Polytechnic University and others.

Goals were to enhance food safety, deter food fraud, restore consumer confidence, deliver mutual recognition of data and standards and support agri-food trade between Europe and China.

Problems have dented public trust
Speaking at an event marking the end of the project, professor Chris Elliott, from Queen’s University Belfast, said trade between Europe and China is growing year on year and delivering safe and authentic food has never been more important.

“We are very aware that, in the EU and China, consumer trust in industry and regulatory authorities has been damaged by a large number of accidental and deliberate food contamination and adulteration incidents. If you think about the melamine crisis in China, the horse meat scandal in Europe, gutter oil in China, fipronil in Europe, these are very high profile crises that served to undermine the confidence of consumers in our food systems in China and Europe,” he said.

“Whenever we have these types of issues the ability to import from Europe to China and export from China to Europe are hampered. A lot of those issues are around safety, traceability, regulation and fraud. These are the things we have tried to find some impactful solutions to.”

The Horizon 2020 project received almost €5 million ($5.5 million) in EU funding and an application was made to continue efforts but this was unsuccessful.

Elliott said teams had used blockchain technology, studied digital traceability and the digitalization of supply chains.

“We looked at mapping value chains and a forensic type analysis looking at discrepancies for detecting fraud. In terms of combatting fraud we had to look at the emerging technologies, some of them lab-based and others field-based, to find out what could deliver meaningful results that could be relied upon. We did this over a range of foods and beverages from infant formula, wine, meats and organic produce,” he said.

“We looked at a number of accidental chemicals that can enter into food supply chains, like nitrates and chlorates, veterinary drugs, feed additives, pesticides and food contact materials. We also looked at microbiological contamination that could cause regulatory and food safety issues.”

Examples of project work
Outputs include case studies on the wine chain from Europe to China, authenticity of organic food products, a virtual laboratory, a new standard on nitrofuran analysis, 70 peer-reviewed publications and training of more than 300 people.

A lot of work was around scientific methodologies but there was also a social science component, said Elliott.

“This was about identifying the different ways we could communicate with consumers in China and Europe and some of the expectations and barriers in trying to build trust. We looked at things we could identify early and develop mitigation strategies for before they became actual impediments to trade,” he said.

“Another major aim was to try to build confidence between regulatory laboratories and bodies in EU and China so that there was a better way these labs could work together and share information to try and harmonize analytical methods and standards. We set out to create a virtual lab to look at major food incidents.”

Five work packages focused on traceability, authenticity, food safety, developing the EU China laboratory network and knowledge transfer and training.

Dr. Carsten Fauhl-Hassek, from the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), presented a case study on the wine chain from Europe to China. This included examining 50 wines with European labelling, purchased on the Chinese market, for fraud. Results were published in the journal Food Additives and Contaminants: Part A in 2021.

Jana Hajslova, of the University of Chemistry and Technology in Prague, talked about authentication strategies for organic foods and judging deliberate or accidental contamination with pesticides.

Seamus Fanning, from the University College Dublin, gave an overview of the virtual lab and Moira Dean, of Queen’s University Belfast, revealed results from two consumer surveys on trust in infant formula and processed garlic in Europe and China.

Gemma Regan, from Teagasc, talked attendees through a faster and more sensitive method for nitrofuran analysis. Nitrofuran antibiotics were used to treat bacterial infections in livestock but are now banned in Europe and the U.S.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

It is scheduled for June 21-22, at the Hyatt Regency at La Jolla, in San Diego, CA. 

A full list of funded research through 2021 can be found here. 2022 research grants will be announced at the symposium. The 2021 grants were:

