Food Safety – Food In Canada

Welcome to Food Safety Week 2024

ncaleb — Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:53:59 +0000

Every year, we observe World Food Safety Day on June 7, which is dedicated to promoting awareness about safe food systems. This year’s theme, ‘Prepare for the unexpected,’ emphasizes the critical need for readiness in addressing food safety incidents, regardless of their severity.

In honour of this important day, Food in Canada launches Food Safety Week, a week-long exploration of one of the most vital issues in F&B processing.

According to the UN, one in 10 people worldwide fall ill from contaminated food each year, and more than 200 diseases are caused by eating contaminated food. This underscores the importance of stringent food safety measures in our industry.

For a full five days, Food in Canada will delve into the challenges, best practices, and cutting-edge solutions essential for ensuring the safety of the food we produce. Our expert content will cover the latest trends and provide valuable insights into maintaining the highest standards of food safety.

The Food Safety Week landing page, hosted on Food in Canada, will serve as a year-round hub for curious minds to learn best practices and find the latest information on food safety.

Food Safety Week 2024 is sponsored by BioMérieux.

Welcome to Food Safety Week 2024! Together, we can ensure a safe food system for everyone.

This article is part of Food Safety Week 2024. To read more articles on food safety, click here.

Health Canada proposes to remove BVO from permitted food additives list

ncaleb — Thu, 06 Jun 2024 15:36:16 +0000

Health Canada recently completed an updated safety assessment of brominated vegetable oil (BVO) based on new and previously reviewed information. Although Health Canada did not identify an immediate health concern with the current permitted use of BVO as a food additive, the outcome of the assessment does not support BVO’s continued use as a food additive. So, Health Canada is proposing to remove BVO from the List of permitted food additives with other accepted uses.

Health Canada is considering providing a one-year transition period to allow impacted beverages to be reformulated and relabelled, since the updated safety assessment did not find an immediate health concern with the current permitted use of BVO as a food additive.

As set out in Item B.3 of the List of permitted food additives with other accepted uses, BVO is currently permitted for use as a density adjusting agent at a maximum level of 15 ppm in beverages containing citrus or spruce oils, as consumed.

The modification to the list and the transition period will be announced soon. In the meantime, Health Canada invites industry stakeholders to offer feedback. It’ll accept feedback until July 30, 2024. For details, click here.

USask scientists find new technique to decontaminate eggs

ncaleb — Thu, 06 Jun 2024 15:23:06 +0000

Scientists with the University of Saskatchewan (USask) used the Canadian Light Source (CLS) at USask to study a new technique for decontaminating eggs.

The problem with ‎conventional egg decontamination processes, which use chemicals and heat, is that they can damage the egg cuticle and shell, which are ‎natural barriers to bacteria and help to maintain nutritional quality during storage.

The new cleaning method involves treating eggs using tiny water droplets sprayed with high-voltage electricity to decontaminate the shell. The researchers then used the CLS’s ultra-bright synchrotron light to obtain highly detailed 3D scans of the eggs.

The researchers found the new approach reduced the amount of E. coli and Salmonella bacteria on the eggs, but did not damage the cuticle and shell and preserved the food’s nutritional quality.

“We hope this new technique is added to the existing egg processing line to ensure thorough removal of pathogens from the egg surface,” said team member Mehdi Heydari, a postdoctoral fellow with USask’s College of Engineering. “This can help ensure the eggs on grocery store shelves are as safe to eat as possible.”

Heydari worked alongside other USask scientists, including principal investigator Lifeng Zhang and co-investigators Karen Schwean-Lardner and Shelley Kirychuk.

“Using this emerging, green technology would improve food safety while also lowering carbon dioxide emissions during processing,” he added.

The next step for this research will be to determine how to scale up this technology for large-scale operations.

This project was funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, and the Canadian Poultry Research Council.

Canada aims to protect cattle industry as U.S. avian flu outbreak spreads

ncaleb — Thu, 06 Jun 2024 14:12:28 +0000

As an outbreak of avian influenza in dairy herds south of the border continues to spread, Canadian officials say they are doing everything they can to protect this country’s livestock industry.

Since March — when a highly contagious strain of A(H5N1), or bird flu, was first discovered in dairy cows in Texas — a total of 68 herds in nine U.S. states have confirmed cases of infection.

Last week, a third human case of the virus was identified in a dairy farm worker in Michigan.

So far, not a single case of the disease has been found in Canadian cows. But the possibility that it could show up here is real, said Dr. Martin Appelt, senior director of animal health programs for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

“The risk is certainly there,” Appelt said. “And that certainly puts Canadian dairy producers in an awkward position, which I fully appreciate, which is what happens if it happens?”

The CFIA is preparing for the possible emergence of cases of avian flu in livestock on this side of the border through enhanced surveillance and testing. Lactating dairy cattle being imported from the U.S. to Canada require a negative test for the virus before they can cross the border, and the CFIA is also conducting tests of milk destined for retail sale to look for traces of the virus.

While the science around avian flu and its transmission is still evolving, there are indications that the virus can replicate rapidly in the mammary glands of lactating cows, which may be why dairy cattle have proved to be particularly vulnerable to catching the disease.

Signs to watch for in dairy cattle that could indicate infection include a decrease in milk production, thicker milk consistency and a loss of appetite.

Fortunately for Canadian dairy producers, avian flu appears to only cause mild and transitory illness. And while traces of the virus have been found in the milk of infected U.S. cows, pasteurization — which is required for all Canadian milk sold in stores — has been shown to effectively kill the virus.

That means even if the disease turned up in Canadian cows, commercially sold milk and milk products would remain safe to consume, Appelt said.

In an emailed statement, the Dairy Farmers of Canada industry group said it is in “close communication” with the CFIA as it monitors the situation.

The Canadian Cattle Association, which represents beef farmers and ranchers, said in its own statement it is “watching this issue very closely.”
It remains unclear if the virus poses a threat to beef cattle, Appelt said. But he added the CFIA is working to develop a comprehensive plan that would expand the agency’s surveillance efforts beyond birds and dairy cattle to potential “other eventualities.”

“We definitely want beef producers to consider the possibility (of virus transmission),” he said.

Dr. Rob Tremblay, an Ontario-based bovine health specialist who has been advising Dairy Farmers of Canada on the avian flu issue, said farmers who are concerned about the virus can reduce the likelihood of their animals being exposed by maintaining a “closed herd” for the immediate future.

“That means don’t purchase animals, at least for the time being, unless it’s absolutely necessary,” he said.

When avian flu is found on a poultry farm in Canada, the CFIA places the farm under quarantine and orders the birds destroyed to prevent spread of the disease. (The disease spreads rapidly between birds and carries a high bird mortality rate).

When the illness appears in cattle, it tends to be milder and the animals generally recover on their own so infected cows don’t need to be culled, Tremblay said.

In addition, the World Organization for Animal Health does not recommend international trade restrictions or import bans on dairy or beef products from countries that have had cases.

Tremblay said that means if Canada were to have its own outbreak of avian flu in a domestic dairy herd, the economic implications would be less severe than certain other animal illnesses. The deadly pig disease African swine fever, for example, has never been found in Canada but a single case could result in countries around the world shutting their doors to Canadian pork products. That would not happen in the event of avian flu.

Still, for an individual farmer, a discovery of avian flu in their dairy herd would be a significant blow, Tremblay added.

“The loss of milk, the extra work, the cost of dealing with animals that are sick and the stress that’s associated with that — I think it could be personally devastating, for sure,” he said. “And it would have a financial impact at the farm level.”
— With files from The Associated Press

Focus on Food Safety: Using case studies to inform risk assessment methodology

ncaleb — Thu, 23 May 2024 15:42:21 +0000

The apple sauce and cinnamon incident in the United States raised many concerns about how risk is approached for safety and integrity. When assessing risk within typical food safety management system, we were trained to the same classic hazards. The vocabulary is changing, and it is important to reflect on the implications of each category.

Food risk refers to the likelihood of harm occurring due to consuming a particular food product. Food risk assessment involves identifying potential hazards, evaluating their likelihood and severity, and implementing measures to mitigate them.

Food fraud involves the intentional deception for economic gain, where food products are adulterated, mislabelled, or misrepresented. This deception can occur at any stage of the supply chain and may involve dilution, substitution, or addition of unauthorized substances.

A food threat typically refers to deliberate acts or intentional contamination of food with harmful agents, such as toxins, chemicals, or biological agents, with the intent to cause harm to consumers, disrupt food supplies, or instil fear.

Food vulnerability refers to the susceptibility of the food supply chain to various risks, threats, and vulnerabilities that may compromise its integrity, safety, and security. This includes weaknesses in infrastructure, processes, and control systems that can be exploited by malicious actors or natural events.

All of these food risks work in interacting ways. The cinnamon and apple sauce incident certainly struck fear into many consumers’ minds. It was a case of fraud because lead chromate was used as an adulterant to increase the weight of cinnamon for sale.

Assessing risk

Risk assessment methodology requires an approach similar to HACCP hazard identification and risk assessment but may require extension of the boundaries of the assessment. It is up to individual organizations to determine what the boundaries of control can be. For some, those boundaries extend one supplier back. With access to blockchain traceability, boundaries of control can extend potentially even farther back all the way to the primary producer.

Within supply chain mapping, each node in the map can be assessed for possible hazards, followed by strategic planning within the quality management system for identification, mitigation, and elimination of each hazard.

Part of the challenge is that there is not a one size fits all response to risk assessment. If we were the apple sauce manufacturer, how would we assess the risk on the cinnamon? We must use a systems-based approach and multiple directions to comprehensively reduce or eliminate risk.

Supplier verification is common in all HACCP-based food safety management. Performing third-party audits or inspections can be part of that, but can an auditor observe a fraudulent action at the time of occurrence? Certificates of analysis are another important part of risk assessment. Extending blockchain traceability to these certifications could be critical. It’s not uncommon for these certificates to be performed on very low frequency on certain commodities because of the high cost of analysis. I’ve personally seen certificates of analysis results being pushed forward to new lots without new assessments.

Integrity of the transportation and shipping of products is also essential. Purchase orders and bills of lading used to be only text based, but it is now possible to put physical images of shipments into this documentation for identification on receipt. Tamper evident and traceable shipping seals are becoming common. The Use of RFID tagging on shipments is also becoming commonplace, so that shipments travel exactly to the specified destination.

Possible tests

Should we instead focus on incoming goods testing especially to prevent fraud? Cinnamon, for example, is prone to fraudulent substitution by other brown plant materials. DNA fingerprint assessment would the prime method in such cases. However, DNA testing would not pick up lead or other heavy metals contamination that would be measured by atomic emission spectroscopy. Are there better methods such as FTIR, which will speed systems? Each FTIR requires calibration to the commodity, but this could be an important approach. It would be costly to require these assessments on every lot though.

One part of risk assessment is exposure evaluation. It’s not uncommon for companies to look at minor ingredients and validate against the certificate of analysis, then assume that hazard exposure is low because of the dilution effect of ingredients. It’s common to find low levels of lead in commodities from agricultural contamination. In the case of the apple sauce, exposure was higher than assumed because of reliance on convenience food for small children. These affected children were consuming the product with higher than anticipated frequency. Dilution effects for hazard reduction are a slippery slope and should be avoided.

Our perception of risk is changing. In the risk assessment process, piracy, global conflict, climate change and environmental disaster are impacting the integrity of food systems. Using case studies such as the apple sauce recall allows us to plan better for future incidents.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the April/May 2024 issue of Food in Canada.

Health Canada exploring mandatory packaging program, concerned with use of recycled plastic in food packaging

ncaleb — Wed, 08 May 2024 20:11:45 +0000

Health Canada is considering developing a mandatory packaging program, said John Field, chief, Chemical Health Hazard Assessment Division, Health Canada, during a Food Plastics and Packaging Consultation event organized by Food and Beverage Ontario (FBO) in Vaughan earlier this week.

