The Secret Ingredients in Food Safety
As contaminations continue to make headlines, manufacturers
are under constant scrutiny to keep our food safe. But as globalization
continues and consumer demands change, their job is only getting tougher.
By Nick Zubko
Industry Week
Nov. 1, 2008
The magnitude of a problem is often determined by how much
attention it gets. Recently the food & beverage industry has been receiving
more attention than it might like, as contaminated products and subsequent
recalls continue to make headlines. While any products under suspicion start
vanishing from grocery store shelves and produce aisles, the media latches on
to the story and, just like that, customers start disappearing, too.
Unfortunately for the food industry, the negative stories
keep on coming. Back in 2006 there were widespread reports of spinach being
contaminated with E. coli. This year salmonella bacteria were discovered in
large quantities of tomatoes. Not long after, the same was suspected of
jalapeno peppers imported from
Each of these stories not only hurts consumer confidence in
a particular company, but they also serve to harm the public's perception of
the nation's food supply as a whole. That's one reason why food & beverage
manufacturers take these events just as seriously as anyone.
"Any time there is an event in the industry, the first
thing we do is convene our food safety council and try to understand what
happened and why," says Bryan Farnsworth, vice president of quality
management for Hormel Foods Corp. "We discuss whether it could happen to
us and determine if we have the appropriate controls in place to prevent it. They're
used as learning tools."
Food for Thought
While the recent produce contaminations might be more well known, many others also have made the food
industry take notice. For example, a salmonella outbreak forced Nebraska-based
ConAgra Foods to implement massive recalls of Peter Pan peanut butter that were
linked to 288 confirmed cases in 39 states. Later the company also had to
recall large quantities of its Banquet brand of turkey and chicken pot pies for
the same reason. In the aftermath, the company's board of directors decided to
give its CEO a 41% pay cut.
The largest beef recall in
No product market seems immune. In March, PepsiCo Inc.'s
Quaker Oats unit recalled Aunt Jemima pancake and waffle mix for a potential
salmonella risk, while E. coli fears prompted General Mills to recall over 400,000
cases of Totino's and Jeno's
frozen pizzas.
As the list continues to grow (and we haven't even touched
on contaminated food coming out of Asia, such as the current scare over tainted
dairy products and candy bars from China), it paints a pretty dire picture for
the food supply. But is the risk being exaggerated? While certainly none of
these examples do much to boost consumer confidence, according to Bob Brackett,
chief science officer for the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), there is
definitely another side to the story.
Brackett points out that in addition to increased media
attention, recalls are often the result of
manufacturers simply having much better tools to detect various pathogens. In
addition, digital communication has helped agencies like the CDC, USDA and FDA
recognize patterns in what would previously have been regarded as isolated
cases, and find the "smoking gun" that leads to one specific
contamination. The downside? Better detective work can
make the problem look worse than it really is.
"It makes it look like every product out there is
contaminated, but the risk from any particular meal is extremely small," explains
Brackett, who has also served as director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition. "Of course, it's still too high for manufacturers
and they're doing everything they can to eliminate it completely. As a result, even
the best companies might occasionally need to issue a recall."
Nutritional Sources
In the past 10 years, food manufacturers in the
"Globalization is often cited as a point of blame
because it's easy to say they just don't have the level of scrutiny around food
that we have here," says Chuck Desmond, vice president in the consumer
products national practice for Hitachi Consulting Corp., a global business and
IT consulting firm. "But many recalls also have to do with handling and a
variety of other issues. So you need to think holistically about this issue
because there are various reasons that recalls have increased in the last
decade."
One reason often overlooked is the growing number of
additives and ingredients used in food products today, which opens up
manufacturers to more variables and a much broader supply base. According to
Desmond, those numbers have increased on average by three to four times in the
past 10 years, due in large part to consumer demand for labels that show more
sources of nutrition.
"These extra ingredients are all being made by
different suppliers and manufacturers have to work with each one separately,"
explains Desmond. "That's where the challenge comes in. It not only means
more suppliers, it means more avenues for potential quality issues or
contamination, and a much higher strictness on the manufacturer's part for being
able to prevent them in their products."
As part of its "preferred supplier" initiative
focused on key ingredient categories, Hormel Foods recently reduced its supply
base by 30%. This gives the company an easier group of suppliers to manage and
an opportunity to understand their food safety activities, conduct on-site
visits and collaborate on new ideas, innovations and food safety activities. More
third-party audits are also being conducted than had been in the past.
"If you have multiple suppliers it's more difficult to
do all of those things," Farnsworth explains. "And you need to have a
system in place where you constantly evaluate your suppliers and the inputs to
their process -- to make sure ingredients are coming from a facility that knows
the source, has validated systems, facilities, equipment, controls and
traceability in place."