RFP Year	Title	Grant Amount	Principal Investigator	PI Institution	Co-Investigator(s)	Start/End Date	Resources
2021	AFECCT: Assessing filtration efficacy for Cyclospora control	$221,468	Benjamin Rosenthal, S.D.	USDA – ARS	Jitender P. Dubey, M.V.Sc., Ph.D., Mark C. Jenkins, Ph.D., Manan Sharma, Ph.D., Kalmia E. Kniel, Ph.D.	1/1/2022 – 12/31/2023
2021	Assessing Romaine lettuce “Forward Processing” for potential impacts on EHEC growth, antimicrobial susceptibility, and infectivity	$399,743	Xiangwu Nou, Ph.D	USDA – ARS	Yaguang Luo, Ph.D., Patricia Millner, Ph. D., Shirley Micallef, Ph.D.	1/1/2022 – 12/31/2023
2021	Assessing the potential for production practices to impact dry bulb onion safety	$388,095	Joy Waite-Cusic, Ph.D.	Oregon State University	Stuart Reitz, Ph.D., Faith Critzer, Ph.D., Tim Waters, Ph.D., Linda J. Harris, Ph.D.	1/1/2022 – 12/31/2023
2021	Cross-contamination risks in dry environments	$208,808	Nitin Nitin, Ph.D.	University of California, Davis	Linda J. Harris, Ph.D.	1/1/2022 – 12/31/2023
2021	Cyclospora cayetanensis monitoring in agricultural water	$159,032	Lia Stanciu-Gregory, Ph.D.	Purdue University	Amanda Deering, Ph.D.	1/1/2022 – 12/31/2023
2021	Microbial characterization of irrigation waters using rapid, inexpensive and portable next generation sequencing technologies	$322,942	Kerry Cooper, Ph.D.	University of Arizona	Kelly Bright, Ph.D., Channah Rock, Ph.D., Walter Betancourt, Ph.D.	1/1/2022 – 12/31/2023
2021	Practical application of superheated steam to harvesting, processing, and produce packing tools and equipment	$396,178	Abby Snyder, Ph.D.	Cornell University	V.M. Balasubramaniam, Ph.D.	1/1/2022 – 12/31/2023
2021	Quantifying risk associated with changes in EHEC physiology during post-harvest pre-processing stages of leafy green production	$328,442	Teresa Bergholz, Ph.D.	Michigan State University	Jade Mitchell, Ph.D.	1/1/2022 – 12/31/2023
2021	Strategic approaches to mitigate Salmonella contamination of bulb onions	$408,522	Vijay Joshi, Ph.D.	Texas A&M AgriLife Research	Castillo Alejandro, Ph.D., Daniel Leskovar, Ph.D., Subas Malla, Ph.D.	1/1/2022 – 12/31/2023
2021	Survival of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella on surfaces found in the dry packinghouse environment and effectiveness of dry-cleaning processes on pathogen reduction	$190,272	Paul L. Dawson, Ph.D.	Clemson University	Kay Cooksey, Ph.D.	1/1/2022 – 12/31/2022
2021	Towards a holistic assessment of the food-safety risks imposed by wild birds	$370,123	Daniel Karp, Ph.D.	University of California, Davis	Jeffery McGarvey, Ph.D.	1/1/2022 – 12/31/2023
2021	Validation study for the tree-fruit industry: effective strategies to sanitize harvest bins and picking bags	$262,648	Valentina Trinetta, Ph.D.	Kansas State University	Faith Critzer, Ph.D., Umut Yucel, Ph.D., Manreet Bhullar, Ph.D., Londa Nwadike, Ph.D.	1/1/2022 – 12/31/2023

For more information or to register, visit the CPS Research Symposium event page.

Registration options

There is a $25 administrative processing fee for any cancellation or refund. Full registration refund is guaranteed up to April 30. A 50 percent refund willbe given from May 1 – June 14. Registrations received after June 14 are non-refundable.

About CPS
The Center for Produce Safety is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. CPS is a collaborative partnership that leverages the combined expertise of industry, government and the scientific and academic communities to focus on providing research needed to continually enhance food safety. This level of collaboration allows CPS to fill the knowledge gaps on produce food safety and address both research priorities and immediate industry needs.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The awards will be presented at IAFP’s annual conference, which is set for July 31 – Aug. 3 in Pittsburgh, PA.

The categories range from the Black Pearl Award — the association’s top award — for corporate excellence in food safety to travel scholarships for food safety students who want to attend the IAFP annual conference.

Those submitting nominations are not required to be an IAFP member for most of the awards. Nominations for all awards, unless otherwise indicated, are due by Feb.15, 2022, and can be completed through the IAFP website.

The association encourages its members to apply for the travel expense awards for employees of state or provincial health or agricultural departments in North America. There is also an IAFP travel award for food safety professionals in a country with a developing economy to attend the IAFP annual meeting and conference. Student travel scholarship criteria is available on the IAFP students’ page.