Currently, packaging materials intended for use with foods in Canada may be submitted voluntarily to Health Canada for a pre-market assessment of their chemical safety, per Food and Drugs Act and Regulations. However, Health Canada is actively considering regulatory changes that would make this form of assessments mandatory. Field told event attendees that public consultations on the proposed regulation may start next year.

Field’s comments were part of an overarching discussion on plastic reduction measures, including the P2 notice, Canada Plastic Pact’s Golden Design Rules (GDR), the various extended producer responsibility programs across Canada and the recently introduced Federal Plastics Registry. The event was attended by F&B processors, retailers, packaging firms, municipal waste teams, government representatives and other sector stakeholders. An open discussion gave participants the opportunity to voice their challenges when it came to food packaging. This consultation was a follow-up to a January discussion on the same topic by FBO.

Participants acknowledged it takes years and a lot of investment to change packaging lines. Given the regulatory inconsistencies across the country and the lack of plastic alternatives to meet the industry’s food safety and shelf-life requirements, manufacturers are concerned the investments won’t yield desired results. However, they’re committed to actively work towards a circular economy, meet consumer demands for sustainably produced food, and keep plastics as much as possible out of landfills without compromising food safety.

Lack of alternatives

While the Golden Design Rules recommends the use of monomaterials, it’s not recyclable across Canada. Plus, the thickness of the plastic needs to be increased to meet the self-life requirements of products like dry pasta, which means the amount of plastic in the packaging isn’t minimized.

Another concern raised during the consultation was the fact that biodegradable plastics, which typically cost three times more than flexible packaging, don’t comply with the Golden Design Rules. Also, there is no internationally recognized definition for biodegradable materials. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, making it nearly impossible for large multinational F&B manufacturers to adopt such packaging.

Lack of consistency

The lack of consistency was a constant theme throughout the consultation. Attendees highlighted that packaging, which is deemed recyclable in Europe, isn’t in North America. They also shared their frustration with recycling programs in Canada that vary from municipality to municipality. Imagine creating packaging for each municipality and the associated costs!

Lack of consumer awareness

Food safety reasons notwithstanding, participants felt it was key to educate consumers about best recycling practices. For example, remove the non-recyclable films before recycling cardboard boxes. This will improve recycling rates as well as ensure we have higher-grade of recycled plastic for use. However, changing consumer behaviour isn’t possible overnight; it’ll take years of patient, ongoing education.

Lack of infrastructure

Another issue was the lack of infrastructure to back up Canada’s Zero Plastic Waste Agenda. There are challenges with sorting materials. As described by Doug Alexander, VP, sustainability and government relations, Belmont Food Group, Canada’s recycling system is a “catch-all” while in Europe materials are segregated by material and recycled through dedicated lines. It would be helpful to invest in technology that can automate recycling systems before demanding industry to make expensive changes that may not necessarily improve the state of plastic recycling in the country.

Toxins

A large part of the discussion centred around the lack of data to help determine the impact of microplastics on human health. Field said that at this point there are no consensus on how microplastics affect humans. He added that a lot of studies use spherical microplastics, a type of microplastics that humans aren’t exposed to. He suggested studies must be representative of what we, as humans, are exposed to. He admitted there’s evidence of toxicity in animal models but urged that most of them must be interpreted with caution.

Recycled plastic quality concerns

Field also shared Health Canada’s concerns with the use of recycled plastic in food packaging.

“We have a good handle on resins, the additives used and the amount of leeching, etc. But all bets are off when it comes to recycled plastic. We don’t have much info on how they behave. We don’t want them leeching chemicals into food. We’re looking at new risk management practices,” he explained.

At this point, there is zero science-based data to help determine how many types a plastic material can be safely reused in food packaging. The last thing one wants is a toxic package leeching chemicals into the food.

Despite all the concerns raised, the group was unanimous in its intention to create a circular plastic economy and avoid sending them to landfills.

As Alexander, who moderated the discussion said, “It’ll take time to divest ourselves from this addiction to plastics.” It’ll take years to build a society and culture that actively recycles and reuses products. Perhaps until then, it might be worthwhile for the industry to explore alternative measures like creating energy from waste, thereby keeping plastics out of landfills.

Focus on Food Safety: The plastic conundrum and impact on food safety risk assessment

ncaleb — Thu, 22 Feb 2024 18:32:39 +0000

We can all agree the food industry needs to reduce its reliance on plastics, especially those that cannot be recycled, composted, or reused. In Canada, the food industry produces 35 per cent of all plastic waste, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada. The Canadian Comprehensive Zero Plastic Waste agenda has prioritized plastic reduction in the food retail industry.

The federal government’s plastic reduction agenda began with a ban on single-use plastics. Companies are required to reduce plastics, especially hard-to-recycle ones, and eliminate can and bottle ring carriers, checkout bags, cutlery, foodservice ware, stir sticks and straws. The Single Use Plastic Prohibition Regulation allowed a change to Canadian Environmental Protection Act’s (CEPA’s) Toxic Substances List and included Manufactured Plastics in it. However, the legislation was overturned by the Federal Court in November 2023.

The regulation and the repeal for the plastics ban hinged on the word, ‘toxicity’. The meaning of toxicity for food safety practitioners is different from how it is defined under CEPA. Food safety practitioners see a chemical hazard as something potentially injurious to human consumers. Under CEPA, the term, ‘toxicity,’ extends to chemicals and materials with the potential for enduring environmental harm.

Under section 64 in CEPA, the definition is, “a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that (a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; (b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or (c) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.”

In food safety, using CODEX Alimentarius’s glossary, the words, ‘toxin’ or ‘toxic,’ only emerge with relation to pesticides and veterinary chemicals. Hazards are “a biological, chemical or physical agent in, or condition of, food with the potential to cause an adverse health effect.” Toxins can be acute, causing short-term immediate impacts, or they can be long term and chronic where exposure is small.

Plastics approved for food contact use are not inherently toxic to human health and have had been evaluated by Health Canada for safe use. The issue is not plastic in its standard form. Microplastics are emerging as a major area of concern for human health, as well as a concern in environmental contamination. Researchers are investigating the potential toxicity and long-term effects of microplastics. The science in this field is relatively new. Environmental microplastics were only first described in the early 2000s. Pubmed’s academic literature database indicates very minor uses of the term, ‘microplastics,’ in research literature before 2011. However, the term was referenced in almost 4000 articles in 2023. The science on microplastics has not yet created any direct causal links to toxicity, but many strong theories are being investigated.

This reframing of risk assessment, where human health is aligned with environmental health and sustainability, will have major implications for food safety management systems. Food safety practitioners who have followed its history can appreciate this potential movement. Threat assessment or TACCP came into force within the United States when terrorist threats to the food system and deliberate adulteration became a hazard. BRCGS has a standard for ethical trade and responsible sourcing. GFSI has developed a Sustainable Supply Chain Initiative to benchmark social compliance. It has set requirements such as no forced and prison labour, no child labour, freedom of association and rights to collective bargaining for workers, no discrimination and abuse, application of health and safety systems, application of building and fire safety codes, fair wages and employment practices, fair working hours, and ability to grieve working conditions. GFSI indicates they will have an environmental standard coming out in the near future. Encouraging or mandating food companies to consider environmental consequences as part of their quality management and supplier strategy is very likely in the future.

The food industry has an authentic need for plastics, and other lightweight barrier materials. Food safety and shelf-life extension are intrinsically tied to plastics use. The successful environmental transition to this is better plastics materials and better use and repurposing of existing plastics. Fortunately, we are seeing investments in this area.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the February/March 2024 issue of Food in Canada.

New study finds microplastics in several protein foods

ncaleb — Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:23:28 +0000

A new study led by researchers at Ocean Conservancy and the University of Toronto found microplastic particles in 88 per cent of protein food samples tested. The samples were drawn from 16 different protein types destined for U.S. consumers.

Protein types included store-purchased breaded shrimp, minced pollock, fish sticks, white Gulf shrimp (headless/shell-on), Key West pink shrimp (headless/shell-on), Alaska Pollock fillets (skinless), chicken nuggets, top sirloin steaks, pork loin chops, chicken breasts, plant-based nuggets, plant-based fish sticks, plant-based ground beef, and tofu blocks.

While scientists have long documented the presence of microplastics in the digestive tracts of commercial fish and shellfish like salmon, halibut and oysters, there has been little research into whether these microplastics are entering the filets of the fish – the parts that are actually eaten by people; and little research into terrestrial protein sources like beef and chicken that make up a large part of the American diet. In this study, microplastics were found in all 16 protein types tested, suggesting humans are likely eating microplastics no matter the source of protein they choose. Further, there were no statistical differences in microplastic concentrations between land- and ocean-sourced proteins.

“This is a startling reminder of just how prolific plastic pollution has become – humans live on land and yet, seafood samples are just as likely to be contaminated with plastics as are terrestrial-derived proteins,” said study co-author Dr. Britta Baechler, a marine biologist and associate director of Plastics Science at Ocean Conservancy. “There’s no escaping them no matter what you eat, it seems. The plastic pollution crisis is impacting all of us, and we need to take action to address its many forms.”

The study found evidence that food processing is a likely source of microplastic contamination, as highly processed protein products (e.g. fish sticks, chicken nuggets, tofu, and plant-based burgers, among others) contained significantly more microplastics per gram than minimally processed products (e.g. packaged wild Alaska pollock, raw chicken breast, and others). However, no statistical difference was found between high-processed products and fresh-caught products, suggesting food processing is not the only source of microplastic contamination and opening avenues for further research.

“It’s tempting to want to draw conclusions like ‘eat less of this and more of that’ to avoid microplastics in your diet; but right now we still know very little about the microplastic burdens in commonly consumed foods. Our study adds to this knowledge but also demonstrates the need for further research to better understand the bigger picture, including where these microplastics are coming from and the potential human health risks,” said primary co-author Madeleine Milne, who conducted the research while at the Rochman Lab at the University of Toronto in 2022.

Notably, across all samples, nearly half (44 per cent) of the identified microplastics were fibres, which is consistent with other studies suggesting that fibres are the most prevalent form of microplastic in the environment. About a third of the microplastics (30 per cent) were plastic fragments.

Using survey data from a separate study by Ocean Conservancy and the University of Toronto (to be published in Frontiers in Marine Science), the authors estimate an American adult will consume, on average, 11,500 microplastics per year. Annual exposure could be as high as 3.8 million microplastics per year if calculated using the highest levels of microplastics found in each individual protein type and the average reported protein consumption rates.

“As ocean scientists, my co-authors and I are deeply concerned about the growing plastics crisis in the world’s ocean,” said Dr. George Leonard, Ocean Conservancy’s chief scientist and a co-author of the study. “But our study shows that plastics in our food goes well beyond fish and shellfish to a wide variety of other protein sources, as well. Our work is a call to action to reduce plastic pollution in its many forms to ensure a safe and healthy food supply for all consumers.”

Innovation Insights: Technology is transforming traceability and transparency in the seafood sector

ncaleb — Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:59:24 +0000

Concerns over counterfeiting and labelling claims have led Canada’s seafood and fisheries sector to provide greater transparency and traceability into their supply chains. New technology has emerged to help those efforts, while preventing fraud and providing more efficient inventory management and quality control.

Having traceability at all stages of seafood processing means being able to document a product’s path from catch through to final customer. In other words, a seafood company can prove a product’s provenance, sustainability, and safety at each step in the process. Traceability also enables businesses to demonstrate responsible sourcing practices and compliance with government regulations, which gives consumers more confidence in the business.

Unfortunately, mislabelling and fraud have become common in the seafood sector in practices such as species substitution, incorrect weights for products, and misrepresentation of a product’s origin. Without some form of transparent traceability system, companies may face health and contamination concerns, as well as legal measures such as fines or other penalties.