While larger manufactures are able to have their own
employees present right where the product is being manufactured, those without
those types of resources often rely on second- or third-party auditors to make
sure that the source is meeting their specifications. However, as audits are
becoming more common and more frequent, Brackett says the industry is
challenged to settle on a standard for how they are conducted.
"One of the issues that many of the manufacturers have
is being subjected to multiple audits," he explains. "So they're
spending enormous amounts of time and money perhaps doing audits for 10
different customers."
To help improve auditing practices, the GMA is working with
food manufacturers from all over the country to establish a set of standards
that will be consistent between different commodities, and from region to
region.
Clearing the Shelves
Issuing a recall isn't something any food manufacturer wants
to do, but most have systems built in to protect themselves should any problems
ever arise. That way, they are able to respond quickly, efficiently and in a
manner that gets the product off the market as soon as possible.
For example, mock recalls are often conducted throughout the
year as a way to prepare their facilities to quickly handle these events. Hormel
Foods conducts its own drills every month, simulating events that could affect
one or more of its facilities. The exercises are unannounced, timed and later
reviewed to determine what areas need improvement.
"They could be based on an ingredient issue that we
were made aware of by a supplier, through our own testing, or a customer
concern," Farnsworth explains. "Once we started doing them, we saw
our responses improve dramatically. They help us reinforce the need to properly
identify the window in a recall event, to be able to look at the entire picture
and figure out how big the scope really is."
Mock recalls also typically include the use of track-and-trace
technologies, which are used to keep tabs on ingredients as they enter a
facility and how they are used at every step of the manufacturing process. However,
they can also be used in the event of a recall to hunt down potentially
contaminated ingredients.
Not only can traceability help contain the effects of a
contamination once it occurs, but it can also reduce the cost of one by
reducing the product's exposure. By tracing a contamination back to a specific
lot, manufacturers can safely decide to recall only those that are affected -- as
opposed to everything they manufactured. Once you can do that, Desmond says, it's
all a matter of how quickly it gets done.
"How quickly can you discern which lots you need to
recall? Of course, the more time that passes the more potential for harm to the
consumer and harm to your company," he explains. "If you don't have a
system in place, companies might be inclined to expedite the process by simply
recalling everything."
To help speed up the process, most food manufacturers have
some sort of tracking system in place. Hormel's are in-house versions, but
there are also a variety of options available from IT solutions providers such
as TraceGains Inc., a company that specializes in
helping food manufacturers reduce risks throughout their supply chain.
By attaining continuous attribute visibility to all
ingredients, in addition to identity preservation and continuous comparison of
on-floor activities, business rules and compliancy requirements, TraceGains provides what William Pape,
the company's founder and executive vice president, calls "positively
assured traceability."
"There are a lot of food manufacturers who think they
have traceability, but over the last 10 years the majority of FDA and USDA
investigations have concluded that what they have is inadequate," explains
Pape. "We augment what most companies think of
as their traceability system and leverage their existing technology investments."
Eating the Cost
Whether it's implementing a new technology, stopping
production for an afternoon to run a mock recall, or doing more frequent
evaluation of your supply base, it all costs money. But in the food industry, those
costs seem to be more about risk than they are about return on investment.
If something can be put in place to help ensure that a
contamination is going to be eliminated, Brackett notes that in most cases the
investment's going to be made. "Manufacturers are being more aggressive in
trying to avoid problems, even if they aren't seeing any. The fact that more of
these outbreaks have occurred makes them much more vigilant in trying to
control them," he says.
For most food manufacturers, safety systems begin with a
proper risk assessment. Hormel looks at all the risks in its processes and
determines how best to control them, according to Farnsworth. At that point, the
challenge becomes finding the best and most economical way to control whatever
risks have been identified.
"Costs don't determine whether or not we do something
that will improve our food safety controls," says Farnsworth. "If we
identify something we need to do to control the process, we're going to find a
way to get it done. In spite of whatever costs are involved, I think the vast
majority of companies in the industry are constantly looking to make their food
safety systems more robust."
Over the next several years, those in the food industry
expect continued improvement to their ability to ensure the safety of the
nation's food supply. Manufacturers will do more research to stay ahead of
potential threats, developing products with the safest ingredients, packaging
and handling criteria in mind. That's because good companies know that you can't
predict what might challenge the food industry next, says Brackett.
"Just because you haven't had a problem doesn't mean it
won't happen," he adds. "Food safety is one of those odd things where
the better you are, the more it looks like you don't need it. But even though
things might look good, you can never assume anything."
industryweek.com