Some of the awards scheduled to be presented in 2022 are:

Black Pearl Award

Award Showcasing the Black Pearl. Presented in recognition of a company’s outstanding achievement in corporate excellence in food safety and quality. Sponsored by: F&H Food Equipment Company. 2021 Recipient: Mondelḕz International

Fellows Award

Presented to member(s) who have contributed to IAFP and its affiliates with distinction over an extended period of time. 2021 Recipient: Jianghong Meng

President’s Lifetime Achievement Award

Given at the discretion of the IAFP president to recognize an individual who has made a lasting impact on “Advancing Food Safety Worldwide” through a lifetime of professional achievement in food protection. 2021 Recipient: Carl Custer

Honorary Life Membership Award

The Honorary Life Membership Award recognizes IAFP members for their dedication to the high ideals and objectives of the International Association for Food Protection and for dedicated service to the Association. 2021 Recipients: Kenneth Anderson, Mickey Parish, Judy Greig, F. Tracy Schonrock, Edward Wellmeyer.

Harry Haverland Citation Award

$2,500 honorarium presented to an individual for years of devotion to the ideals and objectives of IAFP. Sponsored by Eurofins. 2021 Recipient: Dale A. Grinstead

Food Safety Innovation Award

$2,500 honorarium presented to an individual or organization for creating a new idea, practice, or product that has had a positive impact on food safety, thus, improving public health, and the quality of life. Sponsored by: Walmart. 2021 Recipient: Hygiena

International Leadership Award

$2,000 Honorarium and reimbursement to attend IAFP 2022. Presented to an individual for dedication to the high ideals and objectives of IAFP and for promotion of the mission of the Association in countries outside of the United States and Canada. Sponsored by: Food Safety Net Services (FSNS). 2021 Recipient: Terence L. T. Lau

Food Safety Award

$2,000 Honorarium. This award alternates between individuals and groups or organizations. In 2022, the award will be presented to a group or organization for highly significant food safety development or in recognition of a long history of outstanding contributions to food safety. Sponsored by: Consumer Brands Association (CBA). 2021 Recipient: The Center for Produce Safety

Frozen Food Foundation Freezing Research Award

$2,000 Honorarium. Presented to an individual, group or organization for preeminence and outstanding contributions in research that impacts food safety attributes of freezing. Sponsored by: Frozen Food Foundation. 2021 Recipient: Shyam Sablani

Institut Merieux Young Investigator Award in Antimicrobial Resistance

Payment of €10,000 to support further research work by the laureate. Presented at the IAFP Annual Meeting to an active IAFP Member who has shown outstanding ability and professional promise as a researcher in food microbiology/food safety, focusing on antimicrobial resistance. Sponsored by: Institut Merieux. 2021 Recipient: Laura Carroll

Maurice Weber Laboratorian Award

$2,000 Honorarium. Presented to an individual for outstanding contributions in the laboratory, recognizing a commitment to the development of innovative and practical analytical approaches in support of food safety. Sponsored by: The Fred and Elizabeth Weber Trust. 2021 Recipient: Panagiotis N. Skandamis

Larry Beuchat Young Researcher Award

$2,000 Honorarium. Presented to a young researcher who has shown outstanding ability and professional promise in the early years of their career. Sponsored by: bioMérieux Inc. 2021 Recipient: Laura K. Strawn

James M. Jay Diversity in Food Safety Award

Recognizes an active IAFP Member who has made significant contributions toward fostering diversity within food safety-related careers, activities, or research. The award consists of a plaque and a $2,500 honorarium. Sponsored by: 3M Food Safety. 2021 Recipient: Armitra Jackson-Davis

Ewen C.D. Todd Control of Foodborne Illness Award

$1,500 Honorarium. Presented to an individual for dedicated and exceptional contributions to the reduction of risks to foodborne illness. Sponsored by: Marler Clark Attorneys at Law. 2021 Recipient: Craig W. Hedberg

Sanitarian Award

$1,500 Honorarium. Presented to an individual for outstanding service to the public, IAFP and the profession of the Sanitarian. Sponsored by Ecolab Inc.: 2021 Recipient: Richard Brouillette

Elmer Marth Educator Award

$1,500 Honorarium. Presented to an individual for outstanding service to the public, IAFP and the arena of education in food safety and food protection. Sponsored by: Nelson-Jameson, Inc. 2021 Recipient: Elizabeth A. Bihn

Harold Barnum Industry Award

$1,500 Honorarium. Presented to an individual for outstanding service to the public, IAFP and the food industry. Sponsored by: MERCK Animal Health. 2021 Recipient: Melanie J. Neumann

Travel Award for Food Safety Professionals in a Country with a Developing Economy

Travel funds to attend the annual meeting of the International Association for Food Protection. Presented to food safety professionals working full-time in the field of food safety in a country with a developing economy. Sponsored by: IAFP Foundation. 2021 Recipients: Kubir Nath Bhattarai, Titilayo Falade, Amin Olaimat.