Governments and organizations are working to improve label accuracy through certifications and standardization. There are technologies for tracking products, such as barcodes, QR codes, and other digital markers, but because of their format, they have traditionally had limited use in the seafood sector. New technology coming onto the market hopes to address those barriers, and boost their use, while adding greater automation to the seafood processing sector.

ThisFish

Vancouver, B.C.-based ThisFish, which now operates globally, provides TallyVision, an artificial intelligence solution for seafood traceability and production workflows designed to boost business efficiency, transparency, and compliance in seafood supply chains. The company’s software, combined with sensors and industrial hardware, such as scanners, digital scales, and computer vision technology, help seafood processing plants automate data collection and digitize information systems to produce real-time insights that can be used to improve traceability and quality control, while reducing waste. The software also provides for the use of QR code labels, allowing customers to track seafood through retailing and processing back to the farm or fishing vessel that harvested it.

Index Biosystems

Toronto’s Index Biosystems offers a different route toward traceability. The company uses biotechnology to turn baker’s yeast into microscopic biotags to trace products through the supply chain. In August 2022, Index Biosystems received funding through the Canadian Food Innovation Network’s (CFIN’s) Innovation Booster program to pilot a project with its automated biotag application system to tag and trace grain.

Mabel Systems

Another company offering fisheries and seafood processors help to both manage inventory and trace the movement of products through the supply chain is Sydney, N.S.-based Mabel Systems. Mabel provides a data capture platform that allows seafood companies to digitize receiving and production, giving them more control over inventory, food safety, and demand forecasting, while allowing for accurate, real-time tracking of products. When combined with hardware such as advanced computer vision technology, the software allows processors to easily share information with retail customers, consumers, and regulators.

As more fish and seafood companies turn to innovative technology for improving efficiencies and compliance while alleviating concerns about fraud and mislabelling, consumers will continue to benefit with fully traceable products and more information about the sector.

Nestor Gomez is chief technology officer for the Canadian Food Innovation Network (CFIN), a national, member-based organization stimulating transformative and transferrable innovation across the Canadian food sector. Visit CFIN at www.cfin-rcia.ca.

This column was originally published in the November/December 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Focus on Food Safety: Uncovering the import inspection process

ncaleb — Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:51:48 +0000

More than 30 energy drink brands have been recalled by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for a range of non-compliance, including exceeding the limit of permitted caffeine, not having precautionary statements regarding health impact of consumption, and labelling not meeting bilingual and Nutrition Facts standards required for sale in Canada. Thirty brands at the same time are a lot of products, which prompts questions about import inspection.

According to the World Bank’s World Integrated Trade Solution data from 2021, Canada imported over $22 billion worth of food products. Given the sheer volume, it’s just not possible to look at every product entering the country.

CFIA guidelines

Many products receive offshore pre-inspection, which is done within the exporting country, and not by CFIA. This is in place to reduce the number of rejected shipments in transit and at the border. Import compliance is first verified even before product leaves the exporter’s loading dock. Importers are required to file documentation with CFIA’s Automated Import Reference Service. This system identifies regulations that are necessary for a vast range of commodities and processed products. It also provides Harmonized System codes for statistics, trade, and taxation purposes. Documentation is prepared to accompany the shipment confirming regulations have been met in the receiving country. Depending on the product and the exporting country, in some cases, product is precleared at the point of export, and therefore subject to very low re-inspection rates on arrival in Canada. This occurs mostly with highly trusted countries of export, such as the United States, and for low-risk products like shelf stable and canned goods.

Many shipments are visually screened by CFIA upon arrival in Canada to ensure the contents are matching the bills of lading, and that they comply with Canadian regulations. Due to the sheer volume of foods, it is impossible to do a full inspection on every container. According to the CFIA Blueprint for Imports Guidance, between five and eight per cent of shipments are manually inspected, and the rest by automation. Manual inspection could imply a rapid visual inspection, or more rarely, an organoleptic inspection with full evaluation of product and packaging. This all suggests there is a realistic potential for non-compliant product to get through the system.

While it’s not likely the case in the caffeinated sports beverage case, there have been many incidents where individuals use their personal exemption for importing products, and bring in small quantities, which they then sell at small-scale retail stores or online. There are also importers who play the risk, anticipating that their product will be automatically evaluated on arrival at the border, rather than getting a full inspection.

What occurred with the non-compliant energy drinks is an element of tort law, where there was a breach of regulations. Within tort, negligence happens when a company makes a mistake or omission in compliance, but otherwise, has the plan of doing right within the regulatory system. Being non-compliant with full knowledge that they’re circumventing regulations is breaching the regulation with intent and has a different set of penalties in tort law. The import system has many prompts and reminders regarding regulations, such as labelling, composition, permitted and non-permitted ingredients, language of labels, and Nutrition Facts requirements, suggesting that this particular case of non-compliance is not a matter of negligence.

Course correction

When companies are found in non-compliance, usually corrective action is the first step from CFIA. This reflects on a continuous improvement mindset that most non-compliance is negligence, where a company made a mistake or omission within a complex regulatory system but is otherwise demonstrating commitment to good standards of compliance. When non-compliance with intent occurs, establishments can be subject to a range of penalties. This can include license suspensions or cancellations or revocation of certifications, such as organic. In some other cases, annotated monetary penalties may be applied, which are a form of regulatory fine. In the most severe cases, criminal charges can be laid against establishments and the management for intentionally disregarding regulations.

At the point of publication, no fines or penalties have been published for this incident. However, CFIA is known for doing detailed enforcement proceedings, which take time. Time will tell if this was a case of massive negligence, or a calculated risk done with intent to circumvent regulations.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the November/December 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Codex adopts new food safety, quality standards

ncaleb — Thu, 07 Dec 2023 16:10:51 +0000

For the first time after the COVID-19 pandemic, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) concludes with a physical report adoption, marking the end of the 60^th anniversary of the first CAC in 1963.

The 46^th session of CAC adopted a series of new food safety and quality standards including: the new Guidelines for the Control of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in Raw Beef, Fresh Leafy Vegetables, Raw Milk and Raw Milk Cheeses, and Sprouts; the Guidelines for the Safe Use and Reuse of Water in Food Production and Processing; and Revisions to the Standard for Follow-up Formula (CXS 156-1986). A new Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Mycotoxins Contamination in Cassava and Cassava-based Products was also adopted, as well as Principles and Guidelines on the Use of Remote Audit and Inspection in Regulatory Frameworks and Revisions to General Guidelines on Sampling (CXG 50-2004).

Report adoption was over in seven hours, with CAC chair, Steve Wearne (U.K.), commending delegates for their efforts in facilitating the adoption and for their work throughout the week.

“This was an extraordinary piece of team work.” said Corinna Hawkes, Codex secretary ad interim “From the chairperson and vice chairpersons of CAC to members and observers, they all had a role in making this meeting very successful”.

In closing the meeting, former CAC chair, Guilherme da Costa, recognized CAC chair, Steve Wearne, and the three vice-chairs, Allan Azegele (Kenya), Raj Rajasekar (New Zealand) and Diego Varela (Chile) for their contributions to Codex Alimentarius.

Cibus Tec in Parma, Italy; the technological hub for food and beverage

Food in Canada — Fri, 03 Nov 2023 15:06:55 +0000

Cibus Tec, the trade fair event by Koeln Parma Exhibitions, opened its doors in Parma, Italy, from October 24 – 27. The trade fair event dedicated to technologies for the food and beverage sector, welcomed 40,000 visitors from Italy and 120 additional countries.

This year hosted 1,200 exhibitors (30 per cent coming from abroad) while 10,000 meetings were scheduled.

The 2023 edition of Cibus Tec was opened by Franco Mosconi, president of Fiere Parma.

“Fiere di Parma is a special place, in which the authentic beauties of this country are periodically on display: art, antiques, tourism, good food. With Cibus Tec, however, it takes the visitor inside an ideal factory of the future in which one can experience first-hand all the processes – of very high technical depth – that bring the foods and drinks we consume daily to our tables,” says Mosconi. “All this gives enormous prominence to the foodtech supply chains and manufacturing excellence of our territory and of Italy as a whole, attracting highly qualified exhibitors and visitors from all over the world, certain of finding here in one place, the best and most advanced solutions, technologies and innovations for the food industry.”

Photo: Cibus Tec

The inauguration ceremony was an opportunity to present data from the first Cibus Tec machinery observatory for food & beverage, which aims to measure and monitor the size, performance, markets and competitiveness of the supply chain on international scale.

The meeting was concluded by Emanuele Di Faustino, head of industry, retail and services at Nomisma, who oversaw project.

“Despite the uncertain international macro-economic and geopolitical scenario, the opportunities for a further expansion of Italian exports of food and beverage technologies and machinery in the coming years are plausible. The market of greatest interest for Italian companies is certainly the United States, the main world importer (7 billion euros in 2022) and the first destination for Made in Italy exports (1.2 billion euros), a record destined to remain so in the future, thanks to an expanding food industry and significant growth rates in the demand for Italian machinery. Precisely in light of this strategic nature, the USA was the first market to be studied in depth within the newly created Machinery Observatory for Food & Beverage by Nomisma for Cibus Tec,” he said.

Many companies who operate in Canada were exhibitors at the show, including: bioMerieux, Honeywell, Kronen GMBH and Provisur Technologies, to name a few.

The Italian company, Bardiani Valves, opened a Canadian distribution office in Toronto in 2014. At the Bardiani booth, Food in Canada had a chance to speak with Andrea Genitrini, General Manager at Bardiani about the show and Italian/Canadian ties.

“At this edition of the trade show we decided to invite our biggest Canadian partners to our Parma facility. We try to open up in the same way they opened to us when we first came to Canada. We hope to share Italy with them like a local.”

Bardiani hosted an evening of education and networking on October 24 at their Parma plant. There were presentations on their machinery and equipment, with the team available to explain the features and advantages of new technologies.

Various events took place during the week, one of the conferences scheduled was organized by the Order of Food Technologists from Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, and Umbria.

“The Impact of Circular Economy on Food Safety” roundtable discussion provided insights into the importance of food safety in companies adopting sustainable practices such as reducing their carbon footprint, fighting food waste, food redistribution, and waste management. The seminar concluded a three-day event hosted by the Order, in collaboration with Cibus Tec, which focused on current regulations and innovations in food, from functional foods to cultured meat, from insect-based products to plant-based products, and clean-label offerings.

In celebration of the 120^th anniversary of the International Milk Federation and the Italian Committee, a discussion took place aimed at giving voice to the dairy industry. The goal was to share business experiences and strategic directions to collectively tackle upcoming challenges.

Demo line. Photo: Cibus Tec

Walking through the conference halls, machines were spotted in action; moving in rapid speed, zipping vacuum sealed cheese and other products down converter belts with precision.

In Hall 2, three automated production lines were showcased. One was dedicated to a traditional Italian bakery product, ‘pinsa,’ which has experienced a surge in popularity in recent years. The processes of mixing, forming, and packaging the finished product were designed to optimise production, minimise waste, and ensure precise weight accuracy.

A second line replicated the processes of portioning and packaging hard and semi-hard cheeses. The initial step was cutting, a process that could be conducted with different diameters and heights, resulting in products with fixed geometry or calibrated weight. The portioned cheese was transported to a quality control system that employed 2D and 3D analysis to examine the product both dimensionally and cosmetically. Safety at work was also considered in this line, with specific stainless steel protections safeguarding tasks performed by human operators.

The third line replicated the packaging of ‘Doypack’ bags, applied to candies (though the process is versatile). An aspirator transported the sweets to a 10-head weigher, which could adjust the product dosage as needed for packaging. The packaging machine featured both a bag loader with servo-assisted pick and place and a system for discarding unopened or improperly positioned packages. The line integrated an electronic gas mixer in direct communication with the machine, minimising consumption. At this stage, packages passed through an in-line sealing integrity control system, ensuring food safety and product quality.