Travel Award for Health or Agricultural Department Employees in North America

Travel funds to attend the annual meeting of the International Association for Food Protection. Presented to city, county, state, or provincial health or agricultural department employees (epidemiologists, food and molecular microbiologists, and environmental health specialists) working in North America. Sponsored by: IAFP Foundation. 2021 Recipient: Jennifer Eberly

Student Travel Scholarship

Travel funds to attend the annual meeting of the International Association for Food Protection. IAFP recognizes that students from around the world are the future leaders in the field of food safety. Since 2004, the IAFP Foundation has been dedicated to enhancing the career potential of exceptional students through the annual IAFP Student Travel Scholarship Program. Sponsored by: IAFP Foundation. 2021 Recipients: Jessica Brown, Shiyu Cai, Bienvenido Cortes, Devin Daeschel, Adwoa Dankwa, Minh Duong, Marina Girbal, Sarah L. Jones, Karuna Kharel, Minji Kim, Brenda Moraa Kimang’a, Xingchen Liu, Ajay Mittal, Owade Joshua Ombaka, Solomon Rajkumar Racharla, Keshnee Reega, Anna Townsend, Joseph Wambui, Christina Wormald, Jiyoon Yi.

Peanut Proud Student Scholarship Award

Provides a $2,000 academic scholarship and travel funding for a U.S. graduate student in the field of food microbiology — and specifically in the area of and peanut butter food safety — to attend the annual meeting. Peanut Proud is a nonprofit industry organization based in Georgia. The deadline to apply for this scholarship is Friday, April 30, 2021. Sponsored by: Peanut Proud. 2021 Recipient: Daniel Vega

J. Mac Goepfert Developing Scientists Awards

Presented to students (enrolled or recent graduates) in the field of food safety research at accredited universities or colleges. Qualified individuals may enter either the technical or poster competition. Sponsored by: IAFP Foundation.

Undergraduate Student Award Competition

Presented to two undergraduate students at accredited universities or colleges who have entered this poster competition, based on the criteria. Sponsored by: IAFP Foundation

Samuel J. Crumbine Award

From 1955 to 1966 two awards were given: the first for general environmental health, the second for food protection. From 1968 to 1973, the award was suspended because of a general lack of innovation in food protection programs during that period. The award is sponsored by the Conference for Food Protection (CFP), in cooperation with the American Academy of Sanitarians, American Public Health Association, Association of Food and Drug Officials, Food Marketing Institute, Foodservice Packaging Institute, International Association for Food Protection, National Association of County & City Health Officials, National Environmental Health Association, National Restaurant Association, NSF International, and Underwriters Laboratories. 2021 Recipient: Washoe County Health District 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

John Rowley, vice president of NSF International’s Global Food Division, recently discussed his views on 2022 trends in the food industry, with a focus on food safety issues. NSF specializes in food safety training, testing, consulting and other services.

Rowley said all segments of the supply chain, from producers through retailers and restaurants, continue to shift to meet challenges, even as the pandemic has led to staffing woes and exacerbated supply chain gridlock.

The major trends anticipated for the industry, according to Rowley, include:

• Rising demand for home delivery;
• Staffing crisis;
• Opportunities to cut food waste; and
• Sustainability.

Knock Knock. Who’s there? Dinner
As coronavirus variants continue to curb dining at restaurants and elevate uncertainty in the sector, home meal delivery will remain popular in 2022, Rowley said. That includes traditional restaurants, pop-ups and ghost kitchens. An NSF survey released this month highlights pandemic concerns among quick service restaurant employees and decision makers across the globe.

According to the survey of almost 700 people, 38 percent of poll respondents said they feel added pressure to prepare food faster. NSF reported 22 percent said home delivery has increased food risks.

Rowley said foodservice establishments, regardless of their business models, have an obligation to serve quality, safe food. That includes preparation and how food is treated during transportation to the consumer, or the “post-order supply chain,” as Rowley calls it.