Start up arena. Photo: Cibus Tec

In Hall 4, at the Cibus Tec Digital Factory, visitors entered the world of Industry 5.0, where digital technologies such as the industrial internet of things, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence optimised production efficiency, streamlined maintenance and training operations, made production more sustainable, and enabled new post-sales business models for machine manufacturers.

Mechanics for the F&B industry is an area of focus in Italian manufacturing; with over 2,100 active companies and 61,000 employees, the sector generated a turnover of 15.7 billion euros in 2022. Compared to 2019, turnover grew by 7.6 per cent, while the workforce recorded an increase of 11.7 per cent.

This industry also represents one of the Made in Italy sectors most suited to international markets, with exports of eight billion euros in 2022 (24.2 per cent compared to 2012). In the first six months of 2023, compared to the same period of 2022, the export trend is growing (+16.4 per cent), and at the end of 2023, it is estimated to close with a value of approximately 8.8 billion (+10 per cent compared to 2022).

Food Law: The packaging dilemma

ncaleb — Thu, 02 Nov 2023 15:20:56 +0000

The Government of Canada has taken action towards reducing plastic pollution through its Zero Plastic Waste Agenda. While the goal of reducing plastic pollution is important, requirements impacting plastic food-contact packaging must also be considered in light of food safety and waste.

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) published a Regulatory Framework Paper in April 2023, regarding recycled content and labelling. The recycled content requirements would exclude certain products, such as food-contact packaging other than beverage containers. The Framework notes that food-grade recycled resins are in limited supply for many types of food packaging. Beverage containers are included as “recycling processes producing food-grade PET and HDPE are relatively mature, and beverage bottles made from these resins have a proven ability to incorporate high levels of recycled content.”

The Framework also includes recyclability labelling requirements for all consumer-facing primary, secondary and e-commerce plastic packaging (including food) with limited exceptions. Regulated parties (e.g. manufactures, importers, brand owners) would be required to assess recyclability in each province or territory where the item is sold before placing the item on the market with the prescribed recyclability logo on the label. The Framework proposes a phased-in implementation, starting in 2026. However, the enacting regulations are not yet published, so the actual transition period is unknown. ECCC has indicated it will align as closely as possible to the compliance dates of Health Canada and CFIA’s food labelling co-ordination policy.

P2 Notice

In August, ECCC released a consultation for a pollution prevention planning notice (P2 Notice) for food-contact packaging, targeted at Canada’s largest grocery retailers. The P2 Notice is an alternative regulatory instrument aimed at reducing the environmental impact of food-contact packaging excluded from the recycled content requirements under the Framework. The P2 Notice would set targets related to recycled content; reduction, reuse, and redesign of primary food plastic packaging; and sale of products within reuse-refill systems, concentrated products, and products free of plastic packaging. Large grocery retailers would be required to prepare and implement a P2 plan to meet these targets. ECCC’s consultation notes these retailers are at the centre of the value chain and have the ability to engage with brands and suppliers to influence practices throughout the supply chain.

Proposed actions to reduce food plastic packaging must also be considered in light of the current food regulatory framework. The safety of food packaging materials is regulated under Part B Division 23 of the Food and Drug Regulations, and section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act, which has the effect of prohibiting the sale of food that may be harmful to the consumer, including due to its packaging.

There is currently no requirement for food packaging to obtain an approval. Companies may make a voluntary submission to obtain a letter of no objection if Health Canada considers the packaging acceptable from a food chemical safety perspective. Health Canada has, however, signalled its intent to move forward with a mandatory pre-market review program for food packaging materials as part of ECCC’s Zero Plastic Waste Agenda. The details of a mandatory program are not yet available, but Health Canada published revised guidelines for using recycled plastics in food packaging in March 2023 for determining safety and acceptability of post-consumer recycled plastics.

Food waste prevention

At the same time, there is growing consensus on the need to reduce food waste as another important step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food examined rising food costs in Canada, culminating in a report published in June 2023. One of the report recommendations was investigating eliminating best-before dates to reduce food waste, and ensuring plastic reduction requirements are attainable by extending the implementation timeline for a single-use plastics ban and ensuring commercially viable alternatives to plastics will be available in needed quantities.

Reducing plastic pollution is an important environmental priority, but it will have ripple effects. ECCC, Health Canada and CFIA must continue working collaboratively to ensure the Zero Plastic Waste Agenda doesn’t compromise food safety or lead to increasing food waste.

Katrina Coughlin is a partner in the Ottawa office of Gowling WLG, specializing in food and drug regulatory law. Contact her at katrina.coughlin@gowlingwlg.com.

This column was originally published in the October 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Focus on Food Safety: Aspartame and cancer ‘risk’

ncaleb — Thu, 02 Nov 2023 15:13:01 +0000

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has deemed aspartame as a “possible carcinogen”. This is a concern for manufacturers formulating with this popular non-caloric sweetener. When a manufacturer hears the term, “possible carcinogen,” it becomes a moment of alarm for food safety, but what does ‘possible’ mean within the context of this report?

It’s important to reflect on the power of words in hazard and risk assessment. Media coverage of IARC’s assessment does not do justice to the science that was conducted, and the actual evidence presented.

IARC is a United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) agency tasked with monitoring cancer risks within the human environment. IARC uses a classification system with four levels. Group 1 is “Carcinogenic to Humans,” and this grouping has either sufficient evidence to prove carcinogenicity in humans, or strong evidence in humans supported by sufficient evidence in experimental animal models, along with a known mechanism for carcinogenicity.

Group 2 is split into two subgroups. Group 2A is “Probably carcinogenic to humans,” which has limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but sufficient evidence in experimental animals or inadequate evidence in humans but sufficient evidence in animals along with a strong understanding of a mechanism of carcinogenesis, or limited evidence in both humans and animals but a similar molecular structure to a compound already listed in Groups 1 or 2A.

Group 2B is “Possibly carcinogenic to humans,” meaning there is limited evidence in humans and less than sufficient evidence in animals, or inadequate evidence in humans but sufficient evidence in animals or inadequate evidence in humans and less than sufficient evidence in animals but supporting evidence from mechanistic and other data.

Group 3 is “Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans,” and this group does not imply that compounds are not carcinogenic or safe, it just means that more research is required, because evidence is inadequate in humans and animals, the mechanisms do not support carcinogenicity, or the agent does not fall into normal classifications.

Risk vs. hazard

The power of words is vital. In almost all modern IARC monographs, there is a preamble that’s typically overlooked by media. The term, “carcinogenic risk,” in IARC monographs series is taken to mean that an agent is capable of causing cancer. The monographs evaluate cancer hazards despite the historical presence of the word, “risks,” in the title. Risk is not the same as hazard, but IARC has chosen to use the word, “risk,” in their documentation. A hazard is something that can cause harm, while risk is the likelihood and the impact that a hazard will cause harm. IARC does not actually evaluate risk, only hazard.

In the most recent IARC report, the basis of evidence was three observational studies using consumption data for artificially sweetened beverages as the proxy for aspartame consumption, then looking for causes of morbidity and mortality within that group. Liver cancers, in particular hepatocellular carcinoma, were observed with higher frequency in groups consuming larger amounts of artificially sweetened beverages. IARC’s report itself discusses how this observation is correlational, and not necessarily causative.

IARC works in tandem with the Joint Expert Committee for Food Additives (JECFA), a U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and WHO joint committee focused on the risk assessment of food additives. JECFA not only looks at hazard, but also typical dietary intake and food applications to understand exposure to consumers. JECFA published a joint commentary, and notably, they chose to not change the acceptable daily intake of 0-40mg/kg body weight in humans, or the estimated equivalent of nine to 14 cans of aspartame sweetened soda per day, assuming no other dietary sources.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is most frequently caused by hepatitis infection, heavy alcohol consumption, cirrhosis, cigarette smoking, several genetic diseases and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis is typically caused by diabetes, high cholesterol, and blood triglycerides. Obesity and the stress it causes on the body may be a key factor. Artificially sweetened and calorie-reduced food products, often containing aspartame, are the default choices of many people experiencing obesity.

When you understand what IARC means from a technical perspective, the term, “possible carcinogen,” does not have the same foreboding as a media report claiming, “aspartame is a possible cancer risk”. IARC takes a precautionary stance in its communications.

Health Canada and FDA are not making any changes to how aspartame can be used following IARC’s report.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the October 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

CFIA launches national standards to safeguard pork industry from African swine fever

ncaleb — Thu, 02 Nov 2023 14:57:37 +0000

While Canada is free of African swine fever (ASF) and has never had a reported case of this devastating disease, prevention and preparation for its potential introduction into Canada is necessary for protecting Canadian pigs and the pork industry.

In support of the Canadian ASF Compartment Program and following a consultation done in 2022, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) releases national standards and a national framework to guide industry in the next steps towards implementing the program.

ASF compartments are the creation of distinct sub-populations of pigs that follow common biosecurity management, surveillance and traceability measures (as described in the standards and framework). These compartments are established prior to an outbreak and are intended to allow for the export of products even if they were to originate from within an infected zone.

The Canadian ASF Compartment Program comprises three key components: national standards, national framework, and the Compartment Operator Program. The Government of Canada is responsible for the Standards and Framework for ASF compartments in Canada, which will guide the Canadian Pork Council in developing the Compartment Operator Program. Compartments will be developed and managed by industry with approval and oversight by the CFIA.

The Canadian ASF Compartment Program is one of the many tools and efforts by federal and provincial governments, international partners and the pork industry to mitigate the risk of ASF in Canada.

“The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is taking every precaution to protect swine herds and the pork industry from African swine fever. The Canadian ASF Compartment Program underscores our commitment to proactive biosecurity and disease management and strengthens Canada’s position as a global leader in swine health,” said Dr. Harpreet S. Kochhar, president, Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Quebec-based innovators develop hyperspectral tool to assess marbling

ncaleb — Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:35:00 +0000

The Canadian Agri-Food Automation and Intelligence Network (CAAIN) is investing $301,428 in Montreal’s MatrixSpec Solutions, which is spearheading a project to develop an automated smart device for pork marbling assessment.

“Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada tells us that in 2022, our nation produced 2.26 million tonnes of pork, over 60 per cent of which was exported, contributing $4.82 billion to the economy,” explained Darrell Petras, CAAIN’s CEO. “Despite the sector’s economic impact, pork grading technology has advanced little over the past several decades. Innovation can be expensive both to develop and to adopt, and the potential ROI is not always self-evident. As a result, inertia is not uncommon in agriculture and primary processing, a situation that underscores the value CAAIN adds by supporting the kind of research and innovation we are celebrating today. This pork marbling measurement technology has the potential to greatly improve efficiency and profitability in an industry characterized by price volatility.”

The project, valued at $844,081, will improve the evaluation of marbling, one of the most important criteria used to determine red meat quality. The current method of grading pork involves cutting a representative loin or chop and assessing it visually. In addition to being time consuming, the process is wasteful. MatrixSpec’s Marbling Meter is a handheld device similar to a grocery store checkout scanner. It uses hyperspectral imaging to ‘read; the marbling and return a grade quickly, objectively, and without damaging the product. Because the tool is programable, it will be usable in the U.S., as well as Canada, despite the two countries’ different grading standards. For now, its focus will be limited to pork, but there is a possibility of eventually expanding the reach to beef grading.

California first U.S. state to ban food additives

ncaleb — Thu, 12 Oct 2023 14:28:39 +0000

California is the first U.S. state to ban four chemicals used in well-known candies and other foods and drinks because of their link to certain health problems.Governor Newsom signed a law banning the red dye No. 3 chemical used as food colouring for products like Peeps, the marshmallow treat most associated with Easter. The chemical has been linked to cancer and has been banned from makeup for more than 30 years.The law also bans brominated vegetable oil, which is used in some store brand sodas, and potassium bromate and propylparaben, two chemicals used in baked goods.