“As an industry, we need to help these companies be successful, help them have a opportunity to be successful so the consumer can get a satisfactory product,” Rowley said.

Now Hiring
A staffing crisis in the foodservice and other industries threatens recruitment and retention, he said. 

“The staffing shortages are a fundamental issue, but what are the unintended consequences?” Rowley said, pointing out that retail and foodservice outlets are under pressure to perform with pre-pandemic hours of operation, staffing and services.

“Does that put food safety to the fore?” he said.

The issue won’t disappear once the pandemic is over — however that’s decreed — and Rowley said efforts need to focus on a campaign to promote food safety careers at the college level.

“I think as an industry we have to make sure this (food safety) is seen as an interesting job and a critical role for the industry,” he said. “We need to do a better job marketing that, working together to make it a satisfactory and enjoyable career for those who do it.”

Rowley said long-time food safety professionals are choosing to retire from the industry as the pandemic continues. Their collective institutional knowledge is critical to retain, he said.

Waste Not … Waste Not
The food industry has taken great strides in recent years to curb food waste, from “upcycling” expired but edible food to selling “ugly” produce that doesn’t fit industry standards. This year’s food waste issue will be ensuring the failing supply chain doesn’t escalate a food safety concern to food wastage, Rowley said.

“When food gets delayed in transportation, it puts pressure on the storage and distribution quality controls,” he said. “ … If the food safety standards are good, it’s not really a food safety issue. It becomes more of a food wastage issue.”

In the early days of the pandemic, some retailers and foodservice operators began sourcing from closer suppliers. One example are the Eastern U.S. retailers that bought leafy greens from nearby small hydroponic indoor farms. Switching to local growers is trend that continues, he said.

Sustainability, as a Trend, Sustains
As more corporations chart their sustainability programs and release annual reports showcasing those steps, sustainability programs are gaining steam in every food sector. Rowley said sustainability is a huge metric to measure the performance of a company, along with food safety and finances.

“As we go forward, companies need to be measured on not just traditional financial metrics, which tend to be the core measurement of a company’s performance. I think we should elevate the importance of sustainability,” he said.

Post-Pandemic View
Rowley cautions companies against reverting to pre-pandemic trends once life returns to “more normal,” without assessing the business climate first.

“I think when the crisis is over, it doesn’t mean these trends will — or should — stop. Never waste a good crisis, if there is good that can come out of it.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Scientists at Nofima found it was possible to detect Listeria in a sample after only four hours of enrichment using a handheld sequencing device called MinION from Oxford Nanopore Technologies. This is 20 hours faster than the traditional enrichment method to look for the pathogen.

However, the analysis is not quantitative and cannot discriminate between live and dead bacteria.

Other microorganisms from the processing environment can be detected at the same time when using the sequencing approach. This is cost effective and provides information on the bigger microbiological picture in a food production plant, said researchers.

Scientists used seven different Listeria monocytogenes sequence types isolated from meat processing environments with and without background microbiota such as other Listeria species and non-Listeria strains, according to the study published in the journal ASM.

Quick result needed
Eva Wagner, from Nofima, said the team investigated and compared different sequencing technologies to get quicker results on the presence or absence of Listeria in a sample.

“We were also interested in whether the sequencing method is able to differentiate between distinct Listeria types. A result on whether or not Listeria was present in a sample should ideally be provided before the start of the next work day in order for countermeasures to be implemented. It is especially important that equipment and surfaces, on which Listeria was detected, are thoroughly cleaned and disinfected,” she said.

The traditional enrichment method to detect Listeria monocytogenes involves cultivating a sample taken from the processing environment or a food product in a selective medium that favors growth of the bacterium.

This process can take from 24 hours to several days while production continues. This means that food products can be contaminated and people could be infected with Listeria during the testing process.

Nofima researcher Birgitte Moen said the next step is to collect samples from industry and test the method with them.

Providing more detail
Food producers can receive results on whether or not Listeria was detected in the sample but the current method is not always able to distinguish between similar Listeria strains.

Use of Illumina MiSeq sequencing allowed scientists to predict the presence of co-occurring Listeria monocytogenes strains.

Routine application of the approach could lead to industry actions that prevent contamination and subsequent recalls and food destruction, economic and reputational losses, and listeriosis cases.