Newsom said in a signing statement that the additives addressed in the bill are already banned in various other countries. All four chemicals are banned in foods in the European Union.

“Signing this into law is a positive step forward on these four food additives until the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews and establishes national updated safety levels for these additives,” Newsom’s statement said.

Just Born, the company that makes Peeps, has said it has been looking for other dye options for its products.

The bill was authored by Assembly member Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Los Angeles.

“The Governor’s signature represents a huge step forward in our effort to protect children and families in California from dangerous and toxic chemicals in our food supply,” Gabriel said in a statement.

The law doesn’t take effect until 2027, which Newsom said should give companies plenty of time to adapt to the new rules.

Focus on Food Safety: Novel foods take novel food safety approaches

ncaleb — Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:13:33 +0000

Animal agriculture has a mixed reputation for sustainability and climate impact, prompting many organizations to look at novel practices to meet consumer demands. Using cell culture-based meat and protein foods is one strategy, and food safety questions must be addressed before the technology can be fully commercialized.

Biofermentation

Food products derived from the culture of cells in biofermentation systems have been produced for decades and approved for sale in Canada. Initially, the emphasis was on enzymes for food production, such as expression of rennet. Other examples include expression of leghemoglobin for use in vegan meat substitutes, or synthesis of fucosyllactose for toddler formulas. What is new is that animal cells are being cultured in mass quantity for the first time with the intent of using the cells as food, rather than using them as biofactories for proteins and molecules.

Given the high precision and control of biofermentation, a high degree of food safety is expected.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) held a joint task force on evaluating food safety issues of cell-based meat products. They released their initial findings in April 2023. Their emphasis was on a systematic approach to food safety. They anticipate cell-sourcing, cell growth and production, cell harvesting, and food processing to carry some risks.

Using a risk-based methodology, the FAO-WHO taskforce investigated consumer perceptions for naming cell-based meat products, noting that consistency of factual terms surrounding the tech will help build confidence in the product’s safety and quality.

Codex Alimentarius is also expected to have a framework for standard of identity related to cell-based meat by year end.

Procedures

In Canada, novel foods are evaluated by Health Canada and CFIA for safety prior to public release. Manufacturers, producers, importers, and other interested parties can apply for approval. It is up to the applicant to provide a comprehensive report evaluating the product’s safety considerations. This officially includes descriptions of the novel food and how the food will be used, typical dietary exposure, nutrition, toxicology, allergenicity, chemical considerations, and other food safety issues.

For novel plants, this would also include potential for gene flow to native species, potential for becoming a weed or invasive plant, and impact on biodiversity. For all novel foods, a method of analysis and detection must be provided in the application. It’s anticipated that Health Canada would use a synthesis of this methodology when evaluating cell-based meats and other cultured protein products.

Health Canada lists novel foods that have been approved, as well as foods that are deemed not novel. Currently, it has extensive decision-making processes for novel plant-based foods, and it’s anticipated a similar rigour will apply for novel cell-based meat.

Health Canada did a consultation process on labelling of plant-based meat substitutes, and simulated meats in 2020. It found Canadians wanted clarity on labelling requirements. Similarly, the labelling of cell-based meat and protein products will be vitally important for consumer confidence and acceptance.

The technology for cell-based meat is possible, and the technology is available right now. However, substantial research is needed to enhance the affordability of the product compared to conventional meat or other food protein sources.

Canadian companies and academic groups have formed the Cellular Agriculture Canada group to advocate for industry, including regulatory and food safety approvals. As production scales, there will be need for workforce training specific to this industry.

While cell-based meat is capturing a large proportion of attention, there are several Canadian companies who are looking at plant-based proteins to create better quality analogue products. These companies are not facing the same regulatory barriers for novelty as they have emphasized plant-based ingredients with histories of safe use. Instead, their primary regulatory barrier is labelling and general food safety.

At the time of writing this article, no cell-based meat, dairy or seafood products were approved by Health Canada.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached via email at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the August/September 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Not so eco-friendly after all! PFAS found in paper straws

ncaleb — Fri, 01 Sep 2023 12:59:44 +0000

‘Eco-friendly’ paper drinking straws contain long-lasting and potentially toxic chemicals, a new study has concluded.

In the first analysis of its kind in Europe, and only the second in the world, Belgian researchers tested 39 brands of straws for the group of synthetic chemicals known as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

PFAS were found in the majority of the straws tested and were most common in those made from paper and bamboo, the study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food Additives and Contaminants, found.

PFAS are used to make everyday products, from outdoor clothing to nonstick pans, resistant to water, heat and stains. They are, however, potentially harmful to people, wildlife and the environment.

They break down very slowly over time and can persist over thousands of years in the environment, a property that has led to them being known as “forever chemicals.”

They have been associated with a number of health problems, including lower response to vaccines, lower birth weight, thyroid disease, increased cholesterol levels, liver damage, kidney cancer and testicular cancer.

“Straws made from plant-based materials, such as paper and bamboo, are often advertised as being more sustainable and eco-friendly than those made from plastic,” says researcher Dr Thimo Groffen, an environmental scientist at the University of Antwerp, who is involved in this study. “However, the presence of PFAS in these straws means that’s not necessarily true.”

A growing number of countries, including the U.K. and Belgium, have banned sale of single-use plastic products, including drinking straws, and plant-based versions have become popular alternatives.

A recent study found PFAS in plant-based drinking straws in the US. Dr Groffen and colleagues wanted to find out if the same was true of those on sale in Belgium.

To explore this further, the research team purchased 39 different brands of drinking straw made from five materials – paper, bamboo, glass, stainless steel and plastic.

The straws, which were mainly obtained from shops, supermarkets and fast-food restaurants, then underwent two rounds of testing for PFAS.

The majority of the brands (27/39, 69 per cent) contained PFAS, with 18 different PFAS detected in total.

The paper straws were most likely to contain PFAS, with the chemicals detected in 18/20 (90 per cent) of the brands tested. PFAS were also detected in 4/5 (80 per cent) brands of bamboo straw, 3/4 (75 per cent) of the plastic straw brands and 2/5 (40 per cent) brands of glass straw. They were not detected in any of the five types of steel straw tested.

The most commonly found PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), has been banned globally since 2020.

Also detected were trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and trifluoromethanesulfonic acid (TFMS), “ultra-short chain” PFAS that are highly water soluble and so might leach out of straws into drinks.

The PFAS concentrations were low and, bearing in mind that most people tend to only use straws occasionally, pose a limited risk to human health. However, PFAS can remain in the body for many years and concentrations can build up over time.

“Small amounts of PFAS, while not harmful in themselves, can add to the chemical load already present in the body,” says Dr Groffen.

It isn’t known whether the PFAS were added to the straws by the manufacturers for waterproofing or whether were the result of contamination. Potential sources of contamination include the soil the plant-based materials were grown in and the water used in the manufacturing process.

However, the presence of the chemicals in almost every brand of paper straw means it is likely that it was, in some cases, being used as a water-repellent coating, say the researchers.

The study’s other limitations include not looking at whether the PFAS would leach out of the straws into liquids.

Dr Groffen concludes: “The presence of PFAS in paper and bamboo straws shows they are not necessarily biodegradable. We did not detect any PFAS in stainless steel straws, so I would advise consumers to use this type of straw, or just avoid using straws at all.”

Recipe to Retail: Food safety culture is a no-brainer

ncaleb — Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:09:24 +0000

No food business leader wants to wake up to the nightmare of a product recall. The toll of lost sales, business disruption, legal costs, administrative expenses, penalties, and damaged reputation can be astronomical. Another stressful situation is when a business is not prepared for audits.

Food brands with a strong food safety culture are in a better position to prevent and overcome potentially expensive food safety and quality related disruptions, according to Paul Valder, a food safety and quality veteran and CEO of Culture Assurance Consulting (CAC). He leads a team of specialists who support food processors by performing risk assessments, developing food safety certification systems, and providing proprietary software.

Food safety culture

It is a mindset that starts at the top of an organization, with senior leadership driving it to permeate every department. Food safety and quality becomes a company-wide commitment, no longer relegated exclusively to QA or food safety teams. Every employee understands their role and is committed to ensuring food safety and quality, regardless of their title. The phrase, “if you see something, say something,” comes to mind. The result is a proactive approach to mitigate food safety and quality risks.

Benefits

Although food safety culture may not prevent issues from arising, it can reduce the scale and enable businesses to resolve issues more quickly, which yields numerous benefits, such as:

reduced product recalls, quality issues and consumer complaints;
reduced severity of issues when potential problems are flagged by employees before they escalate;
minimized financial impact from lost sales, investigations, disposal costs, packaging re-works, legal fees, customer fees and penalties and repairing reputational damage;
reduced food and packaging waste;
higher audit success rates with fewer non-conformances;
maintains positive company and brand reputations and minimizes damage;
retains customers through improved service levels;
higher employee retention because they are engaged and have a sense of company pride;
builds and protects customer and consumer loyalty and trust in your brand; and
differentiates your brand.

With consumers increasingly concerned about the ingredients and safety of their food, there is an opportunity to publicize the steps your company takes to ensure your products are safe.

Key ingredients

Management must provide constant reinforcement and the required resources to facilitate an enduring food safety culture. Incorporating it in the recruiting process, measuring performance, incentivizing employees, and providing ongoing training is essential. Integrating food safety culture with strong company and brand values, and diligently adhering to those values, will strengthen your organization. Other critical components include a food safety and quality management system, supported by a robust software solution. Valder recommends implementation of a flexible, modular software system that enables customization of food safety and quality programs to suit business processes, and is capable of integrating with existing ERP systems to streamline, digitize and automate real-time reporting processes.

Counter resistance

Change inevitably sparks pushback. Cultivating a food safety culture is no different. Excuses run the gamut from “don’t have the time and it’s QA’s job” to “it’s disruptive and too expensive”.

Management may not comprehend the risks of inaction. Valder recommends developing a risk mitigation strategy to expose risk events, measure the impact on the business and prioritize required corrective actions.

Overcome financial hurdles

In today’s climate, food processors are stretched for time, resources, and finances more than ever before. To bridge the funding gap, Valder suggests taking advantage of government funding programs.

In short, investing in building a food safety culture is a no-brainer to protect your business, your brand, and your bottom line.

As a CPG food consultant, Birgit Blain helps clients think strategically to build a sustainable brand. Her experience includes 17 years with Loblaw Brands and President’s Choice. Contact her at birgit@bbandassoc.com or learn more at www.bbandassoc.com.

An edited version of this column was initially published in the June/July 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Focus on Food Safety: New Listeria policy is more user-friendly for manufacturers, retains rigour

ncaleb — Thu, 17 Aug 2023 14:28:28 +0000

Health Canada has updated its “Policy on Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-to-Eat Foods.” The new policy replaces the 2011 version and will come into effect on October 1, 2023. The updated policy, while still technically rigorous, is more user friendly with increased decision-making tools and visual aids to help interpret the complexity.

Clear pathways for manufacturers

Determining the risk category of a food is one of the top issues in the Listeria policy. Some food products allow Listeria growth during their shelf life, known as Category 1 product. Others have factors such as pH, water activity, thermal processes, freezing processes, inclusion of antimicrobial ingredients or processing aids, or novel processes, which make Listeria far less likely to be within the product and able to grow. These are known as Category 2 products. The 2023 policy includes comprehensive decision-making tools for manufacturers to understand where their product falls in the risk categories of 1, 2A and 2B. Once you know the risk, you can determine the level of attention and frequency required on environmental and product monitoring.

Effective preventive control

The 2023 policy establishes good manufacturing practices as essential for effective Listeria control. Management commitment, and effective implementation of the overarching HACCP or preventive control program, create the environment that allows good safety systems to work. While the policy does not name it, commitment to food safety culture is essential for effective Listeria control, as workers must feel implicated and have organizational support for applying preventive controls and participating in monitoring programs.