“New sequencing technologies are used to determine the genetic code (DNA) and thus identify microorganisms. This will make today’s extensive control operations in the food industry faster, more precise and more cost effective,” said Annette Fagerlund.

Fagerlund is a researcher at Nofima and leads PathoSeq, a three-year project which runs until March 2023. The goal is to help Norwegian food producers to establish faster, more cost effective and targeted control routines for foodborne pathogens.

Another Nofima project, called Future Food Control, is looking at food safety, reducing food waste and the use of plastic packaging.

It runs until the end of 2024 and involves source tracking of pathogens, spoilage bacteria and fungi in production facilities and effective corrective actions with a focus on raw chicken and perishable, plant-based foods.

Packaging systems and storage conditions will be evaluated using recycled or renewable packaging materials without compromising safety, shelf life or having a negative impact on food waste.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

If the pandemic has taught us anything it is that the future is impossible to predict. The same is true with food safety, but there are several trends that are anticipated to continue in 2022. 

Along with the trends, there are goals for 2022 and the STOP Foodborne Illness organization has developed a wish list that touches on a few of them. The non-profit group includes family members of foodborne illness victims and former government officials, among others in the food safety arena.

Three points STOP is pushing for in 2022:

• Requiring food handler permits for all meal delivery drivers;
• Training FDA inspectors on modern food safety culture practices; and
• Consumer advocacy to get more industry leaders to back improved food safety regulations.

The organization also has three points it refers to as “fails” from 2021 that it hopes will be addressed this year:

• More people are handling our food than before — through ghost kitchens, delivery services, etc.;
• 100 percent of all food recalls are not public, only 215 known food recalls in 2021 as of mid-December; and
• The industry and U.S. government need to move faster to implement modern Salmonella prevention policies.

The Salmonella situation
The topic of Salmonella prevention policies came to the forefront in 2021 when STOP, individuals, and groups including Consumer Reports, filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture asking the agency to declare certain strains of Salmonella as adulterants. When something is declared an adulterant it means it is not fit for human consumption and cannot be sold.

Chicken and other poultry are at the center of the Salmonella battle, but changes could also impact beef, pork, and other products regulated by the USDA. In late 2021 the USDA indicated it was reviewing the citizen petition but did not say when action might be taken.

In the late 1990s, a similar effort regarding certain strains of E. coli resulted in that pathogen being declared an adulterant, thus making it illegal to sell beef and other products contaminated with it. That action came as a direct result of the deadly 1993 E. coli outbreak traced to hamburgers sold by Jack in the Box restaurants.

“In January 2021 Stop Foodborne Illness (STOP), and our initial coalition partners, petitioned the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) to modernize poultry inspection performance standards. We are calling for them to be enforceable, risk-based, science-based, and directly linked to public health outcomes,” according to a statement from STOP. 

“It is noteworthy that the coalition expanded to include academia, additional consumer advocacy groups, STOP constituent advocates, former senior regulatory officials, and four of the largest poultry producers in the United States — Butterball LLC, Wayne Farms LLC, Perdue Farms, and Tyson Foods. This partnership called upon USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to support the call to action.  

“In October (2021), Secretary Vilsack made an official announcement that a review and update of the Salmonella standards is to be made a priority. Now, with engagement by Deputy Undersecretary for Food Safety Sandra Eskin and her team, we are communicating and working to move toward meaningful change.”

Eskin told the publication Meat & Poultry that one reason for the review is that while there has been a decrease in production contamination there has not been a corresponding decrease in illnesses. She said more than 1 million consumer illnesses from Salmonella occur yearly, with 23 percent from the consumption of chicken and turkey. The USDA will get help from the National Advisory Committee for Microbiological Criteria in Foods for its review.

Leafy greens and water
Another enforcement topic that continues to be at the forefront involves leafy greens and the water used to produce them. 

On Dec. 2, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced the release of a proposed revision to Subpart E (Agricultural Water) of the Produce Safety Rule (PSR). The announcement comes after a string of recalls and E. coli outbreaks in the past few years involving romaine lettuce and packaged/bagged salads. In December alone three such outbreaks were announced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The FDA has been investigating the problem for years and reports that the proximity of cattle feedlots to produce growing fields is a key element in the contamination of leafy greens from some areas in California and Arizona. Among other problems, the feedlots can contaminate open irrigation canals with dust and runoff.

Farms in California and Arizona produce 90 percent of the leafy greens grown in the United States, which industry officials say translates into 50 billion servings per year.