Environmental monitoring

Listeria is notorious because it can thrive in biofilms in refrigerated environments. Environmental monitoring is the swabbing of surfaces for presence of Listeria or other organisms. It’s typically done during manufacturing, usually three hours after start of operations, as this is when Listeria would rub off into product from biofilms in machines. It is also done immediately after pre-operation sanitation to monitor effectiveness of sanitation protocols. When determining priority swabbing locations, individuals designing testing protocols need to take time inspecting equipment and processes to look for places where food accumulates inconspicuously and cracks or crevices that are hard to clean. Direct food contact surfaces are top priority, including machines, belts, and conveyors. Secondary priority is for non-contact points where Listeria thrives and quickly cross contaminates, such as hoses, drains, and mops. Sampling guidance has been created for high- and low-risk products and non-food contact surfaces.

Product testing

The 2023 policy has clear tables for quantity of samples required for product testing. The high-risk action criteria is any detection of Listeria monocytogenes in a single or composite 5 x 25 g sample. Low-risk action criteria is enumeration at greater than 100 cfu/g in a 5 x 10 g sample evaluated separately. High-risk products are more likely to be sampled frequently, thus the allowance for compositing to mitigate costs. However, compositing may not allow for precise detection and, if flagged for positive results, would require repeated testing.

Frequency and methods of testing

In the 2023 policy, testing frequency is determined by a systematic evaluation of the risk, including efficacy of the preventive control program, risk category of the product, historical in-plant data, and size of the manufacturing lot. Consulting a Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) inspector is essential in determining appropriate frequency. Analytical methods should be approved and listed in Health Canada’s Compendium of Analytical Methods.

Importance of process validation

Food manufacturers are required to validate their ingredient or process, using outcomes-based frameworks showing evidence that interventions are effective.

Trend analysis

In microbiological testing, it’s typical to see variation in samples. Statistical process control (SPC) allows for the tracking of trends over time, to visualize common cause and special cause variations. The new Listeria policy recommends, but does not indicate how to do, SPC. Organizations such as ASQ provide free educational tools for SPC. Control Charts and Pareto analysis are useful for prioritizing attention and observing loss of control.

This column was originally published in the June/July 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Recalled Monster Energy product was not meant for sale in Canada, says company

ncaleb — Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:38:19 +0000

Monster releases a statement in response to a recent recall notice issued by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) of Monster’s caffeinated energy drinks due to caffeine content and labelling issues.

In that statement, Monster clarifies that the company has an exclusive sales and distribution relationship with Coca-Cola Canada Bottling Limited (CCCBL) for Monster Energy products that are marketed and sold in Canada.

“Monster takes compliance very seriously and specifically formulates and labels all products for sale and distribution in Canada to comply with Canadian requirements, including regulatory limitations on caffeine (which other countries may not share) and bilingual labelling requirements. In addition, all Monster Energy drinks for the Canadian market have been authorized for sale by Health Canada,” it added.

According to the statement, Monster was not contacted by the CFIA regarding this recall, and that it is actively trying to get additional information from the regulator.

Monster suspects that this product was formulated and labelled to meet the regulatory requirements of another country and was not intended for Canada, but nonetheless ended up in the possession of a third-party, unknown to Monster, that is named in the recall notice.

“It is likely the products were transhipped from a country outside of Canada,” said the statement. “Neither Monster nor CCCBL were named in the recall notice. This further reinforces Monster’s view that these products were not intended for the Canadian market. Monster does not believe this recall has any impact on Monster products formulated and labelled for Canada. Monster continues to try to engage with the CFIA on this issue.”

Enzyme solutions = better shelf life, texture

ncaleb — Thu, 29 Jun 2023 20:03:12 +0000

Enzyme technology is a must-have solution in baking today. It provides a consumer-friendly label solution while increasing shelf life, reducing waste, and decreasing costs. Enzymes work on a molecular level providing chemical reactions to improve shelf life and provide freshness. Bakeries need to have a comprehensive interpretation of their formulations, the processing environment and desired outcome to implement the best enzyme solutions. Working with ingredient suppliers, bakeries have access to enzyme solutions to create longer-lasting products that are less likely to be discarded due to staling and spoilage.

Jonathan Aleong, research & development manager, Puratos Canada, explains, “Enzymes are used to extend the shelf life of breads and baked goods primarily through texture modification. The main cause for loss of freshness is staling, which is a process that involves the recrystallization of starch, otherwise known as retrogradation. Previously, emulsifiers were the main tool used to combat the staling process. However, enzymes are now the solution of choice. They are clean(er) label and highly effective at maintaining the texture of baked goods. At Puratos, we have observed an increased demand for clean(er) label solutions for shelf-life extension to reduce food waste, as it also helps to mitigate cost increases and improve efficiencies at all levels of the food supply.”

Yanling Yin, director research development & applications for Bakery, Corbion (Lenexa, Kan.), adds, “Enzyme technologies are commonly used in the baking industry to extend the shelf life of breads and baked goods. Enzymes are natural catalysts that can break down and modify various components in dough, leading to improved dough handling, better texture, and increased volume. Certain enzymes can also break down starch to slow down its retrogradation to maintain product softness during shelf life. The modification of starch or protein can lead to the production of various flavour compounds that enhance the taste of baked goods.”

Troy Boutte, PhD, vice president – innovation, AB Mauri North America describes, “Shelf life extension started many years ago with emulsifiers to boost typical freshness to about five days. However, starting in the mid-1990s with the advent of modern enzyme technology, shelf life has steadily increased to the point where now we are more limited by mold growth than staling. Some baked goods currently have a shelf life of more than two months. While anti-staling enzyme technology was used mostly in yeast-raised goods initially, it is commonly utilized in chemically leavened products with good effect.”

Enzymes allow hamburger buns to stay fresh longer while maintaining their texture and flavour.

Shelf life extension examples

Aleong says, “Our Intens Freshness 2-30 and Acti-Fresh, are examples of enzyme-based solutions that have been specially designed to extend the freshness of breads and cakes from days to weeks, helping to reduce waste and providing a superior eating experience. A little bit of enzymes can go a long way, with even a modest improvement in shelf life yielding a tremendous impact on food waste. For example, we have helped a customer extend the shelf life of a high-volume bakery item for just one additional day that resulted in the prevention of more than half-a-million kilograms going to landfill and equated to annual cost savings of over $1 million.”

Yin offers sandwich bread and food service hamburger buns examples. “A sandwich bread made without enzymes typically has a shelf life of three to five days. By using an enzyme blend, the shelf life of sandwich bread can be extended to seven-10 days. In some instances, up to 21-28 days while maintaining the texture and flavour of freshly baked bread. Most quick service restaurants use frozen hamburger buns after thawing for use in each location. Without extended shelf life (ESL), the buns become crumbly and dry after thawing for a day. With ESL enzyme solution, the buns can stay moist and soft for more than five days,” she says.

Boutte identifies, “The initial implementation of anti-staling enzymes was in the 1990s. Before anti-staling enzymes, somewhere around 15 per cent of yeast-raised baked products were returned as stale. After anti-staling enzymes were introduced, the return rate dropped rapidly to only four or five per cent and is even lower now. Ultimately, more of the bread was being eaten and not going to waste. The effect was so significant that flour millers saw flour production decrease. This, of course, meant fewer wheat fields had to be fertilized and planted for wheat production, resulting in less packaging waste and fuel used for shipping.”

Enzymes solutions reducing food waste

Aleong explains, “Waste can occur at all stages of the bread or baked good life cycle, whether it’s during manufacturing, distribution or at home. Enzymes have a proven track record to be able to extend the shelf life and improve processing, helping to minimize waste at all stages. They are a necessary tool for combating food waste, improving sustainability, and meeting the needs of the increasingly health-conscious consumer.”

Abby Ceule, senior director of ingredient solutions, Corbion, describes, “Enzyme technologies have significant potential to reduce food waste, ensuring that food is consumed before it spoils. It’s worth noting that enzyme technologies are not a silver bullet. They should be used as part of a larger approach to reducing food waste. By working closely with ingredient suppliers, bakeries can access expertise, quality assurance, innovation, and supply chain efficiency, verifying the right ingredients and achieving the desired functional and sensory properties in their baked goods.”

Boutte concludes, “In the past 20 years, enzymes have gone from nice-to-have to must-have. This is due to their functionality and favourable consumer perception. Enzyme use is a prime example of sustainability. We can treat 1 million lb of flour with 1 or 2 lb of pure enzymes despite enzymes being diluted for ease of use. A typical emulsifier system would require 5,000-15,000 lb to treat the same amount of flour. While enzymes and other ingredients require the use of agricultural material and energy for production, enzymes require far less and do not put pressure on the food supply. Overall, enzyme use greatly reduces carbon footprint including energy used for manufacturing and shipping.”

This article was originally published in the April/May 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Focus on Food Safety: Making sense of big data in food safety

ncaleb — Thu, 11 May 2023 16:22:38 +0000

You can’t control what you can’t measure” is an adage. Whether quoted from Peter Drucker or W. Edwards Deming, the principle is sound. Food safety and quality managers need to integrate controls into their system, and to control the system takes measuring and collecting data. But what do you need to measure? How much data do you need to collect?

In the era of automated sensors, PLCs, and interconnected enterprise management systems, it’s tempting to collect every bit of data. But why collect them all? I’ve worked with companies interested in finding all the things they can measure, and they end up with spreadsheets of millions of numbers that merely fill up storage instead of creating action for quality. Observational data, when used strategically, should turn into visual tools that help inform decision-making. Meaningful and actionable measurements will have a positive impact on the product and help reduce errors and waste.

Meaningful measurements

Every measure should have a purpose for improving the product’s safety or quality. Each product and process have unique characteristics, so it’s important to have product developers, operations, machine operators, quality and food safety specialists, packaging, shipping, and consumer feedback teams communicate to identify where and how quality is achieved. Each of these members of the manufacturing team have different insights into how the system maintains or loses quality. It’s the food safety and quality manager’s role to make sure those conversations happen.

While it’s tempting to take as many measures as possible with automation, frequency must be coupled with ability to act. Real-time measurements are great if they are linked to some sort of control mechanism such as a SCADA controller that automatically adjusts the system, or a mechanism like optical sorter that removes non-conforming product. If a human needs to interpret and intervene in the quality control process, make sure the frequency of measurement corresponds to the ability to trace and control the affected product, and intervene appropriately.

Making sense of measurements

Statistical tools and spreadsheets, such as those shared publicly by ASQ (www.asq.org/quality-resources/seven-basic-quality-tools), can help visualize data. Statistical process control charts are particularly useful. They allow for observation of the natural variation that occurs in food products and processes.

No system is perfect. There is always some variation, which is described as “common cause variation”. Special cause variation refers to a system that’s losing control. These terms were championed by statistician, Lloyd Nelson. The Nelson Rules help interpret when a process is losing control. Control charts can be used for all sorts of measures, from evaluation of ATP results in sanitation and monitoring microbiology total plate counts, frequency of different attributes or defects to tracking moisture and energy efficiency of operations. Some organizations will create spreadsheet templates or macro tools to help catalogue this data efficiently. Many ERP systems are building this type of analysis into their base programs.

Measuring in the qualitative space

Qualitative measures, such as colour, flavour, consumer attitudes, and workforce morale, contribute to quality. There are creative ways to convert qualitative measurements into numerical systems, such as frequency tables, colour space charts, or Likert scales.

Creating solutions

Automation can collect data for quality and food safety, and statistical tools can help visualize the information, but competent humans are the decision-makers. It’s important to use root cause methodology, take time to investigate and see the big picture of all the interconnected systems causing quality and food safety issues.

In root cause analysis, factors related to measurement, materials, personnel, environment, methods, and machines are investigated for their contributions to quality. Many quality practitioners also add finance and management to the root cause. Each of these factors is questioned and investigated objectively to find opportunities for improvement.