The FDA has initiated a 120-day comment period on the proposed revision to the so-called ag water rule, which will be followed by the FDA rulemaking process.

FDA’s new plan for modernization for outbreak response
With the release of the Foodborne Outbreak Response Improvement Plan in 2021, the FDA set the stage for the agency and its partners to “enhance the speed, effectiveness, coordination, and communication of foodborne outbreak investigations.” The goal is to reduce the number of foodborne illness outbreaks of food under the FDA’s jurisdiction.

The plan is part of the FDA’s New Era of Smarter Food Safety initiative for which the agency collaborated with experts in the public and private sectors for input on additional ways to strengthen the agency’s outbreak response.

Input from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) and the CDC, state health officials, industry and consumer foodborne outbreak experts, along with the input of FDA leadership and staff, was key to the development of the new plan.

The FDA’s officials say the Foodborne Outbreak Response Improvement Plan focuses on four specific priority areas in which improvements will have the most impact on outbreaks associated with human food: 

• Tech-enabled product traceback;
• Root-cause investigations (RCIs);
• Strengthening analysis and dissemination of outbreak data; and
• Operational improvements.

“Adding the Outbreak Response Improvement Plan to our arsenal, which includes FSMA and the New Era of Smarter Food Safety, will ultimately prevent illnesses and save lives; and that is what this work is all about for us,” according to the FDA’s announcement on the plan.

Overhauling the governmental structure of food safety oversight
This has been one of the most talked-about and most elusive topics in the food safety arena since the 1970s. One example often cited as to why a streamlined approach to food safety is needed is the pizza question: Why does the FDA have jurisdiction over cheese pizza while the USDA regulates pizza with pepperoni?

The answer, for now, is that the FDA does not have authority over meat, poultry, and some types of processed egg products. Discussions about merging the food safety work of the USDA with that of the FDA will no doubt continue in 2022, but people promoting the concept have little hope that any major steps will be taken.  

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has produced 16 reports about the problems with the U.S. food safety system, but Congress has not acted to create a single agency, even though 10 bills have been introduced.

Food safety auditing
Improvements in technology — and now the impact of COVID-19 — has resulted in fewer and fewer in-person food safety audits. It is not unusual for auditors to be taken on virtual tours of establishments rather than taking the boots-on-the-ground approach.

Some people say there is no need for in-person audits regarding record keeping and review of food safety action plans because paperwork can be inspected on computer screens.

Along with more tech-enabled food safety checks, there is a movement to change from a so-called one size fits all approach. Some food producers say their operations should not be treated the same as others who market completely different products.

Instead, they want to be assessed for their individual risks and locations so they can build adaptive programs that focus time and effort within supply chain segments, and determine where to drive improvement and reduce risk.

Other food safety topics for 2022

Hepatitis A
Among other routes, this virus that attacks the liver can be transmitted through food when it is handled by an infected person. Outbreaks related to restaurants and other foodservice operations are not uncommon. One example from 2021 came from three locations of Famous Anthony’s restaurants. A single employee who worked at all three locations while infected passed the virus to more than 45 people. At least one person required a liver transplant and two others died. A simple way for restaurants and other food service operations, such as schools and hospitals, to avoid such situations is to provide vaccinations for their food handlers.

Greenhouses
With increasing evidence of the dangers of outdoor food production — such as contaminated irrigation water and animal intrusions into growing fields — some people cite the relative safety of greenhouse growing. A key obstruction to this method of farming is the cost, with one acre of high-tech greenhouse growing space costing more than $1 million to build. The tradeoff is complete control of the growing environment and tremendously increased yields per acre. Greenhouse growers say they can produce six times the number of tomatoes per acre compared to outdoor fields. There are more and more greenhouse operations sprouting up, with crops now including tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, strawberries, and leafy greens.

Food irradiation
Long approved for certain foods including ground beef and leafy greens, food irradiation is a food safety technique that sends some people into hysterics. They think it means their food will be radioactive despite scientific evidence and reassurances from food safety experts in government and the private sector. In addition to killing pathogens including bacteria, viruses, and parasites, irradiation can actually extend shelf life. Shelf life is extended because pathogens that cause spoilage are killed during the process. Virtually all surgical tools are irradiated to kill germs, but that fact has done little to ease consumers’ minds about this practice. The World Health Organization, the American Dietetic Association, and the European Union’s Scientific Committee all support food irradiation for food safety. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

By Francine L. Shaw

Blockchain technology is not a new concept to the foodservice industry. Before the pandemic, those of us in the industry discussed blockchain technology, traceability, transparency, sustainability, digital technology, and food safety and its impact on the green revolution every day. Then COVID happened, and some of these discussions and movements seemed to take a back seat or even stop. Conferences came to a halt. Collaborations were complex — in the beginning. 