Humans are best suited to seeing the big picture and interconnected aspect of quality factors. Don’t let numbers overwhelm the system. Make sure your organization stays in control by using the right numbers and analyzing them well.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the April/May 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

Focus on Food Safety: Best practices for best before dates

ncaleb — Thu, 16 Feb 2023 15:46:11 +0000

Reducing food waste is top of mind for many consumers. Whether for environmental concerns or cost control, avoiding food waste at the consumer level often focuses on best before dates (BBDs). Consumers have the tendency to throw out food that has reached its BBD under the assumption the food is no longer safe for consumption.

As a manufacturer, it may be worth reviewing your BBD practices using regulatory and food safety perspectives.

Definitions

The term, “best before date,” is commonly used with consumers and manufacturers. However, the regulated term in Canada is “durable life date” (DLD), derived from the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR) Definitions. Quoting from FDR, “Durable life means the period, commencing on the day on which a prepackaged product is packaged for retail sale, during which the product, when it is stored under conditions appropriate to that product, will retain, without any appreciable deterioration, its normal wholesomeness, palatability, nutritional value and any other qualities claimed for it by the manufacturer; (duree de conservation).” Expiry dates are a unique format of regulated DLD, specifically intended for foods for special dietary use like infant formula, fortifiers, and human milk substitutes. “Best before” is the term commonly applied by manufacturers, as it is better understood by consumers for being the threshold time for quality and safety.

Food products with a shelf life of less than 90 days are required to have a DLD on the package, except for prepackaged fresh fruit and vegetable products, prepackaged individual portions for food service or mobile vending, or prepackaged donuts. Products with shelf life longer than 90 days are not required to have a DLD. Typically, manufacturers use DLD coding to provide lot traceability because it can be used as a voluntary declaration for products longer than 90 days shelf life.

Setting up a durable life date

The responsibility is on the manufacturer for determining if a product requires a DLD and the typical shelf life. In general, shelf life can be categorized into four primary forms: pathogen outgrowth, microbial spoilage, loss of nutrition quality, or loss of organoleptic quality.

Using a risk-based approach, pathogen outgrowth is the greatest concern, followed by microbial spoilage, and this is most common for high and intermediate moisture foods. Manufacturers should be using sample programs, which hold and monitor the quality of product, and allow for observation of the shelf life. Manufacturers can retain their own samples and analyze for microbiological growth over a period. Alternatively, they can ask contract labs or Technology Access Centres to conduct shelf-life testing.

For products where the application of process controls and proper storage allow for extended shelf life, the concern may be nutritional and organoleptic or sensory property. This would include low moisture foods, frozen foods, or canned and hermetically sealed foods. Generally, the composition of the food changes minimally with respect to macronutrients and minerals. The primary concern for shelf life and “best before” declarations would be vitamins or a vitamin-based nutrient content claim as vitamins tend to be the most labile over time. This would be evaluated by a retained sample program, combined with nutrition chemistry testing at an accredited lab.

If the “best before” date is based on product quality, such as loss of colour, staling, or oxidation, sensory or organoleptic analysis is the most common way to determine shelf life. Here the risk to consumers is not related to food safety, but it’s based on the reputation of the company for delivering quality products. This can be evaluated by sensory difference or acceptability methods.

Different strategies

Grocers and other retailers use BBDs as part of their traceability and inventory control. Grocers want to purchase product with sufficient durability, so that they can have adequate time to sell the inventory.

If a product is using voluntary durable life declarations, there is the potential to use “packaged on” date coding. While this strategy could be helpful for consumers and retailers, it could also be misleading, as consumers do not have a clear perception of the typical time product is in distribution and retail channels before taking it home.

Using risk-based food safety knowledge and regulatory innovation can indeed improve food waste outcomes.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the February/March 2023 issue of Food in Canada.

FDA proposes a unified body to regulate human food

ncaleb — Thu, 02 Feb 2023 15:23:18 +0000

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration proposes to create a Human Foods Program under a single leader to enable the agency to oversee human food in a more effective and efficient way.

Under this plan, the functions of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Office of Food Policy and Response (OFPR), as well as certain functions of ORA will be unified into a newly envisioned organization called the Human Foods Program. The FDA will conduct a competitive national search for a deputy commissioner for human foods, who will oversee the Program.

The person in this position will report directly to the commissioner of food drugs and will be charged with leading a unified Human Foods Program that keeps the foods under regulation safe and nutritious, while ensuring the agency remains on the cutting edge of the latest advancements in science, technology, and nutrition.

Other key elements of the proposed new Human Foods Program organization include the creation of a Center for Excellence in Nutrition that prioritizes the agency’s ongoing efforts to help American consumers make more informed food choices. The FDA proposes to establish an Office of Critical Foods, as directed by the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, within this centre.

It proposes the establishment of an Office of Integrated Food Safety System Partnerships that will focus on elevating, co-ordinating and integrating food safety and response activities with state and local regulatory partners to more effectively meet the vision of an Integrated Food Safety System as envisioned in the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011. This newly proposed structure will ensure greater collaboration and support of state-level inspectional activities.

To help support the agency’s scientifically grounded decision-making activities, a Human Foods Advisory Committee consisting of external experts to advise on challenging and emerging issues in food safety, nutrition and innovative food technologies will be setup.

Finally, there will be an emphasis on strengthening enterprise information technology and analytical capabilities to fulfil the promise described in the New Era of Smarter Food Safety and support the improvement in workflow that will accompany these changes. This area of focus will support the work of the Human Foods Program by enabling more facile communication, more efficient operations and enhanced empirical risk algorithms to guide the priorities of the program and the work in the field.

As part of this proposed new vision, ORA’s operating structure will be transformed into an enterprise-wide organization that supports the Human Foods Program and all other FDA regulatory programs (e.g. agency centres) by focusing on its critical activities. This realignment will allow ORA to be singularly focused on excellence in its core mission – inspections, laboratory testing, import, and investigative operations. This will optimize ORA’s operations in line with FDA’s public health and prevention-oriented goals. Certain other functions of ORA will be aligned in other parts of the FDA to create an overall stronger agency.

While the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) will continue to operate as a stand-alone centre, the relevant food safety activities will be closely co-ordinated between the CVM Center Director and Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods. This proposed structure will allow CVM to support the Human Foods Program where its activities are relevant to human food safety.

Focus on Food Safety: Effective QA tactics are key to reducing waste

ncaleb — Tue, 03 Jan 2023 16:04:39 +0000

Throughout the industry, there are conversations about food waste reduction as part of the food processing sector’s commitment to environment, social responsibility, and climate change. At the processing level, food waste occurs because of checks and balances in food safety systems. If food does not meet safety standards, that product often becomes a waste stream. Using good strategy and tactical approaches in food safety and quality can be key to food waste reduction.

Hierarchy of waste

The old adage, “Reduce, reuse, recycle,” is foundational in food waste. The first stage is prevention. Good quality management and quality control systems take a preventive approach to food waste: identify the root cause of the waste, then reduce or eliminate the cause. When food waste streams are identified, using DMAIC-type analysis can reduce prevalence of waste. Within many quality management programs such as Lean or Six Sigma, “Waste Walks” are an essential part of management’s commitment to waste reduction. They give management the chance to observe and speak with the workforce to hear about ways waste may occur and perform rapid problem solving with employees.

Effective quality control

Quality control often emphasizes the quality evaluation of finished product. It’s better to look far upstream in the production process to find opportunities where quality can be determined as a preventive activity. To identify opportunities, review the process and production flow of product to identify where rapid quality control evaluations can reduce defects and waste product. Each process will be unique. Is it review of incoming ingredient quality? Is it better environmental controls of temperature or humidity, better sanitation or improved process controls within production? It’s often possible to pinpoint key quality control points in the process to reduce waste.

Rework

A procedure must be in place for taking defective goods and reprocessing and repurposing for waste reduction. Whether it is work in progress being reworked, or finished goods, it is vitally important from a food safety perspective to track production and formulation records to know what process controls have or not been applied to rework product. Formulation records are essential for allergen cross contamination on rework. Rework can reduce waste but should not be a trigger for wasteful recall based on poor production tracking.

Waste becomes a new product

Companies are now converting waste streams into new packaged goods through thoughtful and innovative processing methods. This includes using spent grain from breweries as a bakery ingredient, or repurposing fruit and vegetable trim into beverages. When converting post-processing waste into food products, there is need for enhanced oversight on the process flow. Frequency of sanitation on trim containers, temperature control on product for management of pathogen or spoilage organism growth, personnel hygiene, and transportation cold chain must be maintained.

Repositioning product effectively

One last tactic for food waste reduction is the repositioning of safe but unsaleable product. Waste often occurs when product is underfilled and not meeting weight or volume tolerances. Packages or product may be physically damaged but don’t pose a safety risk. Unsaleable could also include mislabelled product. Often this product may be useable by charitable organizations. Be prepared to do product specific food safety risk assessment as part of a charitable donor program to evaluate consumer risk. Beware of mislabelled nutrition facts or allergens from a consumer risk perspective as this could be putting a product into a recall situation.

Food safety systems are integral for food waste reduction. The preventive control mindset of food safety professionals works perfectly in partnership with waste reduction and environmental initiatives.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the November/December 2022 issue of Food in Canada.

Focus on Food Safety: The ‘ERA’ of increasing risk management

ncaleb — Mon, 28 Nov 2022 16:54:24 +0000

We all hear the words, “Big Data,” but most businesses, especially small ones are still wrapping their heads around this concept. Both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are jumping into a new era with ERA (establishment-based risk assessment) programs focused on application of predictive analytics and algorithm-based food safety analysis. The key outcome for food processors is that federal food safety authorities will use new ways to understand, quantify and apply risk within the regulatory space.

The U.S. FDA bases its ERA strategy on the four pillars of tech-enabled traceability; smarter tools and approaches for prevention and outbreak response; new business models and retail modernization; and food safety culture. CFIA’s ERA model focuses on inherent risk, mitigation, inspection, and compliance and defines risk of activities based on novel algorithms. Let’s break down how to prepare your organization for the upcoming ERA.

Perform risk analysis

In some companies, risk assessment only gets done when emergencies arise. Risk assessment should be included in FSQA task rotation and become part of the food safety culture system—when a risk is identified, there’s a channel to communicate quickly with decision-makers and respond. We know the classic risk assessment steps from HACCP-based programs: identify hazards, characterize them, determine the exposure, and estimate probability of exposure. There are activities involved in direct food safety risk assessment: performing site-specific observations of manufacturing, observing, and analyzing quality control data; interviewing key personnel involved in production; reviewing certificates of analysis from suppliers; and reviewing customer complaint and regulatory compliance logs.

There’s a second layer of risk assessment that is not as common but just as important, and that’s looking for indirect risks that could impact product safety. Are you monitoring for potential labour disruption or worker shortages? If you don’t have the workers, food safety, sanitation or quality control tasks could be neglected or rushed. What about recall information from competitors or other products in a similar category? Recall information can be found on CFIA and FDA websites. Trade embargoes, emerging diseases in other regions, or political upheaval can add to risk, as we’ve seen with the war in Ukraine and export closures in Indonesia for palm oil. If you must switch suppliers or change lead times on product inputs, it places considerable pressure on manufacturing systems. Watching the news, both general and industry specific, can help.

Use traceability tools

Yes, it’s still technically legal to have your traceability program on paper-based systems. A traceability program for supplier management, process management, and finished goods management is essential in all modern food safety management systems. From the ERA program, we’re getting hints that there could be a larger push toward electronic registration systems. We already know that a lot of this is linked to GS1-based coding on packaged goods. We may start to see serialization built into GS1 coding, so that each product can be linked back to the establishment, the process and the input suppliers in a more automated way. This rapid traceability scenario will be of great interest to companies using multiple co-manufacturing steps. Being able to quickly track co-manufacturing establishments was brought to light in the recent tara flour recalls, which heavily impacted meal kit manufacturers, who in turn, are heavy users of co-manufacturing for all the modular food units in their packs.

Build a food safety culture

In the ERA programs, and in fact in all the recent GFSI program updates, a major emphasis was put on food safety culture. These are the behavioural and organizational approaches ensuring the success of food safety technical systems by creating a shared purpose and value across the entire establishment. Have you done benchmarking tools such as Lone Jespersen’s Cultivate Food Safety Culture Maturity Model to see the current state of food safety culture in your organization, and define where you should prioritize growth? Do you have clear management commitment statements that are shared with all employees? Do you walk the talk and encourage people to do the right thing?

The future era of food safety is right now. Being prepared is the hallmark of food risk management, and we can prepare for the future right now.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the October 2022 issue of Food in Canada.

Food Allergy Canada unveils new guidelines for manufacturers

ncaleb — Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:48:03 +0000

Food Allergy Canada releases new allergen guidelines for food manufacturers. The Allergen Management Guidelines for Food Manufacturers support Canada’s 13,000 plus food and beverage manufacturers in managing allergens in their facility and enabling safe options for consumers with food allergy.

Food allergens such as peanuts, shellfish, wheat, eggs, and milk affect over 3 million Canadians, including 600,000 children and impact one-in-two households. This community relies on access to accurate ingredient information. Yet, current food labelling practices, specifically precautionary allergen labelling, is confusing to consumers, making it difficult to navigate safe food options.

“Food Allergy Canada, in collaboration with Université Laval’s Food Risk Analysis and Regulatory Excellence Platform, Maple Leaf Foods and leading food manufacturers, developed these guidelines to help Canadian food and beverage manufacturers manage allergens in their facilities and guide their decision on the appropriate use of precautionary allergen labelling,” said Jennifer Gerdts, executive director, Food Allergy Canada. “This approach will help provide safe food options for our community and labelling they can trust.”

The Allergen Management Guidelines provides a framework for Canadian food and beverage manufacturers on how to develop an allergen control plan or assess their current plan within their facility. The guidelines also include recommendations on the use of precautionary allergen labelling to ensure it can be used as an effective risk communication tool.

Managing allergens is a food safety priority. Considered a chemical hazard, allergens must be effectively managed throughout the food and beverage manufacturing process with preventive control measures and in accordance with the Safe Food for Canadians Act.

“These guidelines offer Canadian manufacturers a risk-based approach to manage food allergens, with the aim to meet Canadian food regulatory requirements while aligning with the most recent international advice stemming from the WHO/FAO Expert Consultation on food allergen risk assessment methodologies and allergen thresholds,” said Prof. Samuel Godefroy, full professor, Food Risk Analysis and Regulatory Policies in the Department of Food Science and the Institute of Nutrition and Functional Food (INAF), Université Laval.

“Food allergy is a serious public health issue and food and beverage manufacturers play a critical role in helping consumers make safe product choices. With the Allergen Management Guidelines, food manufacturers now have an industry informed framework, that provides practical recommendations for all types and sizes of manufacturers,” said Sharon Mohammed, director, government and industry relations – regulatory management, Maple Leaf Foods.

The Allergen Management Guidelines for Food Manufacturers was developed using a multi-stakeholder approach, including food manufacturers, academia, consumers and allergists. This resource was informed by industry best practices, international industry guidelines, scientific and expert community reports, and Canadian food manufacturer expertise.

The Allergen Management Guidelines and related resources including online training and a user guide can be downloaded from Food Allergy Canada at foodallergycanada.ca/AllergenGuidelines.

Federal government invests over $2.4M in food safety tech

ncaleb — Tue, 08 Nov 2022 14:47:01 +0000

The federal government grants P&P Optica $2,430,023 through the AgriInnovate Program to help build and present its innovative, Canadian-made food inspection technology for meat processors.

P&P Optica has developed a smart imaging system to inspect meat automatically on the production line.

The system analyzes the composition of food, evaluating properties like tenderness, freshness and its protein, water and fat content. It can detect imperfections and eliminate foreign bodies like plastic, bones and rubber. These tasks are done right on the production line in real time, generating information for processors to use to help improve their products, manage suppliers and optimize production.

“Canada’s processors are adopting new technologies to increase production and offer quality products across the country and the world. P&P Optica’s technology gives processors essential information that provides many benefits, including helping to reduce food waste,” said Marie-Claude Bibeau, agriculture and agri-food minister.

This investment will support P&P Optica to build demonstration units that allow them to present their technology to potential users. The investment will also build a demonstration room to optimize their technology for use by potential meat processing clients. This hyperspectral imaging technology evaluates the safety and freshness of meat products by analyzing the colour and moisture. It also gives a large range of data to processors.

“P&P Optica is grateful for the support of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and AgriFood through the AgriInnovate program. PPO is focused on working with food processors to improve the safety and quality of our food supply, while reducing waste,” said Olga Pawluczyk, CEO, P&P Optica.

Focus on Food Safety: You can’t just build a plant, and assume it’s safe

ncaleb — Mon, 03 Oct 2022 14:57:31 +0000

It’s an exciting time for food businesses. During the past few years, many food service operators have pivoted to packaged goods, creating micro-businesses in the industry. Statistics Canada’s 2021 data indicates that of the 10,252 food manufacturing businesses identified in the country, 26 per cent employs less than four people, and another 64 per cent have less than 100. CFIA’s SFCR registry database lists more than 17,000 licensees in Canada, implying there are alternative food businesses, such as farm processors and hybrid businesses. Small and micro-businesses dominate the sector.

Michelle Lang, facilities manager at Venture Park Labs in Toronto, recently asked, “Many of my small business clients are building out facilities for manufacturing or bringing in different products into our food incubator space. It just seems that there are so many unknowns in these products’ compositions since they might inadvertently get into the food. Can you give some insights into the rules?” Firstly, please don’t pick up supplies for your food manufacturing space from a local store. There is a methodical process to follow before using any construction or non-food materials in the food manufacturing space.

Before jumping into the process, let’s understand the “why” behind it. In SFCR, the emphasis is on the licensed establishment to have validation or documented proof that the environment and the process are safe to produce food. The research process proving non-food materials is an important document record that could be called on by inspectors or auditors, so you must keep a record file proving that each non-food material is going to have minimal risk when used appropriately.

Accepted materials

Back in the day, there used to be a CFIA Letter of Acceptance process for non-food materials. Producers of materials, such as paints, packaging materials, glues for labels, caulking, lubricants, descaling treatments, boiler water treatments, construction materials, printer inks, and other non-food materials would submit reports to CFIA to describe the risks for food premises use. This process was phased out starting in 2014. However, remnants to that historical process still inform the way non-food materials are evaluated. First, CFIA recommends reviewing Health Canada’s Reference Listing of Accepted Construction Materials, Packaging Materials and Non-Food Chemical Products Database to evaluate the appropriate use of non-food materials. It’s not modernized so set aside time for manual searches. CFIA’s second approach is to have a Letter of Acceptance on file from the historical CFIA approval process. This would be available for older manufacturing facilities that were federally inspected historically. New startups, or plants recently brought into SFCR licensing would not have this option.

No objection

CFIA’s third approach is to identify if there is a Health Canada Letter of No Objection (LONO) for the materials in question. Manufacturers of non-food materials may apply to Health Canada for a LONO. The manufacturer subsequently distributes this letter upon request to food establishments for their record keeping. While Health Canada keeps a list of approved non-food chemicals, such as boiler water agents, it is best to ask the manufacturer for their LONO file.

CFIA’s last recommended approach is licensed food establishments should request a Letter of Guarantee (LOG) from the chemical or material manufacturer. This is becoming common, as more novel packaging materials and environmental solutions are being introduced.

This LOG would imply that the manufacturer has done a rigorous evaluation on their own to ensure the materials are suitable for food premises or food contact under appropriate conditions.

Packaging materials are part of this whole process. We’re seeing an uptick in novel packaging for environmental improvement. As a food premise, make sure to request information for record keeping and to validate appropriate use in food systems depending on how your product is being used at the manufacturing, distribution, and consumer levels.

In conclusion, while you can buy materials from a local store, you must do your homework first.

Check the databases and make phone calls or e-mails to the manufacturer to verify compliance. To manage your SFCR records, retain a copy of a valid document demonstrating safe use.

Dr. Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This article was originally published in the August/September 2022 issue of Food in Canada.

Focus on Food Safety: How do you know if someone is skilled for a food safety job?

ncaleb — Tue, 05 Jul 2022 14:17:58 +0000

Late spring is a great time for academicians because our newly graduated students are eagerly joining the workforce. Company leaders know this is the time to look for new talent. They reach out to professors like me for reference checks.

Without fail, every year I get the same message from companies, “How do I know this recent graduate is ready for a job in food safety and HACCP work?”

In the early 2000s, when I was in university, HACCP-based management systems were just being initiated. It was not uncommon back then for a student with a master’s degree in food science to have never taken a course in food safety management. They would take a short course, and suddenly be in charge of food safety in a company.

Competency development

Short courses are important, but they’re not perfect models for competency development. They are very important for knowledge transfer. Being competent and having a mastery of a skill takes time, repetition, progression of complexity, mentorship, feedback and evaluation. That said, I strongly encourage people to take as many short courses as they can afford.

Short courses rely on people to apply the newly learned skills in the workplace for the element of time and repetition to take place. These programs also rely on continuing mentorship for feedback and on-the-job evaluation. Mentorships may not be available in small companies with a lean staff.

There’s also an academic route for food safety training. Many post-secondary schools now include HACCP training courses in their food science curriculum. We’re also seeing more schools with post-grad and micro-credential programs. These are good moves. Students now pick up skills and context, albeit under a different timeframe. The challenge here is that many employers view academic credentials as a lesser form of training than a short course even if the former’s program length is longer than the latter.

Often, I get calls employers who aren’t sure about hiring a student applicant because they lack a certificate from a specific food safety-related organization. These types of calls raises a lot of questions about competency development. Some short courses only give a letter of participation, as competency evaluation was not a part of the program. So, how do you know when someone is competent in food safety?

Section 75 of SFCR states people “must have the competencies and qualifications that are necessary to carry out their duties.”

In section 2.1.1.5 of the SQF Code 9 Food Manufacturing, the primary and substitute SQF practitioner shall (paraphrased) be employed onsite, have responsibilities within establishment’s RACI framework for the SQF system, have completed a HACCP course, be competent to implement and maintain the HACCP plan and have an understanding of the SQF code for implementation and maintenance.

In BRC’s Code 8 Clause 2.1.1 (paraphrased), the HACCP food safety plan shall be developed and managed by a multi-disciplinary team including quality assurance, technical management, production operations, engineering and other relevant functions. The team leader shall have an in-depth knowledge of HACCP principles and be able to demonstrate competence, experience and training. If local regulations require specific training, this must be in place. The team members shall have specific knowledge of HACCP and relevant knowledge of products, processes and associated hazards. In the event of the site not having the appropriate in-house knowledge, external expertise may be used, but day-to-day management of the food safety system shall be company responsibility.

All HACCP-based food safety systems require a team-based approach. The team delivers decision-making, scientific evaluation and accountability for the program, with senior management of the company taking final responsibility.

If you’re an employer looking for a worker with HACCP skills, ask for certificates, but also ask for student work portfolio or example assignments that would demonstrate competency. Also make sure to design behaviour-based interviews that allow a new graduate to demonstrate competency.

Competency comes from a team adopting a continuous improvement stance. All members of the team must continue to learn and upskill, as well as provide constant feedback and constructive improvements on the HACCP system.

Good luck to our food studies graduates, the class of 2022! We’re cheering for you!

Amy Proulx is professor and academic program co-ordinator for the Culinary Innovation and Food Technology programs at Niagara College, Ont. She can be reached at aproulx@niagaracollege.ca.

This column was originally published in the June/July 2022 issue of Food in Canada.