Behind the scenes, many dreamers and developers continued to move forward. The average person’s typical day-to-day life had changed so much it gave those in the digital space more time to research, test, and develop new technology. And that is what they did.

Over the next few years, we will see technology trends emerge that we once thought were decades away. Digital technology is no longer an option. It is a necessity.

Software as a service (SaaS) allows users to connect to and use cloud-based apps over the internet. The most common of these are email, calendar services, and bulk email providers. SaaS products offer a complete software solution purchased on a pay-as-you-go basis from a cloud service provider. This service is the most prevalent way for most companies to do business today. We could say it is the hottest new trend of the past few years and it certainly is convenient. Before SaaS, obtaining information quickly and efficiently was much more difficult. The thing with digital technology is, there is always a history. You can’t erase it. Even if you hit “delete,” the information remains, and regulators will find it.

Wireless monitoring sensors that can control temperature and humidity will be a big trend in the upcoming year, saving companies significant money on food and energy waste. The supply chain has many moving parts, each with its own impact on the environment. The cold chain is no exception. The cold chain is estimated to be responsible for 3 percent to 3.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Considering 40 percent of all food requires refrigeration and 15 percent of the electricity used worldwide is for refrigeration, this should not come as a surprise. Cold chain emissions come from three sources: food waste, electricity, and of course refrigerants. BCG conducted a study that found a staggering $120 billion in food supplies is wasted each year because of poor storage and handling. 

Blockchain technologies, something we have been discussing for a few years, are closer than we think. Transparency, traceability, and sustainability are vital to everyone in the industry. The FDA has outlined four core elements in the New Era of Smarter Food Safety Blueprint, and the first of these elements is tech-enabled traceability.

Traceability processes are critical to ensure all food items are traced and tracked throughout the supply chain. Traceability is essential for food safety as well as operational efficiency. With a solid traceability program, it is possible to locate a product at any stage of the food chain within the supply chain — literally from farm to table. For this technology to work well, it must be user-friendly and affordable to all — small businesses and large corporations alike. When it is available and widely used, it will minimize foodborne illness outbreaks and assist significantly with speeding up the process of finding the source if an outbreak does occur.

Affordable digital technology connecting buyers with validated verified sellers is at the forefront. This technology will reduce research time for buyers and assist with social and environmental sourcing, helping more companies buy locally with confidence.

SaaS restaurant assessment and inspection apps have become much more user-friendly and affordable. These apps can transfer valuable information to supervisors in real-time. In a critical infraction, the supervisor can follow up to ensure corrective action was taken, avoiding a possible crisis.

SaaS products have been a digital blessing to the foodservice industry. Data pipelines will continue to be an essential part of business and become even more commonplace as the digital world continues to explode. A few years ago, many people didn’t even know what data integration was. Now, I am part of the trend, assisting with the development of SaaS products that must have the ability to integrate. 

Data integration has already become the backbone for many businesses because they allow excessive amounts of data to integrate from various sources. This data can then be extracted at different points to gather information and conduct analysis. This process is crucial because it means businesses can question data that has been processed to a specific point in various ways without starting over from the beginning. 

And none of these trends would be anything without data analytics. I don’t know anyone in this industry who doesn’t love a beautiful pie chart or graph. Nearly every app developed has at least minimal analytics as part of the system. 

Today, analytics and integration are key components of most foodservice products.

About the author: Francine L. Shaw is CEO of Savvy Food Safety & TracSavvy, co-founder of My Food Source, and a food safety expert. Shaw’s diverse background includes spending more than 20 years in the food service industry. Shaw is an international speaker who serves as an advisor for corporations and has been featured as a food safety expert in numerous media outlets, including the BBC World Series Radio, the Huffington Post, iHeartRadio, Food Safety News, Food Management Magazine, Food Fanatics, Food Service Consultants Society International, and more. She has authored more than 200 published articles about food safety.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)